Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20101
Update on ACIS CalibrationUpdate on ACIS Calibration
1) Update to the ACIS contamination model2) Temperature-dependent CTI correction for FI and BI CCDs3) Cross-calibration with G21.5-0.9
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20102
Why Update the ACIS Calibration Model ?Why Update the ACIS Calibration Model ?
The growth of the contaminant with time has been diverging from the model
Optical depth at 660eV (Vikhlinin SAO) Optical depth at C-K (Marshall MIT)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20103
E0102 Flux vs. Time with Previous Contaminant ModelE0102 Flux vs. Time with Previous Contaminant Model
DePasquale (SAO)
Blue (full frame)
Red (subarray)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20104
E0102 Flux vs. Time with New Contaminant ModelE0102 Flux vs. Time with New Contaminant Model
DePasquale (SAO)
Blue (full frame)
Red (subarray)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20105
E0102 OVIII Flux vs. Time with Previous Contaminant ModelE0102 OVIII Flux vs. Time with Previous Contaminant Model
DePasquale (SAO)
Blue (full frame)
Red (subarray)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20106
E0102 Flux vs. Time with New Contaminant ModelE0102 Flux vs. Time with New Contaminant Model
DePasquale (SAO)
Blue (full frame)
Red (subarray)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20107
Change in Effective AreaChange in Effective Area
DePasquale (SAO)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20108
Comparison to MOS and pn and other instrumentsComparison to MOS and pn and other instrumentsOVII black OVIII red NeIX green NeX blue DePasquale(SAO))
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 20109
Comparison to MOS and pn and other instrumentsComparison to MOS and pn and other instrumentsOVII black OVIII red NeIX green NeX blue DePasquale(SAO))
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201010
Temperature-Dependent CTI CorrectionTemperature-Dependent CTI Correction• many observations were affected by a warm FP temperature before April 2008• FI and BI CCDs have different T dependence of CTI, FI CTI gets worse with increasing T, BI CTI gets slightly better• simply scaling the CTI correction with temperature recovers the mean PH well but the FWHM is significantly larger
Grant (MIT)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201011
Temperature-Dependent CTI CorrectionTemperature-Dependent CTI Correction Grant (MIT)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201012
Temperature-Dependent CTI Correction for I3Temperature-Dependent CTI Correction for I3 Posson-Brown (SAO)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201013
Temperature-Dependent CTI Correction for S3Temperature-Dependent CTI Correction for S3 Posson-Brown (SAO)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201014
Temperature-Dependent CTI CorrectionTemperature-Dependent CTI Correction Posson-Brown (SAO)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201015
Cross-Calibration with G21.5-0.9Cross-Calibration with G21.5-0.9 Posson-Brown (SAO)
• much simpler spectrum than E0102, but extraction region is an issue• flux measurements in the 2.0-8.0 keV bandpass should be consistent with the cluster analysis
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201016
G21.5-0.9 Spectral Fit Results and 1G21.5-0.9 Spectral Fit Results and 1 CLs CLs
Instrument NH(1022 cm2) Index Flux(10-11) (2-8 keV) ergs cm-2 s-1
Red Chi
DOF
MOS1 2.90[2.87,2.94] 1.80[1.79,1.82] 5.46[5.43,5.49] 1.11 276
MOS2 2.91[2.88,2.95] 1.85[1.83,1.87] 5.28[5.26,5.31] 1.07 274
pn 2.76[2.74,2.79] 1.79[1.78,1.80] 5.61[5.59,5.63] 1.10 655
ACIS S3 3.07[3.05,3.09] 1.84[1.83,1.85] 6.06[6.04,6.08] 0.99 2281
Suzaku 3.20[3.18-3.22] 1.91[1.90-1.92] 6.38[6.36-6.41] 1.03 1733
Swift 0+1 2.93[2.87-2.99] 1.77[1.75-1.80] 5.61[5.56-5.65] 1.02 903
Swift 1+2 3.10[3.05-3.16] 1.91[1.89-1.94] 5.46[5.41-5.50] 1.11 969
• Preliminary results from non-thermal SNR IACHEC working group•The 2-8 keV flux should be consistent with what has been found in the cluster analysis, namely ACIS is the highest, MOS1/2 are 5% lower than ACIS and pn is 5% lower than MOS• we need to explore why this might be different than the cluster analysis, we should fit MOS, pn, and ACIS with the same NH and power-law index and then compare fluxes
Tsujimoto et al.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201017
Backup MaterialBackup Material
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201018
IACHEC Thermal SNR Working GroupIACHEC Thermal SNR Working Group
XMM-Newton RGS Andy Pollock (ESAC)
Chandra HETG Dan Dewey (MIT)
XMM-Newton MOS Steve Sembay (Leicester)
XMM-Newton pn Frank Haberl, Victoria Grinberg (MPE)
Chandra ACIS Joe DePasquale, Paul Plucinsky (SAO)
Suzaku XIS Eric Miller (MIT)
Swift XRT Andrew Beardmore, Olivier Godet (Leicester)
Models Randall Smith (SAO/GSFC)
One of the “Standard candle” working groups.:One of the “Standard candle” working groups.:
Plucinsky et al., 2008 SPIE, Vol. 7011, arXiv:0807.2176
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201019
Chandra Images of E0102: Chandra Images of E0102: S3 Summed Data ~248 ksS3 Summed Data ~248 ks
Three Color ImageThree Color ImageRed: 0.2-0.75 keV, Green: 0.8-1.1 keV, Blue: 1.1-2.0 keV
o Young (~1,000-2,000 yr) SNR in the SMC (D~61 kpc), classified as “O-rich” SNR
o Relatively simple morphology, but significant spectral variations
DePasquale (SAO)
45 arcseconds
1E 0102.2-7219 1E 0102.2-7219
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201020
XMM-Newton RGS Spectrum of E0102:XMM-Newton RGS Spectrum of E0102:
Spectrum dominated by O & Ne,
little or no Fe emission
OVIII
OVII
CVIOVIII
NeIX
NeX
Haberl Grinberg (MPE)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201021
OVII black OVIII red NeIX green NeX blueComparison of OVII, OVIII, NeIX, & NeX Normalizations:Comparison of OVII, OVIII, NeIX, & NeX Normalizations:
• 28 of 32 normalizations agree to within +/- 10%
• appears to be a 4% difference between RGS1 & RGS2 which is mostly independent of energy
• uncertainties are the statistical uncertainties and underestimate the true uncertainty
• MOS QE was adjusted in 2007 with the intent of improving agreement with the RGS
• ACIS, XIS, & XRT show similar trend with energy
• max differences are 23% at O VII, 24% at O VIII, 13% at Ne IX, and 19% at Ne X
• RGS, HETG, ACIS, MOS, XIS0 agree to within +/- 5% at Ne IX and Ne X
DePasquale(SAO))
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC
Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal 201022
Census of ACIS Modes and CTI Correction Census of ACIS Modes and CTI Correction
Mode Corrections/Calibrations % & number of Observations
TE Faint CTI correction for all 10 CCDs 46.4% (3205)
TE Very Faint
CTI correction for all 10 CCDs 48.9% (3377)
TE Graded
Prototype CTI correction for 8 FI CCDs
BI CCDs use spatial gain correction
1.4% (94)
CC Faint Prototype CTI correction for 10 CCDs 2.2% (153)
CC Graded
?? Hybrid approach of Vikhlinin graded mode correction and Edgar CC CTI ??
1.1% (73)
Clocking Modes: “Timed Exposure” (TE) and “Continuous Clocking (CC)Telemetry Formats: “Faint” (F) reports 9 PHs in 3X3 event island “Very Faint” (VF) reports 25 PHs in 5X5 event island “Graded” (G) reports a summed PH all modes report frame #, position, grade, & summed PH