GRB111126A

This page lists all entries on GRB111126A in GRBweb

Summary IPN Swift GCN 12599 GCN 12603

Summary table
Variable Value Source
T0 18:57:42 UTC Swift
ra 276.0570° Swift
decl 51.4610° Swift
pos_error 2.33e-02° Swift
T90 0.8 s Swift
T90_start 18:57:42 UTC Swift
fluence 7.00e-08 erg/cm² Swift
T100 0.8 s
GBM_located False
mjd 55891.79006944445 Swift
IPN table
GRB_name GRB111126A
ra 276.1000°
decl 51.4667°
pos_error 5.00e-02°
Swift table
GRB_name GRB111126A
t_trigger 18:57:42 UTC
ra 276.0570°
decl 51.4610°
pos_error 2.33e-02°
T90 0.8 s
fluence 7.00e-08 erg/cm²
GCN 12599 table
GRB_name GRB111126A
GCN_number 12599
Detection_method Swift-BAT Det
ra 276.0570°
decl 51.4610°
Circular_text TITLE: GCN CIRCULAR NUMBER: 12599 SUBJECT: GRB 111126A found in ground analysis of BAT data DATE: 11/11/29 02:12:02 GMT FROM: Jay R. Cummings at NASA/GSFC/Swift J. R. Cummings (NASA/UMBC/CRESST), D. M. Palmer (LANL) on behalf of the Swift-BAT team At 18:57:42 UTC, on November 26, 2011, BAT count rates spiked during a pre-planned slew maneuver. In a mosaic of images from slew event data, a significant source was found at RA, Dec 276.057, +51.461, which is RA (J2000) 18h 24m 13.6s Dec (J2000) 51d 27' 38" with an estimated uncertainty of 3 arcmin radius. This location is currently about 29 degrees from the Sun. No Swift followup is anticipated. It was a short, hard GRB with multiple peaks. T90 was 0.8 +/- 0.1 seconds. The BAT spectrum is best fit by a simple powerlaw with a photon index of 1.1 +/- 0.3. The fluence in 0.8 seconds was 7 +/- 2 ergs/cm^2. The peak flux was 1.2 +/- 0.4 photons/cm^2/s. The uncertainties are 90% estimated including systematics.
GCN 12603 table
GRB_name GRB111126A
GCN_number 12603
Detection_method Swift-BAT Det
Circular_text TITLE: GCN CIRCULAR NUMBER: 12603 SUBJECT: GRB 111126A Circular #12599 erratum DATE: 11/11/30 02:16:56 GMT FROM: Jay R. Cummings at NASA/GSFC/Swift J. R. Cummings (GSFC/UMBC/CRESST) on behalf of the Swift-BAT team The magnitude of the fluence was omitted in the circular, it should have been (7 +/- 2) x 10^-8 ergs/cm^2. We thank Kevin Hurley for pointing out the error.