Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/calibration/documentation/epic_cal_meetings/201504/Sembay_Cal_2015.pdf Дата изменения: Thu Jul 16 12:30:19 2015 Дата индексирования: Wed Apr 13 13:32:08 2016 Кодировка:

EPIC-MOS Contamination Monitoring
1E0102 - Rev 0065 - Thin Filter Black (MOS1) Red (MOS2)
10

Primary Monitoring Source: SNR E0102 Properties: Have standard source spectral model Known to be stable (EPIC-pn) Regularly observed throughout mission contamination model (VARABS)

normalized counts s-1 keV-1

6

8

Multiply standard source model by
Contaminant: Carbon dominated (c.f. RGS)

2

4

0.2

0.5 Energy (keV)

1

2

Derive predicted model hardness ratio Compare with observed data hardness ratio to derive contaminant depth Validate contaminant model by XCAL

0

comparison of selected sources
(RXJ1856, Blazars) with EPIC-pn
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


Ratio

Depth
C depth versus model hardness ratio compared with observed (horizontal lines) data ratios for MOS1 (white) and MOS2 (red)
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


Epoch Dependent C layer ( = 2.65 g/cm-3)
0.07 500 1000 Orbit 1500 2000 2500 3000

New Model
0.06

5

MOS2

MOS1

Derived with SAS14.0 RMFs

2500

Current Model

MOS2

4

Derived with SAS12.0 RMFs
2000
C Depth (microns)

0.05

Time (s/1e8) 2

Orbit 1500

3

0.04

0.03

1000

0.02

500

0.01

MOS1

1

0.00 0

0.06

0.05

0.04

XMM EPIC MOS

Depth (microns)

0.03

0.02

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015

0.01

0.00 0

1

2

3 Time (s/1e8)

4

5


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


Comparison with RGS: Epoch Dependent C8H8 layer ( = 1.11 g/cm-3)
0.25 500 1000 Orbit 1500 2000 2500 3000

0.20

RGS

MOS2 now slightly more than 50% of RGS model.

C8H8 Depth (microns)

0.15
MOS2

MOS1 no strong evidence for trend.
Consistent with fixed low energy QE adjustment.

0.10

0.05
MOS1

0.00 0

1

2

3 Time (s/1e8)

4

5

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


Transmission curves at current epoch C8H8 layer ( = 1.11 g/cm-3)
1.0

Transmission curves for C8H8

0.8

Transmission

0.6

RGS: depth = 0.21 microns

0.4

MOS2: depth = 0.13 microns

0.2

0.0 0

500

1000 Energy (eV)

1500

2000

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XCAL with EPIC-PN: FIT model to PN, Fold through MOS response
RXJ1856, Rev 2618 - MOS1 data / PN model
1.4
1.4

RXJ1856, Rev 2618 - MOS2 data / PN model

1.2

ratio

ratio

1

0.8

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.4

0.5 0.6 Energy (keV)

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.6 Energy (keV)

0.7

0.8

0.9

Current contamination model

New contamination model
No contamination
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


Why is MOS2 different from MOS1???
Different external thermal environment???

XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015


EPIC-MOS Contamination Monitoring
Summary MOS2 trend continues upwards. Layer depth now ~50% as seen on RGS

MOS1 now no evidence for trend. Can keep model as is or adjust QE?
XMM-Newton contamination much less than Chandra or Suzaku

(see IACHEC contamination WG for latest results)
Could switch model from C to C8H8 for self-consistency with RGS Why is MOS2 different from MOS1??
XMM EPIC MOS

Steve Sembay (sfs5@le.ac.uk) ESAC 09/04/2015