Post on 02-Jan-2016
description
Marcus KirschMarcus Kirsch
Science Operations & Data Systems Division Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 1
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
MOS Timing Mode calibrationMOS Timing Mode calibration
Marcus G. F. Kirsch, B. Altieri, R. SaxtonMarcus G. F. Kirsch, B. Altieri, R. Saxton
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 2
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICmenumenu
energy calibrationenergy calibration flux calibrationflux calibration MOS Timing versus pnMOS Timing versus pn
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 3
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICSituation last cal meetingSituation last cal meeting
black: LWblack: LW red: Timingred: Timing
MOS LW versus Timing
1
1.005
1.01
1.015
1.02
1.025
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
LW Energy in keV
Tim
ing_
En/
LW
_En
MOS1
MOS2
trend is similar trend is similar for both MOSsfor both MOSs
Timing mode is Timing mode is overcorrected overcorrected by up to 1.5 %by up to 1.5 %
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 4
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICreason for over correctionreason for over correction
CTI correction is performed for events with CTI correction is performed for events with y-values from 0-1024 (just a counter with y-values from 0-1024 (just a counter with no meaning in that mode) with the mean no meaning in that mode) with the mean of ~ 500of ~ 500
CTI correction should however be CTI correction should however be performed for y=300 for ALL eventsperformed for y=300 for ALL events
Now implemented in SAS 6.0
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 5
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPIC1E0102-SAS 6.01E0102-SAS 6.0
0.4-2.0 keV:0.4-2.0 keV:Timing mode agrees with LW mode Timing mode agrees with LW mode within +/- 0.5 %.within +/- 0.5 %.
MOS LW versus Timing
0.985
0.99
0.995
1
1.005
1.01
1.015
1.02
1.025
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
LW Energy in keV
Tim
ing_
En
/LW
_En
MOS1
MOS2
MOS1_new
MOS2_new
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 6
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICSS433: SAS 6.0SS433: SAS 6.0
M1 Timing MediumM2 FF Medium
MOS LW versus Timing
0.9850.99
0.9951
1.0051.01
1.0151.02
1.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LW Energy in keV
Tim
ing_
En/
LW
_En
MOS1
MOS2
MOS1_new
MOS2_new
MOS1_SS442
MOS LW versus Timing
0.9850.99
0.9951
1.0051.01
1.0151.02
1.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LW Energy in keV
Tim
ing_
En/
LW
_En MOS1
MOS2
MOS1_new
MOS2_new
MOS1_SS442
pn
M1 Timing MediumM2 FF Mediumpn SW Medium
pn(Timing) > MOS ?pn(Timing) > MOS ? pn(Timing) = pn(FF)± 0.3 %pn(Timing) = pn(FF)± 0.3 %
at 6 keV ~ +0.3 %at 6 keV ~ +0.3 %
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 7
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICCas-A analysis 2002Cas-A analysis 2002
pn < Chandra < MOSpn < Chandra < MOS Rational: Rational:
– CAS-A is very brightCAS-A is very bright– MOS CTI model does MOS CTI model does
not take precursors into not take precursors into account account CTI over correction CTI over correction
contradictory to SS433 contradictory to SS433 ??????
CAS-A cross cal
0.986
0.988
0.99
0.992
0.994
0.996
0.998
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MOS Energy in keV
ratio
pn/MOS
Chandra/MOS
pn/Chandra
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 8
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICFlux: Calibration sourceFlux: Calibration source
MOS1 flux in MOS1 flux in Timing mode at Timing mode at Mn seems to be Mn seems to be 10 % lower10 % lower
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 9
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICFlux: NGC 5548 (rev 290)Flux: NGC 5548 (rev 290)MOS Timing Medium M2 SW Mediumpn SW Medium
Fit:const*(model_linked) Fit:const*(model_linked) –M1: 1.0M1: 1.0–M2: 1.02M2: 1.02–PN: 1.16PN: 1.16
below 0.6 keV:below 0.6 keV:– MOSs agreeMOSs agree– but less flux than pnbut less flux than pn
above 8 keV problem above 8 keV problem in MOS Timing mode in MOS Timing mode
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 10
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICFlux: SS433 (rev 610)Flux: SS433 (rev 610)pn Timing Medium M1 Timing MediumM2 FF Medium Medium
Fit Fit const*(model_linked) const*(model_linked)
–pn: 1.0pn: 1.0–M1: 0.94M1: 0.94–M2: 0.52 (pileup) M2: 0.52 (pileup)
below 0.6 keV:below 0.6 keV: problem in MOS problem in MOS Timing mode Timing mode above 8 keV above 8 keV problem in MOS problem in MOS Timing mode Timing mode
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 11
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICFlux: HER-X1 (rev 207)Flux: HER-X1 (rev 207)
pn:1 pn:1 MOS: 0.9MOS: 0.9
flux in 0.315- 10.0 keVflux in 0.315- 10.0 keV– pn: 1.66E-09 erg cmpn: 1.66E-09 erg cm-2-2ss-1 -1
– MOS: 1.55E-09 erg cmMOS: 1.55E-09 erg cm-2-2ss-1-1
– MOS/pn: 0.93MOS/pn: 0.93
pn Timing MOS1 Timingpn Timing MOS1 Timing
Fit with linked parameters and const Fit with free parameters and const=1
Marcus KirschMarcus KirschScience Operations & Data Systems Division
Research & Scientific Support Department
Page 12
XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton
EPICEPICSummarySummaryEnergy calibration:Energy calibration: MOS timing mode energy calibration agrees within MOS timing mode energy calibration agrees within
± 0.3 % with MOS-LW data± 0.3 % with MOS-LW data at ~ 6-7 keV at ~ 6-7 keV
– pn Timing mode > MOS Timing mode by 0.3 % (SS433) pn Timing mode > MOS Timing mode by 0.3 % (SS433) – pn Timing mode > pn FF mode by 0.3 % (Cas-A) pn Timing mode > pn FF mode by 0.3 % (Cas-A) – MOS FF mode should agree there with MOS Timing mode if source is not extended and MOS FF mode should agree there with MOS Timing mode if source is not extended and
bright bright For bright extended sources MOS would need a rate dependent CTI model !For bright extended sources MOS would need a rate dependent CTI model ! Rev 832: Cas-A observation in Rev 832: Cas-A observation in
– pn: FF and extFFpn: FF and extFF– MOS: Timing and LW MOS: Timing and LW
Flux calibration:Flux calibration: Discrepancy of up to 10-15 % at energies below 1keVDiscrepancy of up to 10-15 % at energies below 1keV Contradictory results for different targets and observations Contradictory results for different targets and observations
Cas-A data for all EPIC modes + other SNR data Cas-A data for all EPIC modes + other SNR data will allow overall energy calibration analysiswill allow overall energy calibration analysis
Is the MOS timing mode not stable in flux ?