VICS82 Modelling Index

• by Capella05 moderator

  Hi Modellers,

  Please post all your VICS82 models in this thread.

  As per previous modelling threads, please post:

  • the Image ID
  • Link to SpaghettiLens results
  • your grading and comments

  To keep the thread clean and concise - no images please!

  Posted January 8, 2014 7:23 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9

  11843

  First try 😄

  Posted January 8, 2014 7:36 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  • ASW0009io9 | 11845 | convincing, but needs a tweak or two

  Posted January 8, 2014 7:55 PM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009io9 | 011827

  Posted January 8, 2014 11:17 PM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009l59 | 011857 or similar 011872

  Posted January 8, 2014 11:18 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009dqb | 11877 | Not entirely convincing

  ASW0009dqb | 11880 | Swapped saddlepoint and minima - unlikely

  Posted January 9, 2014 7:51 AM

• by psaha scientist in response to Capella05's comment.

  Another variant interpreting the arc at 10 as two nearby images and speculating about a fourth image lost in the dazzle of the lensing galaxy. Not entirely convincing either.

  Posted January 9, 2014 9:29 AM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009io9 | 11884 | revision of my previous model, looks quite convincing! Contours are really smooth, mass distribution looks good. If I wasn't at work I would try to extract a raw mass plot map!

  Posted January 9, 2014 9:32 AM

• by Capella05 moderator in response to psaha's comment.

  I agree Prasenjit, I have played around with a few configurations and I have not been happy with the results for ASW0009dqb. I am leaning towards it not being a lens.

  Posted January 9, 2014 9:34 AM

• by anupreeta scientist, admin

  Hi All,
  I made a rough model for ASW0009io9 . The model arc is shown here in blue.

  Posted January 9, 2014 10:03 AM

• by c_cld

  @anupreeta what is your software model, or do you worked fits files and SExtractor as imaging process?
  looks like SL2SJ02176- 0513 AGZ0000jkc flipped 😃

  Posted January 9, 2014 10:26 AM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009io9 | 011885 revised from 011827 with input redshifts source 1.85 , lens 0.65 ; slightly more rounded mass map

  Posted January 9, 2014 10:30 AM

• by drphilmarshall scientist, admin

  The SDSS lens redshift is 0.202. Also, @aprajita and @jgeach are tracking down other datasets at longer wavelengths to get an idea of the spectral energy distribution, and Aprajita reckons the source is probably around 4(!) It's pretty uncertain, but I'd go with that for now.

  Also, have you tried modelling it as a quad? it's such a long arc, is all. I haven't looked in Tools to see whether there are slight peaks in the arc, but that could help us decide on the double vs quad issue.

  Posted January 9, 2014 11:17 AM

• by drphilmarshall scientist, admin

  Also, nice work 😃

  Posted January 9, 2014 11:17 AM

• by drphilmarshall scientist, admin

  Sorry, I forgot to say: all my comments refer to ASW0009io9. One more: the lens galaxy does look very spherical, which does make the double configuration more plausible.

  Posted January 9, 2014 11:24 AM

• by drphilmarshall scientist, admin in response to C_cld's comment.

  I guess ASW0009l59 also looks quite spherical - I like the double model! 😃

  Posted January 9, 2014 11:26 AM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 | 11910 | tweaks to my original model. Reasonabe

  Posted January 9, 2014 1:20 PM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009io9 | 011891 replacing single minimum on arc by a saddle and two minima yielding some blobs in modeled arc

  Posted January 9, 2014 1:20 PM

• by psaha scientist

  For ASW0009l59 the synthetic arc with this model looks very pretty.

  Posted January 9, 2014 1:21 PM

• by Capella05 moderator in response to psaha's comment.

  Wow, that is a lovely one Prasenjit! I can't wait to finish work so I can do some modelling.

  Posted January 9, 2014 1:24 PM

• by psaha scientist in response to Capella05's comment.

  It's from @C_cld not me!

  Posted January 9, 2014 1:42 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 |11955 | not too bad. mass distribution looks a bit iffy

  Posted January 9, 2014 3:17 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 |11965| something different, but not too sure about the contour map and the mass distribution

  Posted January 9, 2014 3:49 PM

• by Budgieye moderator

  ASW0009l59 http://mite.physik.uzh.ch/data/011966 I like the circles in the middle of the contour plot, it looks like a target for arrows.
  based on psaha's simple but effective model

  Posted January 9, 2014 3:59 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 |11970 | looks reasonable 😄

  Posted January 9, 2014 4:37 PM

• by drphilmarshall scientist, admin

  You know how in Facebook you can click "Like" on all the posts and comments? Well I would be doing that on this thread if I could 😃 Anyway, IR gurus Aprajita and Jim now reckon zs = 2 is a better estimate for ASW0009io9, so you should go with that for now. Sorry, astronomical uncertainty is an issue, I know 😃

  Posted January 9, 2014 4:50 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 1 11973 | just trying things out.

  Posted January 9, 2014 5:06 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009io9 | 11979 | small variations on a theme 😄

  Posted January 9, 2014 5:18 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009io9| 11980 | Source = 2 lens = 1

  Posted January 9, 2014 5:36 PM

• by c_cld in response to drphilmarshall's comment.

  Spaghettilens has zsource limited to 2! but I circumvented this by lowering zlens because what's important is zsource over zlens
  😃

  however the results are not visually so sensitive from ratio 1.5 to 4

  Posted January 9, 2014 5:41 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  Hi Modellers,

  With all the excitement generated by new candidates, I was asked to analyse the SpaghettiLens results of ASW0009io9 that we have done, to narrow down the list.

  There were a couple of good models that had some really fantastic features, so in true Zooniverse fashion I combined them, and you will notice a new mysterious user submitted it 😃

  Although our models won't be shown tonight, I think it would be fantastic if we could collaboratively tweak the model.

  The rs still needs to be adjusted (C_cld - interested?) and I am not entirely happy with the top left corner, and I know we do our best work, working together.

  Here you go: 11984 Can't wait to see what you come up with!

  As for the other candidates, I think we should have a hangout to discuss the way forward? (Next week once we have recovered!)

  Posted January 9, 2014 7:05 PM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009io9 first revision of 11984 with pixel radius=11 and zlens=0.2 zsource=2
  011991

  second revision: pixel radius=12 011992

  Posted January 9, 2014 7:59 PM

• by Capella05 moderator in response to C_cld's comment.

  I like the mass distribution of 11992 - very clean, and the contour map is still uncomplicated.

  Nice!

  Looking at the lens itself there is some appearance of the arc continuing in the top left of the lens - particular to the left of the secondary mass. Just wondering how to re-incorporate that...

  Posted January 9, 2014 8:20 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  We just got an honorable mention by Chris on the after show 😃

  Posted January 9, 2014 9:08 PM

• by psaha scientist in response to C_cld's comment.

  The dependence on redshifts is not simply zsource over zlens! We can go through the formulas another time.

  Fortunately, though, redshift information can be put in after modelling. That is, models made with the default values of redshift can be recalibrated afterwards with the correct values. The mass maps, synthetic images etc won't change, only their calibration will. [This is no longer true if you have two or more source redshifts -- but we probably don't have any such candidates as yet.]

  So you can ignore the redshift sliders for now, because the information can be added to models later.

  Posted January 10, 2014 9:18 AM

• by c_cld

  Thank you @Psaha for correcting my shortcut. 😃

  Your advice was the play I used to do from one model to a revised one!

  Posted January 10, 2014 9:54 AM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009klz | 012004 not good as it's always very difficult to model a quad :-!

  Posted January 10, 2014 9:59 AM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009io9 | 12005 |

  Posted January 10, 2014 10:13 AM

• by psaha scientist

  Two models of ASW0009lly. This kind of configuration tends to model well. These models are terrible, which suggests this object is not a lens.

  Posted January 11, 2014 8:58 AM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009io9 | revision of 12005 | shifting the arc saddle at 5 on the blob of merlin radio plot, putting pixel radius to 12, rounding the contour, input the redshifts (zs=2,zl=0.2)

  result 012020 mass distribution a bit more dented, good arc, even the artifact blended on left of companion

  revised 012076 shifting the saddle to 4:30, reducing the contour of arc resulting in better synthetic arc and mass distribution plot

  Posted January 12, 2014 11:41 AM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009dvs | 012029 plausible

  Posted January 12, 2014 4:44 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009hu7 | 12083 | I have done several different version of this candidate, and each time the results get more outlandish. Very unlikely. Maybe someone else will have better luck?

  Posted January 15, 2014 7:09 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  Here's my try 😄
  ASW0009hu7 | 12107 | mass distribution and contour map are not that great

  Posted January 15, 2014 7:27 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  Turning everything upside down

  ASW0009hu7 | 12121 | no arc at 10, suggests an image at 6. Mass distribution and contour are clean. But it is not what we see.

  I'm thinking the thingy at 2 is not connected.

  Posted January 15, 2014 8:02 PM

• by c_cld

  another try of ASW0009hu7 | 012145 looks somewhat ironed 😃

  Posted January 16, 2014 8:37 AM

• by c_cld

  ASW0009dmy | 012151 simple but acceptable?

  Posted January 16, 2014 10:11 AM

• by Capella05 moderator in response to C_cld's comment.

  I like it - I have been playing around with more complicated configurations for this candidate, but I am not getting as nice results. Will try again later 😃

  Posted January 16, 2014 6:46 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009dvs | 12224 | So unconvincing, I have created a new category of disaster - tried a slightly different approach to @C_cld. Moved maxima closer to the larger elliptical galaxy on the right. Also moved the minima to the blue arclet in the 12 of the center point of the 2 galaxies. Disregarded the closer green 'dot' as noise. Created a saddlepoint and a additional 2 minima following the contours of the larger arc at the bottom.

  Posted January 17, 2014 8:29 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009dmy revisited | 12235 | Not very convincing - quite a prominent arc is suggested extending down to 5 o'clock. In the original image this arc is primarily visible in the 1 to 3 position. Will try a simpler configuration.

  Posted January 17, 2014 9:31 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009dmy take 3 | 12236 | Plausible - looking a lot better. Mass distribution and contour maps are good. Still suggesting an image in the 4-5 position, which will have to be worked on.

  Posted January 17, 2014 9:56 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009dmy revised model of 12236 | 12241 | Plausible - added a mass point behind the counter image at 8.

  Posted January 17, 2014 10:09 PM

• by Capella05 moderator

  ASW0009l59 | 12244 | Plausible - Contour map looks good, mass distribution is a little uncertain. Needs some tweaking as a break in the ring is suggested at 5. Perhaps a mass point to the left of the galaxy is needed?

  Posted January 17, 2014 10:43 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  Tweaking of 11984 : ASW0009io9 | 12277 | looks clean

  Posted January 18, 2014 10:25 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009I59 | 12290 | Plausible - gap at 5 - mass distribution could be better

  Posted January 19, 2014 5:06 PM

• by ElisabethB moderator

  ASW0009I59 | 12297 | added a saddlepoint, break in ring at 2 and 5 - mass distribution not great

  Posted January 19, 2014 5:17 PM