Analysis of the soft response of pn and MOSwith a sample of blazars

Silvano Molendi (IASF-MI)

MotivationEvaluate impact of mos eff. areas change This is a major change

Impact on pn/mos cross calibration is possibly largest ever.

Example of old vs new pn/mosResiduals in the form of ratio data/model for PN data on MOS best fitting model

Example of old vs new pn/mosResiduals in the form of ratio data/model for PN data on MOS best fitting model

HowSample of 21 blazars from XMM-Newton archiveFeatureless objects with simple pow-law spectraMost have no reported evidence of intrinsic absorptionLook at spectral parameters, particularly NH, to evaluate changes following changes in MOS arfs.

The SampleAll data reduced with SAS 7.1 Emchain & Epchain + soft proton screeningsome objects piled up (epatplot + reference cr from uhb sec 3.3.2 Tab 3 )extraction in annuli (iterative core extrusion )arfs and rmfs generated using standard tools MOS1, MOS2 (pattern 0-12) and pn (0-4) flag==0 for MOS and pn

The ExerciseAll data reduced with SAS 7.1 Emchain & Epchain + soft proton screeningsome objects piled up (epatplot + reference cr from uhb sec 3.3.2 Tab 3 )extraction in annuli (iterative core extrusion )arfs and rmfs generated using standard tools MOS1, MOS2 (pattern 0-12) and pn (0-4)

The Exercise/2For mos1 and mos2 generated old arfs cifbuild analysisdate followed by arfgenSpectra fit in 0.5-10 keV band with wabs*pow model all params freeSome 60 spectra 100 fits

Results Look at NH MOS1 vs MOS2 for old qe

Results Look at NH MOS1 vs MOS2 for new qeAgreement btwn MOS1 & MOS2 does not change

New vs Old - MOS1

New vs Old MOS2

New vs Old MOS2 Points fall exactly on modelX2 is less than 1Data is the same, only arf is differentThe increase in O depth corresponds to an increase of NH, assuming standard O abundances, of 2x1020

New MOS vs PN Very good agreement btwn MOS and PN!

X-ray vs 21cm NH old new

X-ray vs 21cm NH Excluded all objects with excised piled-up core old new

Very low NH objectsThere are 6/17 objects with NH < 1020 Soft excess ?Possible for flat spectrum objects, unlikely for steep spectrum objects

Soft excess?

X-ray vs 21cm NH Exclude all objects with excised piled-up core

Summary

New arfs result in smaller NH ~2x1020For the fist time we have good agreement btwn MOS and PNThe blazar exercise failed its major goal, it did not help us in establishing which of the two arfs is better.

Very low NH objectsThere are 6/17 objects with NH < 1020 Soft excess ?