Working with CG4+SA101 - Revision history

CJohnson: /* Previously identified sources DONE */

2010-11-23T19:01:23Z

Previously identified sources DONE

Rebull: /* Working with the data tables PARTIALLY HWK */

2010-10-20T20:11:22Z

Working with the data tables PARTIALLY HWK

Rebull at 16:39, 19 October 2010

2010-10-19T16:39:20Z

Rebull at 18:22, 17 June 2010

2010-06-17T18:22:51Z

Rebull at 10:48, 16 June 2010

2010-06-16T10:48:45Z

Rebull: /* Getting data from other wavelengths BASICALLY DONE */

2010-06-16T03:34:03Z

Getting data from other wavelengths BASICALLY DONE

Rebull at 03:15, 16 June 2010

2010-06-16T03:15:19Z

Rebull at 03:12, 16 June 2010

2010-06-16T03:12:28Z

Rebull at 03:11, 16 June 2010

2010-06-16T03:11:58Z

Rebull at 02:52, 16 June 2010

2010-06-16T02:52:27Z

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 You've already done this. There is a table in our proposal.
-Previously Known Objects  from Reipurth and Pettersson (1993)
+Previously Known Objects  from Reipurth and Pettersson (1993) ''... fixed CG-Halpha 4''
 {| border="1"
 |Star
@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 |CG-Halpha 4
 |07 31 21.92
-| -46 59 45.14
+| -46 '''''57''''' 45.14  **
 |14.59
 |1.40
@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 '''Questions for you''':
 #For each of the known objects, you have the RA/Dec - what are the pixel coordinates in the image? Does it change among the IRAC bands? In the MIPS band?
 =Doing photometry <font color="red">MOSTLY HWK</font>=

@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Import the table into excel. Program a spreadsheet to convert between mags and flux densities.
-'''Relevant links from L1688 page''': [[Units]] and [http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Skyview/ Skyview] but lots of important words actually on the L1688 page itself, sorry.
+'''Relevant links from L1688 page''': [[Units]] and [http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Skyview/ Skyview] but lots of important words actually on the [http://coolwiki.ipac.caltech.edu/index.php/Working_with_L1688#Working_with_the_data_tables L1688 page itself], sorry.
 '''Questions for you''':

@@ Line 225: / Line 225: @@
 '''Big picture goal''': Understand what plots to make. Understand the basic idea of using them to pick out certain objects.
-'''More specific shorter term goals''': Make some plots. Understand the basic approach of Gutermuth et al.
+'''More specific shorter term goals''': Make some plots. Understand the basic approach of Gutermuth et al. (see [[media:gutermuth-appa.pdf| Gutermuth et al. 2009, Appendix A]] -- this was handed out to you in hard copy in June)
 '''Relevant links from L1688 page''': [[Color-Magnitude and Color-Color plots]] and [[Finding cluster members]] and [[Color-color plot ideas]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 17 June 2010
Line 199:		Line 199:

	'''More specific shorter term goals''': Do this by hand.		'''More specific shorter term goals''': Do this by hand.
		+
		+	'''Relevant links from L1688 page''': [[Resolution]]

	'''Questions for you''':		'''Questions for you''':

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Search on our targets. Understand the difference between the observations. Understand why I chose to use the observations that I did.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 37: / Line 39: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Go get data for SA101 and CG4 for comparison to our Spitzer data.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 53: / Line 57: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Recognize how the images differ between SA101 and CG4, and among the various bands.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 154: / Line 160: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Determine if the previously-known objects are saturated or not.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 170: / Line 178: @@
 <font color="red">NEW:</font> [[CG4 photometry: more detailed instructions]]
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 200: / Line 211: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Import the table into excel. Program a spreadsheet to convert between mags and flux densities.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 211: / Line 224: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Make some plots. Understand the basic approach of Gutermuth et al.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 228: / Line 243: @@
 '''More specific shorter term goals''': Make at least one SED.
 '''Questions for you''':
@@ Line 237: / Line 254: @@
 =Analyzing SEDs=
-'''This is advanced, and we may not get here.'''
+'''This is advanced, and we may not get here.'''  And, lots of information on the L1688 page, sorry.
 Add a new column in Excel to calculate the slope between 2 and 8 microns in the log (lambda*F(lambda)) vs log (lambda) parameter space. This task only makes sense for those objects with both K band and IRAC-4 detections.  (For very advanced folks: ''fit'' the slope to all available points between K and IRAC-4 or MIPS-24.  How does this change the classifications?)
@@ Line 250: / Line 267: @@
 =Writing it up!=
-We need to write an AAS abstract!
+We need to write an AAS abstract!  And, lots of information on the L1688 page, sorry.

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 #What coordinate system did you pick and why?
 #<font color="red">HWK</font> Get a smaller-scale image too, on the same scale as the Spitzer images.
-#What band did you pick and why?  How is the resolution different? (You may need to do the next section before you can answer this.)
+#<font color="red">HWK</font> What band did you pick and why?  How is the resolution different? (You may need to do the next section before you can answer this.)
 #<font color="red">HWK</font> Figure out how to get a 2MASS catalog. I've done this for you, but you should be able to get this yourself too.

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 #Bonus but very important question: How do you know that some of these sources aren't galaxies? Can you find something that is obviously a galaxy on the images?  Can you think of a way using public data that already exist to check on the "galaxy-ness" of some of these objects?
-<font color="red">I provided some example plots in ysoplots.ps in each of the sa101 and cg4 directories.  In those plots, the YSO candidates that, by my calculation, pass the Gutermuth criteria, are circled.  However, note that not all of those sources may be real! Overlay them on any of the mosaics using sa101ysocand.reg or cg4ysocand.reg to check on which are real.  Moreover, because of the overlap of the mosaics, I may have "rediscovered" the same stars more than once. Overlay the two region files on the same mosaic to check. (Change the symbol color or shape by editing the region file, being careful to save it as a plain text file.)</font>
+<font color="red">I provided some example plots in ysoplots.ps in each of the sa101 and cg4 directories.  In those plots, the YSO candidates that, by my calculation, pass the Gutermuth criteria, are circled.  (Check me on this!) However, note that not all of those sources may be real! Overlay them on any of the mosaics using sa101ysocand.reg or cg4ysocand.reg to check on which are real.  Moreover, because of the overlap of the mosaics, I may have "rediscovered" the same stars more than once. Overlay the two region files on the same mosaic to check. (Change the symbol color or shape by editing the region file, being careful to save it as a plain text file.)</font>
 =Making SEDs <font color="red">HWK</font>=
@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 #What do the IR excesses look like in your plots?  Do they look like you expected?
-<font color="red">I made some SEDs and will email them around to give you an indication of what kinds of numbers you should be getting when you do this calculation for yourself. Many of them do NOT look like I expect. The 24 micron flux may be wrong for some, and the strange shape of some others of them suggest that they are not real and/or background galaxies.</font>
+<font color="red">I made some SEDs and will email them around to give you an indication of what kinds of numbers you should be getting when you do this calculation for yourself. Many of them do NOT look like I expect. The 24 micron flux may be wrong for some, and the strange shape of some others of them suggest that they are not real and/or background galaxies.  Note that I did this just for the objects that I selected via Gutermuth method, and not the set of previously known objects.</font>
 =Analyzing SEDs=

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 <font color="red">I provided some example plots in ysoplots.ps in each of the sa101 and cg4 directories.  In those plots, the YSO candidates that, by my calculation, pass the Gutermuth criteria, are circled.  However, note that not all of those sources may be real! Overlay them on any of the mosaics using sa101ysocand.reg or cg4ysocand.reg to check on which are real.  Moreover, because of the overlap of the mosaics, I may have "rediscovered" the same stars more than once. Overlay the two region files on the same mosaic to check. (Change the symbol color or shape by editing the region file, being careful to save it as a plain text file.)</font>
-=Making SEDs=
+=Making SEDs <font color="red">HWK</font>=
 '''Big picture goal''': Understand what an SED is and why it matters.

@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 #How many stars are detected in each band? Is this about what you expected based on your answer to the questions in the mosaic section above? HINT: you can do this using Excel, you don't need to count these manually!!  Ask if you need a further hint on exactly how to do this.
 #Which stars ''in the catalog'' are the stars identified in the literature?
-#<font color="red">DONE</font>Make sure you understand how I got the magnitudes from the fluxes (or the fluxes from the magnitudes).  You will need magnitudes for the next step, and fluxes for the step after that.
+#<font color="red">DONE</font> Make sure you understand how I got the magnitudes from the fluxes (or the fluxes from the magnitudes).  You will need magnitudes for the next step, and fluxes for the step after that.
 =Making color-color and color-magnitude plots <font color="red">HWK</font>=
@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 #Bonus but very important question: How do you know that some of these sources aren't galaxies? Can you find something that is obviously a galaxy on the images?  Can you think of a way using public data that already exist to check on the "galaxy-ness" of some of these objects?
-<font color="red">I provided some example plots in ysoplots.ps in each of the sa101 and cg4 directories.  In those plots, the YSO candidates that, by my calculation, pass the Gutermuth criteria, are circled.  However, note that not all of those sources may be real! Overlay them on any of the mosaics using sa101ysocand.reg or cg4ysocand.reg to check on which are real.</font>
+<font color="red">I provided some example plots in ysoplots.ps in each of the sa101 and cg4 directories.  In those plots, the YSO candidates that, by my calculation, pass the Gutermuth criteria, are circled.  However, note that not all of those sources may be real! Overlay them on any of the mosaics using sa101ysocand.reg or cg4ysocand.reg to check on which are real.  Moreover, because of the overlap of the mosaics, I may have "rediscovered" the same stars more than once. Overlay the two region files on the same mosaic to check. (Change the symbol color or shape by editing the region file, being careful to save it as a plain text file.)</font>
 =Making SEDs=
@@ Line 232: / Line 232: @@
 #Pick some objects to plot up, maybe some of the famous ones from above would be a good place to start, or the ones you flagged above as having an IR excess.
 #What do the IR excesses look like in your plots?  Do they look like you expected?
 =Analyzing SEDs=

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 [[image:cg424.png]]
-=Bandmerging the photometry=
+=Bandmerging the photometry <font color="red">HWK</font>=
 I use my own code to do this; there is no pre-existing package to do this.  If you do it by hand (or semi-by-hand) using APT, you can manually merge the photometry. My merged photometry includes J through M24.
@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
-=Working with the data tables=
+=Working with the data tables <font color="red">PARTIALLY HWK</font>=
 '''Big picture goal''': Understand how to work with the tables. Understand how to convert magnitudes back and forth to flux densities.
@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 #How many stars are detected in each band? Is this about what you expected based on your answer to the questions in the mosaic section above? HINT: you can do this using Excel, you don't need to count these manually!!  Ask if you need a further hint on exactly how to do this.
 #Which stars ''in the catalog'' are the stars identified in the literature?
-#Make sure you understand how I got the magnitudes from the fluxes (or the fluxes from the magnitudes).  You will need magnitudes for the next step, and fluxes for the step after that.
+#<font color="red">DONE</font>Make sure you understand how I got the magnitudes from the fluxes (or the fluxes from the magnitudes).  You will need magnitudes for the next step, and fluxes for the step after that.
-=Making color-color and color-magnitude plots=
+=Making color-color and color-magnitude plots <font color="red">HWK</font>=
 '''Big picture goal''': Understand what plots to make. Understand the basic idea of using them to pick out certain objects.
@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 '''Questions for you''':
 #Pick a diagnostic color-color or color-magnitude plot to make. Does my photometry seem ok?
-#Pick at least one color-color or color-magnitude plot to make.  Figure out a way to make it ignore the -9 (no data) flags. Where are the plain stars?  Where are the IR excess objects?
+#Pick at least one color-color or color-magnitude plot to make.  Figure out a way to ignore the -9 (no data) flags. Where are the plain stars?  Where are the IR excess objects?
 #Where are the famous objects in the plot?  Where are the new YSO candidates I used the Gutermuth method to find?
 #Make a new column in your Excel spreadsheet with some colors.  Is there a way you can get Excel to tell you automatically which objects have an IR excess?  Can you implement the Gutermuth selection? (You may not be able to do so.)
@@ Line 220: / Line 220: @@
 #Of the objects I have that fit the Gutermuth criteria, are any of them false or otherwise bad sources? How can you tell?
 #Bonus but very important question: How do you know that some of these sources aren't galaxies? Can you find something that is obviously a galaxy on the images?  Can you think of a way using public data that already exist to check on the "galaxy-ness" of some of these objects?
 =Making SEDs=