Calibration Activities the MOS perspective

Transcription

1 Calibration Activities the perspective Changing the Quantum Efficiency Calibration: Motivation and Justification.

2 Flux comparison using a sample (17) of AGN observations: as presented at MPE (May 2006) Band (kev) (1-PN)/PN (2-PN)/PN % +2.4% +6.8% +11.4% -1.6% +4.1% +7.3% +7.4%

3 v PN effective area discrepancy: 3C 273 comparison

4 Investigating additional transmission layers H2O 0.12 µm SiO Si3N Si 0.12

5 3C 273: What the PN sees Model: phabs*(po+po) N H = 1.79x10 20 cm -2 χ 2 = 1.08

6 Comparison: PN Model with 1 data and various QEs ICE 0.12 µm

7 Comparison: PN Model with 1 data and various QEs ICE 0.12 µm SiO µm

8 Comparison: PN Model with 1 data and various QEs ICE 0.12 µm SiO µm Si3N µm

9 Comparison: PN Model with 1 data and various QEs ICE 0.12 µm SiO µm Si3N µm Si 0.12 µm

10 Constraint on Si edge also precludes strong Si absorber Edge depth known Within ~2-3%

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

12 Comparison with Orsay CCD1 1 CCD1 2

13 Comparison with Orsay CCD1 1

14 Model: phabs*(po+po) χ 2 = 1.19

15 All Const = 1.0 Model: const*phabs*(po+po): const(m1) = 1.03 const(m2) =1.06 χ 2 = 1.11 (with global renormalisation, c.f before without)

16 PN soft/hard slopes: Γ 1 =3.20(0.11) Γ 2 =1.63(0.01) M1 M2 qe16 M1 M2 qe17 Γ 1 =4.71(0.15) Γ 1 =4.65(0.15) Γ 1 =3.73(0.15) Γ 1 =3.76(0.15) Γ 2 =1.64(0.02) Γ 2 =1.69(0.02) Γ 2 =1.61(0.02) Γ 2 =1.65(0.02)

17 M1 M ES0102 M2 M

18 1 v RGS model, 1ES0102 Rev 0065 N H =5.36x10 20 cm -2 Const x (RGS model) kev 1 χ 2 = > 1.78 Const > χ 2 = > 2.30 Const > 0.90

19 1 v RGS model, 1ES0102 Rev 0981 N H =5.36x10 20 cm -2 Const x (RGS model) kev 1 χ 2 = > 2.16 Const > χ 2 = > 2.62 Const > 0.70

20 N H =5.36x10 20 cm -2 N H =8.00x10 20 cm -2

21 Zoom showing resolution adjustment required for later Revs

22 Comparison with Zeta Puppis On-axis Point Source Const x (RGS model) kev 1 χ 2 = > 1.49 Const > χ 2 = > 1.51 Const > 1.15

23 Independent astrophysical evidence? Spectral fitting to relatively high column density BL Lac N H ~ 4.4x10 20 cm -2 TBABS * PO Wilms abund kev 1 χ 2 = > χ 2 = > 1.08

24

25

26 (1-PN)/PN Thin Medium (2-PN)/PN

27 Problem with the psf? See talk by Andy later 3c 273: Flux Comparison, v extraction radii pn 1 2

28 Problem with the psf? See talk by Andy later MCG : 0, 7.5, 11.25, 15 inner extraction radii, 40 outer pn 1 2

29 Band (kev) (1-PN)/PN -5.4% +2.4% +6.8% +11.4% (2-PN)/PN -1.6% +4.1% +7.3% +7.4%

30

31 Quantum Efficiency measurements from Orsay 1 Central CCD

32 Quantum Efficiency measurements from Orsay 2 Central CCD

33 Surface Pixel Geometry in Monte Carlo model

34 SEM Pictures Side View Top View

35 (1-PN)/PN +12% +2%

36 (2-PN)/PN +12% +2%

37 H 2 O = 0.08 µm

38 H 2 O = 0.08 µm SiO 2 = 0.05 µm

39

40 Summary: Shape of the /PN discrepancy suggests problem lies with the quantum efficiency Adjustment of the 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 and PN Would need to increase global effective area or decrease PN global effective area to achieve absolute consistency low energy rmf would need re-calibration for consistency with any change in the QE

41 Comparison Count Rate/Effective of high energy Area portion normalised of the spectra to Rev from Datum and 903 Rate down 8% Eff. Area down 3% Flux down 5%