2007-10-17 M.Suzuki
2007-11-27 M.Nakajima
2007-12-03 Y.Terada
prof. Chris Done (University of Durham)
-
I did the xis data analysis as usual, just extracted regions from the
cleaned event files (3x3 and 5x5 together) in xselect. then ran xisrmfgen
and xissimarfgen. my understanding is that the contamination should be
accounted for in the rmf/arfs. but I attach the file showing the
eeuf and lda spectra respectively - I've obviously got the contamination
wrong somehow.... what haven't I done? many thanks!
-
The real issue was that the two xis spectra (xis1 and 3) were diverging at
low energies. So it looks like one or other of them has the 'wrong'
contamination correction. Is this likely? Especially at the HXD aimpoint
where perhaps the contamination is less well mapped?
XIS team (A.Bamba and K Hayashida)
-
We checked the plot and log you sent. The XIS3 arf you made
seems to be correct. XIS3 is known to suffer from large
contamination, and your efficiency plot is not strange
compared with other observations. However, if you want
to check, you can estimate the amount of contamination
by using 'varabs' in XSPEC combined with a contamination-free
response, and compare it with the value from 'xiscontamicalc'.
-
We modeled the spatial distribution of the contamination using the day-earth
data, which is already included xissimarfgen.
As shown in the attached report,
we have no obious inconsistency between the data and the model for XIS0 and
XIS1 in all the period.
We did not check XIS3 yet but expect that it goes well.
Note that we have uncertainty of N_C ~ 0.5e18/cm2 even on the center of XIS
(xis-nominal).(see this page).
2007-10-17 Accept
2007-11-22 Reso
2007-11-26 Done
2007-11-27 Continue (2)
2007-12-03 Done
|
Question ID = 0073