Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/calibration/documentation/epic_cal_meetings/200704/Sembay.pdf
Дата изменения: Tue May 13 17:56:20 2014
Дата индексирования: Wed Apr 13 13:14:34 2016
Кодировка:
Поисковые слова: stars

Calibration Activities the MOS perspective

Changing the MOS Quantum Efficiency Calibration: Motivation and Justification.

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Flux comparison using a sample (17) of AGN observations: as presented at MPE (May 2006)

Band (keV) 0.54-0.85 0.85-1.50 1.50-4.0 4.0-10.0

(MOS1-PN)/PN

(MOS2-PN)/PN

-5.4% +2.4% +6.8% +11.4%

-1.6% +4.1% +7.3% +7.4%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

MOS v PN effective area discrepancy: 3C 273 comparison

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Investigating additional transmission layers

H2O

0.12 µm

SiO2 0.068 " Si3N4 0.059 " Si 0.12 "

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

3C 273: What the PN sees

Model: phabs*(po+po)
XMM EPIC MOS

NH = 1.79x1020cm-2 2 = 1.08

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison: PN Model with MOS1 data and various QEs

ICE 0.12 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison: PN Model with MOS1 data and various QEs

ICE 0.12 µm SiO2 0.068 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison: PN Model with MOS1 data and various QEs

ICE 0.12 µm SiO2 0.068 µm Si3N4 0.059 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison: PN Model with MOS1 data and various QEs

ICE 0.12 µm SiO2 0.068 µm Si3N4 0.059 µm Si 0.12 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Constraint on Si edge also precludes strong "Si" absorber

Edge depth known Within ~2-3%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

QE17 Adjustment of edges at C, N, O, only

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison with Orsay CCD1 MOS1 CCD1 MOS2

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison with Orsay

CCD1 MOS1

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Model: phabs*(po+po) 2 = 1.19
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

All Const = 1.0

Model: const*phabs*(po+po): const(M1) = 1.03 const(M2) =1.06 2 = 1.11 (with global renormalisation, c.f. 1.19 before without)
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

1=3.20(0.11) PN soft/hard slopes: 2=1.63(0.01) M1 M2 qe16 M1 M2 qe17

1=4.71(0.15) 2=1.64(0.02)
XMM EPIC MOS

1=4.65(0.15) 2=1.69(0.02)

1=3.73(0.15) 2=1.61(0.02)

1=3.76(0.15) 2=1.65(0.02)

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

M1

M1

0065 1ES0102 M2

0981

M2

0065
XMM EPIC MOS

0981
Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

MOS1 v RGS model, 1ES0102 Rev 0065 Const x (RGS model) 0.3-1.5 keV MOS1 2 = 3.65 -> 1.78 Const. 0.51 -> 0.80 NH=5.36x1020cm-2 MOS2 2 = 3.70 -> 2.30 Const. 0.58 -> 0.90

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

MOS1 v RGS model, 1ES0102 Rev 0981 Const x (RGS model) 0.3-1.5 keV MOS1 2 = 5.47 -> 2.16 Const. 0.39 -> 0.74 NH=5.36x1020cm-2 MOS2 2 = 7.46 -> 2.62 Const. 0.33 -> 0.70

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

NH=5.36x1020cm-2

NH=8.00x1020cm-2

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Zoom showing resolution adjustment required for later Revs

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Comparison with Zeta Puppis On-axis Point Source Const x (RGS model) 0.3-1.5 keV MOS1 2 = 1.69 -> 1.49 Const. 1.05 -> 1.12 MOS2 2 = 1.76 -> 1.51 Const. 1.07 -> 1.15

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Independent astrophysical evidence ? Spectral fitting to relatively high column density BL Lac TBABS * PO Wilms abund 0.15-5.0 keV MOS1 2 = 1.13 -> 1.06 MOS2 2 = 1.16 -> 1.08

NH ~ 4.4x1020cm-2

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Thin

(MOS1-PN)/PN

Medium

(MOS2-PN)/PN

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Problem with the psf? See talk by Andy later 3c 273: Flux Comparison, 7.5"-40" v 15"-40" extraction radii

pn MOS1 MOS2

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Problem with the psf? See talk by Andy later MCG-6-30-15: 0", 7.5", 11.25", 15" inner extraction radii, 40" outer

pn MOS1 MOS2

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Band (keV) 0.54-0.85 0.85-1.50 1.50-4.0 4.0-10.0
XMM EPIC MOS

(MOS1-PN)/PN

(MOS2-PN)/PN

-5.4% +2.4% +6.8% +11.4%
Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

-1.6% +4.1% +7.3% +7.4%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Quantum Efficiency measurements from Orsay MOS1 Central CCD

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Quantum Efficiency measurements from Orsay MOS2 Central CCD

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Surface Pixel Geometry in Monte Carlo model

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

SEM Pictures

Side View

Top View

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

(MOS1-PN)/PN
+12% +2%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

(MOS2-PN)/PN
+12% +2%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

H2O = 0.08 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

H2O = 0.08 µm SiO2 = 0.05 µm

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Summary: Shape of the MOS/PN discrepancy suggests problem lies with the quantum efficiency Adjustment of the MOS QE would be consistent with Orsay measurements and probable uncertainties in model Adjusting the QE would leave a residual normalisation offset of about 5-7% between MOS and PN Would need to increase MOS global effective area or decrease PN global effective area to achieve absolute consistency MOS low energy rmf would need re-calibration for consistency with any change in the QE
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007

Compaoiunt Rath/EhfentirgyArerainorofatlisespto tRa vrom 79atund 903 C r son of eig f c e ve po t on m he d ec r e f 156 D5 am

Rate down 8%

Eff. Area down 3%

Flux down 5%

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@star.le.ac.uk) Palermo 12/04/2007