1 / 38

PN Monitoring Palermo, April 2007

This report discusses observations, variance, and correlation in EPIC MOS monitoring during the Palermo meeting in April 2007. It includes details on noisy pixels, offset maps, mean row offset, line widths, CTI monitoring, and telemetry.

wnimmons
Download Presentation

PN Monitoring Palermo, April 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PN Monitoring Palermo, April 2007 Michael Smith, ESAC

  2. Hot Pixels Michael Smith, ESAC

  3. Due to Noisy Pixels in Column 64 Most of these to be blanked in upcoming Bad Pixel Table upload Noisy Pixels Michael Smith, ESAC

  4. Offset Median Michael Smith, ESAC

  5. Eclipse Season Boundaries First Observations per Revolution Offset Variance Michael Smith, ESAC

  6. Offset Maps Normal Variance Excessive Variance Michael Smith, ESAC

  7. Mean Row Offset vs RAWY Normal Variance Michael Smith, ESAC

  8. Mean Row Offset vs RAWY Excessive Q0 & Q2 Variance Michael Smith, ESAC

  9. Mean Row Offset vs RAWY Excessive Q1 & Q3 Variance Michael Smith, ESAC

  10. CalClosed Line Widths vs Offset Map Variance (I) Quadrant 0 Quadrant 1 Michael Smith, ESAC

  11. CalClosed Line Centres vs Offset Map Variance (II) Michael Smith, ESAC

  12. CalClosed Line Centres vs Offset Map Variance (III) Michael Smith, ESAC

  13. Relative Line Centres v Relative Offsets • Slight Offset – Line-Centre correlation • Slopes of the order of ~ 0.1 eV / ADU in stead of the ~ 5 eV / ADU one would expect for a simple offset shift • Probably nothing to do with relative offset shifts… Michael Smith, ESAC

  14. Relative Line Centres v Mean Row • slight Row Number – Line-Centre correlation • Correlation perhaps due to a slight CTI over-correction Michael Smith, ESAC

  15. Energy Scale vs Time very good, esp. for FF mode. Slight over-correction for EFF mode. SW mode under-correction, esp. at Mn (Result of SAS 7.0 Processing) Michael Smith, ESAC M. Kirsch

  16. Line width trend is stable ~0.5 ADU/year increase at Mn (Result of SAS 7.0 Processing) Michael Smith, ESAC M. Kirsch

  17. MOS Monitoring Palermo, April 2007 Michael Smith, ESAC

  18. MOS1 Bad Pixels MOS2 Michael Smith, ESAC

  19. Michael Smith, ESAC

  20. EPIC MOS Monitoring CAL/OPS Meeting Palermo 11.04.2007

  21. MOS CTI monitoring Using new public ADUCONV/CTI CCFs (03.04.2007) Michael Smith, ESAC

  22. EPIC MOS CTI monitoring: public CCFs Parallel CTI MOS1 Al Parallel CTI MOS2 Al 0.06 CCD1 CCD2 CCD3 CCD4 CCD5 CCD6 CCD7 0.00 Michael Smith, ESAC

  23. EPIC MOS CTI monitoring: public CCFs Parallel CTI MOS1 Mn Parallel CTI MOS2 Mn 0.06 CCD1 CCD2 CCD3 CCD4 CCD5 CCD6 CCD7 0.00 Michael Smith, ESAC

  24. EPIC MOS CTI monitoring: public CCFs Serial CTI MOS1 Al Serial CTI MOS2 Al 0.04 CCD1 CCD2 CCD3 CCD4 CCD5 CCD6 CCD7 -0.01 Michael Smith, ESAC

  25. EPIC MOS CTI monitoring: public CCFs Serial CTI MOS1 Mn Serial CTI MOS2 Mn 0.04 CCD1 CCD2 CCD3 CCD4 CCD5 CCD6 CCD7 -0.01 Michael Smith, ESAC

  26. MOS line monitoring Using new public ADUCONV/CTI CCFs (03.04.2007) Michael Smith, ESAC

  27. EPIC MOS line monitoring: public CCFs Michael Smith, ESAC

  28. EPIC MOS line monitoring: public CCFs Michael Smith, ESAC

  29. EPIC MOS line monitoring: public CCFs • Line resolution • The column dependent MOS CTI CCFs can improve the line resolution because: • The spectral deviation of all • individual columns is minimised. • The correction leads to an • increase of the number of counts • in the line centroid. • Will mainly affect extended • sources. Michael Smith, ESAC

  30. EPIC MOS line monitoring: public CCFs Improvement of FWHM due to column dependent CTI CCFs: Al (mean post-cooling values) MOS1: 4.4% old:80 eV new: 76 eV MOS2: 4.2% old:79 eV new: 75 eV Michael Smith, ESAC

  31. EPIC MOS line monitoring: public CCFs Improvement of FWHM due to column dependent CTI CCFs : Mn (mean post-cooling values) MOS1: 3.4% old:145 eV new: 140 eV MOS2: 3.4% old:142 eV new: 137 eV Michael Smith, ESAC

  32. Monitoring of the “meteorite” column in MOS1 CCD1 Michael Smith, ESAC

  33. Disappeared for imaging modes • Column was off since change of on-board offset June 2005. • Re-appeared in rev. 1100-1115: Diagnostic shows column offset to be 130 ADU (instead of 123 ADU). • At lower level or disappeared in rev. 1116-1122: Diagnostics show column offset back on expected level. • During and after eclipse phase rev.1123-1135 column sometimes is hot and sometimes normal. • No hot column from rev. 1136-1148. • Column present in single exposures from 1149-1156. • No hot column since rev. 1157 (-1333) in imaging modes (except 3x3), but in timing modes. Michael Smith, ESAC

  34. EPIC telemetry monitoring Michael Smith, ESAC

  35. Required telemetry of EPIC instruments Michael Smith, ESAC

  36. Required EPIC telemetry revs. 1175-1333 Michael Smith, ESAC

  37. Critical observations of revs. 1175-1333 • In total 650 MOS1 and 653 MOS2 exposures. • 56 FF, 3 LW and 3 SW observations were affected by counting • modes, most due to high radiation. • 21 MOS1 TI observations were affected by counting modes, all with • rates higher than 1/300 sec. Only 3 of these (Crab) have MOS2 • counterparts. Due to hot “meteorite” column. • 3 MOS2 TI observation exceeded the 12 kbits/sec and were not • affected by counting modes (2x XB 1254-690 + Mkn 421), Michael Smith, ESAC

  38. Conclusion Line energies within 5 eV. Line widths (FWHM) stable since cooling: ~76 eV at Al energy and ~140 eV at Mn energy. CTIs are still very stable since cooling. MOS1 “meteorite” column did not appear again in imaging modes, but in several timing mode exposures. New BRAT restricted only few MOS observations between revs. 1175-1333 (not affected by high radiation). Low energy noise still present. Reason still unknown. Michael Smith, ESAC

More Related