From: Anthony Gonzalez (anthony@astro.ufl.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 08:33:40 PST
Agreed that this likely won't make a dramatic difference for G (z=1.26).
I was thinking more about your comment that all the z>1.2 clusters end
up in the low ngal range.
> Hi Kyle,
>
> How strong is the decline? We could apply a simple correction.
> But I don't think this would triple the Ngal of cluster G...
>
> Cheers,
> Henk
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:19:16AM -0800, Kyle S Dawson wrote:
> > It's a straight measurement, so you see a decline in ngal at high z, both because the galaxies are less evolved and
> > because we are quickly losing z' flux. The number count I did is EXTREMELY preliminary, I wouldn't ever trust it for
> > anything but demonstraation purposes.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Anthony Gonzalez <anthony@astro.ufl.edu>
> > Date: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:48 am
> > Subject: Re: new version of HST proposal posted
> > To: Henk Hoekstra <hoekstra@uvic.ca>
> > Cc: Marc Postman <marc.postman@gmail.com>, HSTclusterSN@lbl.gov, Tony Spadafora <ALSpadafora@lbl.gov>
> >
> > >
> > > > By the way, n_gal is the number of early type galaxies in the ACS
> > > > field (Kyle can correct me, as he measured it). I guess we need
> > > > to define this in the figure caption.
> > >
> > > Is a correction applied to ngal for how far down the luminosity
> > > functionthe data probe at different redshifts, or is this a
> > > straight measurement
> > > from the ACS data?
> > >
>
> !DSPAM:45ba2ba7905742333110687!
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 26 2007 - 08:38:30 PST