Next: List of Tables
Up: Suzaku ABC Guide
- 5.1. An empirical model for the on-axis contamination evolution,
assuming DEHP (CHO, or C/O=6 by number) as
contaminant. Crosses indicate the C column density of the
contaminant derived from the E010272 observations. Solid lines
indicate the best fit C/O=6 empirical model to the time evolution
of the contamination for each sensor. Note that an updated
contaminant composition is in use since Suzaku FTOOLS
version 18 (section 5.5.2), an update of this figure
is in preparation.
- 5.2. Comparison between spectral fits using the old (left panel;
C/O=6; Suzaku FTOOLS Version 17 and earlier) and new
(right panel; C, O, H variable; Suzaku FTOOLS Version 18
and later) contamination composition model. Residuals at soft
energies, especially in the 0.4-0.5keV band, improve with the
- 5.3. Example for typical residuals around 2keV due to
instrumental effects (blue: BI - XIS1, red, combined FI -
XIS0+3), with respect to a smooth continuum fit (top) and modeled
with two Gaussian lines (bottom), see text for line energies
(Suchy et al., 2011, ApJ, 733, 15.
- 5.4. HXD-PIN (black) and HXD-GSO (red) spectra and fit residuals
for the Crab as observed on 2005 Sep. 15 using the nominal HXD
pointing position. The adopted model is
=3.810cm, photon indices of 2.09
and 2.27, a break energy of 103keV, and a nomalization of
10.9photos keV cm s (at 1keV). To
illustrate the effect of the correction arf file, fit residuals
without applying the file are displayed as well (blue). The 20%
difference of the 70-400keV flux between the data and the model
without the arf and the bump-like residual around 50-70keV due to
calibration uncertainties around the Gd-K edge are reduced by
introducing the correction arf file, resulting in better agreement
with the HXD-PIN spectrum.
- 5.5. Relative flux normalization between different
- 6.1. Example for an extraction region for a point source.
- 6.2. Example for extraction regions for an extended source.
- 6.3. Incident versus observed count rates of a point source for
the FI sensor. The thick colored lines show the range that can be
observed without strong pile-up for a given window option (defined
by the figure legend) and burst option (defined by the time values
indicated in the figure). Note that the window frame
times are 8, 2, and 1s for the full, 1/4, and 1/8
window options, respectively, with exposures per frame of
for a given burst option.
- 7.1. Schematic picture of the HXD instrument, which consists of
two types of detectors: the PIN diodes located in the front of the GSO
scintillator, and the scintillator itself.
- 7.2. Numbering of the well- and
- 7.3. Example for a GSO spectrum as observed for Cygnus X-1 on
April 8, 2009. The black, red, green, and blue data show the raw
data, NXB, raw data NXB, and 1% NXB spectrum,
respectively. Since the systematic uncertainty of the NXB would be
at most 3% at present, the source is clearly detected up to
- 7.4. Example for a GSO light curve as observed for Cygnus X-1 on
April 8, 2009. The black, red, and green data show the raw data,
NXB, and raw data NXB light curve, respectively. 20counts/s
is a typical count rate of Cyg X-1.
- 7.5. Typical one-day WAM light curve.