1. comparison of rgs model for 1e0102.2 -7219 to the hetg … · 2009. 1. 22. · chandra x-ray...

Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC

Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 20061

1.1. Comparison of RGS Model for Comparison of RGS Model for

1E0102.21E0102.2--72197219 to the HETG datato the HETG data

2.2. BI CCD CTI Correction for ACISBI CCD CTI Correction for ACIS

Paul Plucinsky, Dan Dewey,Paul Plucinsky, Dan Dewey,

& Joseph & Joseph DePasqualeDePasquale



Gratuitous Pretty Pictures of E0102Gratuitous Pretty Pictures of E0102

S3 Summed Data ~100 S3 Summed Data ~100 ksks RGS Spectrum (Pollock 2006)RGS Spectrum (Pollock 2006)

Objective:Objective: develop a spectral model which can be used by RGS, HETG,

EPIC & ACIS, etc.



WhatWhat’’s New Since the Iceland 2006 Meeting?s New Since the Iceland 2006 Meeting?

• Pollock’s model based on the RGS data has been used by Dan

Dewy of the HETG team to compare to the HETG data

• Dan adopted the RGS spectral model, including the normalizations

• Dan developed a spatial model for the structure of the remnant

• He created simulated datasets to compare the against the MEG

and HEG data from the Chandra HETG

The overall agreement is encouraging !!!

All of the following work has been done by Dan,

many thanks !!!

• Good agreement on the bright lines, some disagreement on the

weaker lines



Dewey Spatial and Spectral ModelDewey Spatial and Spectral Model



MEG minus

1st order

Simulation

Comparison

KS test

OVIII OVIINeIXNeXMgXI



MEG plus

1st order

Simulation

Comparison

KS test

MgXI NeX NeIX OVIII OVII



HEG minus

1st order

Simulation

Comparison

KS test

MgXI NeX NeIX



HEG plus

1st order

Simulation

Comparison

KS test

MgXI NeX NeIX



Where Do We Go From Here ?Where Do We Go From Here ?

• Dewey analysis needs to be updated with latest response files for

HRMA/ACIS/HETG

• Line-based analysis needs to be updated with the latest response

files for HRMA/HETG/ACIS

• RGS data need to be re-analyzed with new background model for

RGS

• RGS and HETG teams agree on a model well before the IACHEC

meeting in California

• ACIS, MOS, and pn use the new model to fit the CCD spectra



2. CTI Correction in CIAO for S3 and S12. CTI Correction in CIAO for S3 and S1

• Penn State CTI corrector available since 2001

• CXC response products for S1 and S3 used a position-dependent

gain correction which recovers the true values of the PHs but does

not improve the spectral resolution

• S3 and S1 data will now be CTI-corrected in the events files

provided to GOs

• All TEN CCDs will be CTI-corrected as of CIAO and CALDB

release in December 2006

• small, but significant improvement in spectral resolution and QE

uniformity



BI CTI correction: PH BI CTI correction: PH vsvs. Row # . Row #

Current CALDB: no CTI correction Prototype CALDB: CTI correction



BI CTI correction: PH BI CTI correction: PH vsvs. Row # . Row #



S3 CTI correction:S3 CTI correction: MnMn--K K at the at the Aimpoint Aimpoint

No CTI

correction:

FWHM~162 eV

With CTI

correction:

FWHM~151 eV



S3 CTI correction:S3 CTI correction: MnMn--K K at theat the Top Top

No CTI

correction:

FWHM~182 eV

With CTI

correction:

FWHM~157 eV



Current

CALDB

No CTI

correction:

E0102 on

S3

Red Chi=

1.44



BI CTI

correction:

E0102 on

S3

Red Chi=

1.10



BI CTI

correction:

E0102 on

S1

Red Chi=

1.57



Pollock RGS Pollock RGS vsvs.. Flanagan (2004) HETGFlanagan (2004) HETG Line FluxesLine Fluxes

+9.7%1.872.07Ne X Ly-β

-30.7%12.709.72Ne X Ly-α

+8.8%21.1523.18Ne IX triplet

-15.9%7.786.37O VIII Ly-β

-8.9%40.6537.31O VIII Ly-α

-11.7%27.2324.38OVII Res

+17.3%11.5313.95OVII For

DifferencePollock Flux(10-4 photons cm-2 s-1)

Flanagan Flux(10-4 photons cm-2 s-1)

Line



O O VIII VIII Ly Ly αααααααα and and Ne Ne X X Ly Ly αααααααα NormalizationNormalization ResultsResults• Data sets fit independently, O and Ne line complexes are free to vary as a group

• SMC NH=5.65x1020 cm-2, Bremsstrahlung kT=0.95 keV

92

279

93

95

DOF

2.511.71

[1.68,1.73]

6.42

[6.35,6.53]

MOS10135720601

[90% CL]

2.691.74

[1.72,1.76]

6.14

[6.09,6.19]

pn0135720801

[90% CL]

1.481.77

[1.69,1.84]

6.92

[6.79,7.36]

ACIS S3

(node 0)

6765

[90% CL]

1.271.80

[1.73,1.88]

6.58

[6.44,6.94]

ACIS S3

(node 1)

3545

[90% CL]

Red χ2

Ne X Ly α Norm

(x 10-3 photons cm-2 s)

O VIII Ly α Norm

(x 10-3 photons cm-2 s)

Instrumen

t

OBSID

• Ne X Ly a normalizations agree within ~6.0% for ACIS, pn, & MOS1

• Early S3 and MOS1 agree within ~2.0% for O VIII Ly αααα normalizations

• Most recent S3 and pn disgree by ~18.0% for O VIII Ly αααα normalizations



LetLet’’s Agree on a Model !!!!!!!s Agree on a Model !!!!!!!

Purpose: to improve the low-energy response model of ACIS, MOS

and pn CCD instruments

1) RGS and HETG agree on flux of bright lines

2) RGS and HETG compromise on existence of weak lines

3) RGS and HETG agree on widths for the lines

4) Select a continuum model and absorption

5) HETG team must analyze second epoch observations of E0102

6) Fit ACIS, MOS, and pn with the same model

1. comparison of rgs model for 1e0102.2 -7219 to the hetg … · 2009. 1. 22. · chandra x-ray...

Documents