List of Figures

• 5.1. An empirical model for the on-axis contamination evolution, assuming DEHP (C$_{24}$H$_{38}$O$_4$, or C/O=6 by number) as contaminant. Crosses indicate the C column density of the contaminant derived from the E0102$-$72 observations. Solid lines indicate the best fit C/O=6 empirical model to the time evolution of the contamination for each sensor. Note that an updated contaminant composition is in use since Suzaku FTOOLS version 18 (section 5.5.2), an update of this figure is in preparation.
• 5.2. Comparison between spectral fits using the old (left panel; C/O=6; Suzaku FTOOLS Version 17 and earlier) and new (right panel; C, O, H variable; Suzaku FTOOLS Version 18 and later) contamination composition model. Residuals at soft energies, especially in the 0.4-0.5keV band, improve with the new model.
• 5.3. Example for typical residuals around 2keV due to instrumental effects (blue: BI - XIS1, red, combined FI - XIS0+3), with respect to a smooth continuum fit (top) and modeled with two Gaussian lines (bottom), see text for line energies (Suchy et al., 2011, ApJ, 733, 15.
• 5.4. HXD-PIN (black) and HXD-GSO (red) spectra and fit residuals for the Crab as observed on 2005 Sep. 15 using the nominal HXD pointing position. The adopted model is wabs$\times$bknpowerlaw, with $N_{\rm{H}}$=3.8$\times$10$^{21}$cm$^{-2}$, photon indices of 2.09 and 2.27, a break energy of 103keV, and a nomalization of 10.9photos keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (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 sensors.
• 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 $t_\textrm {b}$ indicated in the figure). Note that the window frame times $t_\textrm {w}$ are 8, 2, and 1s for the full, 1/4, and 1/8 window options, respectively, with exposures per frame of $t_\textrm {b}$ 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 anti-coincidence-units.
• 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 $\sim$3% at present, the source is clearly detected up to $\sim$300keV.
• 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.