1. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 1 1.Comparison of RGS Model for 1E0102.2-7219 to the HETG data 2.BI CCD CTI Correction for ACIS Paul Plucinsky, Dan Dewey, Paul Plucinsky, Dan Dewey, & Joseph DePasquale

2. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 2 Gratuitous Pretty Pictures of E0102 S3 Summed Data ~100 ks RGS Spectrum (Pollock 2006) Objective: Objective: develop a spectral model which can be used by RGS, HETG, EPIC & ACIS, etc.

3. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 3 What’s New Since the Iceland 2006 Meeting? Pollock’s model based on the RGS data has been used by Dan Dewy of the HETG team to compare to the HETG data Dan adopted the RGS spectral model, including the normalizations Dan developed a spatial model for the structure of the remnant He created simulated datasets to compare the against the MEG and HEG data from the Chandra HETG The overall agreement is encouraging !!! All of the following work has been done by Dan, many thanks !!! Good agreement on the bright lines, some disagreement on the weaker lines

4. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 4 Dewey Spatial and Spectral Model

5. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 5 MEG minus 1st order Simulation Comparison KS test O VIII O VII Ne IX Ne X Mg XI

6. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 6 MEG plus 1st order Simulation Comparison KS test Mg XI Ne X Ne IX O VIII O VII

7. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 7 HEG minus 1st order Simulation Comparison KS test Mg XI Ne X Ne IX

8. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 8 HEG plus 1st order Simulation Comparison KS test Mg XI Ne X Ne IX

9. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 9 Where Do We Go From Here ? Dewey analysis needs to be updated with latest response files for HRMA/ACIS/HETG Line-based analysis needs to be updated with the latest response files for HRMA/HETG/ACIS RGS data need to be re-analyzed with new background model for RGS RGS and HETG teams agree on a model well before the IACHEC meeting in California ACIS, MOS, and pn use the new model to fit the CCD spectra

10. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 10 2. CTI Correction in CIAO for S3 and S1 Penn State CTI corrector available since 2001 CXC response products for S1 and S3 used a position-dependent gain correction which recovers the true values of the PHs but does not improve the spectral resolution S3 and S1 data will now be CTI-corrected in the events files provided to GOs All TEN CCDs will be CTI-corrected as of CIAO and CALDB release in December 2006 small, but significant improvement in spectral resolution and QE uniformity

11. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 11 BI CTI correction: PH vs. Row # Current CALDB: no CTI correctionPrototype CALDB: CTI correction

12. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 12 BI CTI correction: PH vs. Row #

13. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 13 S3 CTI correction: Mn-K at the Aimpoint No CTI correction: FWHM~162 eV With CTI correction: FWHM~151 eV

14. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 14 S3 CTI correction: Mn-K at the Top No CTI correction: FWHM~182 eV With CTI correction: FWHM~157 eV

15. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 15 Current CALDB No CTI correction: E0102 on S3 Red Chi= 1.44

16. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 16 BI CTI correction: E0102 on S3 Red Chi= 1.10

17. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 17 BI CTI correction: E0102 on S1 Red Chi= 1.57

18. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 18 Pollock RGS vs. Flanagan (2004) HETG Line Fluxes LineFlanagan Flux (10 -4 photons cm -2 s -1 ) Pollock Flux (10 -4 photons cm -2 s -1 ) Difference OVII For 13.9511.53+17.3% OVII Res 24.3827.23-11.7% O VIII Ly-  37.3140.65-8.9% O VIII Ly-  6.377.78-15.9% Ne IX triplet 23.1821.15+8.8% Ne X Ly-  9.7212.70-30.7% Ne X Ly-  2.071.87+9.7%

19. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 19 O VIII Ly  and Ne X Ly  Normalization Results Data sets fit independently, O and Ne line complexes are free to vary as a group SMC NH=5.65x10 20 cm -2, Bremsstrahlung kT=0.95 keV OBSIDInstrumen t O VIII Ly  Norm (x 10 -3 photons cm -2 s) Ne X Ly  Norm (x 10 -3 photons cm -2 s) Red  2 DOF 3545 [90% CL] ACIS S3 (node 1) 6.58 [6.44,6.94] 1.80 [1.73,1.88] 1.2795 6765 [90% CL] ACIS S3 (node 0) 6.92 [6.79,7.36] 1.77 [1.69,1.84] 1.4893 0135720801 [90% CL] pn 6.14 [6.09,6.19] 1.74 [1.72,1.76] 2.69279 0135720601 [90% CL] MOS1 6.42 [6.35,6.53] 1.71 [1.68,1.73] 2.5192 Ne X Ly a normalizations agree within ~ 6.0% for ACIS, pn, & MOS1 Early S3 and MOS1 agree within ~2.0% for O VIII Ly  normalizations Most recent S3 and pn disgree by ~18.0% for O VIII Ly  normalizations

20. Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October 2006 20 Let’s Agree on a Model !!!!!!! Purpose: to improve the low-energy response model of ACIS, MOS and pn CCD instruments 1)RGS and HETG agree on flux of bright lines 2)RGS and HETG compromise on existence of weak lines 3)RGS and HETG agree on widths for the lines 4)Select a continuum model and absorption 5)HETG team must analyze second epoch observations of E0102 6)Fit ACIS, MOS, and pn with the same model