Astronomy & Astrophysics

All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: pn light curve in the 1.2-62 Å (0.2-10 keV) band, with time bins of 200 s. The gaps correspond to the time of high background emission, excluded from the analysis. The dotted line marks the mean count rate of the source during the observation. The analysis shows that no significant variability is present.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\scalebox{0.35}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045f2a.ps... ...par\scalebox{0.35}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045f2b.ps}}} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: EPIC pn (upper) and MOS2 (lower) spectra, with their best-fit model spectra (the parameters of the models are listed in Table 2).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{0045f3.ps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Co-added RGS spectrum of 31 Com with the identification of the most prominent lines; the bin size is 0.02 Å. The dashed line represents the continuum emission of the source, derived from the final EM(T) model; note that it is impossible to estimate the continuum from the data in the 10-17 Å range.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90,clip]{0045f4.ps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: The "APED'' model spectrum derived from the EM(T) is compared with the original RGS1 and RGS2 spectra.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0045f5.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Emission measure distributions reconstructed with the MCMC method and the APED (solid line) and CHIANTI (dashed line) databases.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{0045f6a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{0045f6b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Comparison between observed fluxes and the fluxes predicted with the APED (upper panel) and CHIANTI (lower panel) EM(T) models, for lines used in the EM reconstruction; Fe: open diamonds, Ne: triangles, Mg: open squares, Si: filled diamond, Ni: filled circles, O: filled squares, C: open circle.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f7.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Comparison between observed spectrum and continuum emission predicted with the EM(T) for different metallicities Z; we have used the APED database.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,clip]{0045f8.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Examples of differences between emissivity curves of the same transitions in the APED (solid line) and CHIANTI (dashed line) databases.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0045f9.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: RGS-derived EM distribution (histogram; dashed in poorly constrained regions) and EPIC best-fit 3-T solutions (squares for the pn and diamonds for the MOS2). The dotted line is the power-law $EM(T) \propto T^{4.8}$ best-fitting the ascending part of the distribution.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{0045f10.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Ratios between the elemental abundances of Fe and other elements, relative to the solar photospheric ratios (Grevesse et al. 1992), as a function of first ionization potential, derived from RGS (triangles), pn (squares) and MOS2 (diamonds).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f11a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f11b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: Comparison between observed fluxes and the fluxes predicted with the pn 3-T model (upper panel) and MOS2 3-T model (lower panel), for lines used in the EM reconstruction; Fe: open diamonds, Ne: triangles, Mg: open squares, Si: filled diamond, Ni: filled circles, O: filled squares, C: open circle.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045f12.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 12: 3-T solutions best-fitting the pn and MOS simulated spectra, generated with the same EM(T) (histogram) shown in figure.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045f13.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 13: Filling factor (f) as a function of the density (assumed to be uniform along the loop), for different values of the loop height. If $n_{\rm e}$ is the density at the apex of an isobaric loop, the curves have to be considered as upper limits for f.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=7cm,clip]{0045fb1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure B.1: Particular of the MOS1 (filled squares) and MOS2 (open circles) observed spectra, with the relevant fitting spectra (solid lines). Note the closeness between the two predicted spectra and their systematic discrepancy with respect to the data (see the residuals) in the 15-20 Å region.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{0045fb2a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{0045fb2b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure B.2: Comparison between the observed (solid line) and predicted (dashed line) RGS spectrum of 31 Com in the O VIII Ly $~ \alpha$ (18.97 Å) and O VII triplet (21.6 Å, 21.8 Å e 22.1 Å) region. Upper panel: MOS1 case. Lower panel: MOS2 case.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\scalebox{0.28}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045fb3a.p... ...ar\scalebox{0.28}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045fb3b.ps}}} \end{figure}$ Figure B.3: Upper panel: MOS1 data and best-fitting model. Lower panel: O lines are simulated by four monochromatic components with fluxes equal to the measured ones. Note the model overprediction, with respect to data, in the whole region containing the O VIII and O VII lines.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045fa1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.1: A representative ''total Line Spread Function'', LSF $_{\rm tot}$ , (whose integral has been normalized to 100) and the best-fit Lorentzian. For clarity's sake, we do not show poissonian errors (taken into account for the fit). Note that the best-fit Lorentzian departs significatively from the LSF $_{\rm tot}$ only in the wings and below $\sim$ $1\%$ of the peak value.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045fa2a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045fa2b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.2: Examples of line fitting, in the RGS1+RGS2 spectrum (histogram); the dark curve is the best-fit model spectrum, obtained as the sum of Lorentzian components and the continuum (light lines). For each component, the main ions are labelled.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{0045fa3.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.3: Comparison of ISIS-derived fluxes from the RGS1 and RGS2 spectra of 31 Com, taking into account the Line Spread Functions, and PINTofALE fluxes measured in the co-added RGS spectrum, using a Lorentzian line profile.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f1.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: pn light curve in the 1.2-62 Å (0.2-10 keV) band, with time bins of 200 s. The gaps correspond to the time of high background emission, excluded from the analysis. The dotted line marks the mean count rate of the source during the observation. The analysis shows that no significant variability is present.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\scalebox{0.35}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045f2a.ps... ...par\scalebox{0.35}{ \rotatebox{-90}{ \includegraphics{0045f2b.ps}}} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: EPIC pn (upper) and MOS2 (lower) spectra, with their best-fit model spectra (the parameters of the models are listed in Table 2).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{0045f3.ps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Co-added RGS spectrum of 31 Com with the identification of the most prominent lines; the bin size is 0.02 Å. The dashed line represents the continuum emission of the source, derived from the final EM(T) model; note that it is impossible to estimate the continuum from the data in the 10-17 Å range.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90,clip]{0045f4.ps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: The "APED'' model spectrum derived from the EM(T) is compared with the original RGS1 and RGS2 spectra.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0045f5.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Emission measure distributions reconstructed with the MCMC method and the APED (solid line) and CHIANTI (dashed line) databases.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{0045f6a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{0045f6b.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Comparison between observed fluxes and the fluxes predicted with the APED (upper panel) and CHIANTI (lower panel) EM(T) models, for lines used in the EM reconstruction; Fe: open diamonds, Ne: triangles, Mg: open squares, Si: filled diamond, Ni: filled circles, O: filled squares, C: open circle.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f7.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 7: Comparison between observed spectrum and continuum emission predicted with the EM(T) for different metallicities Z; we have used the APED database.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,clip]{0045f8.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Examples of differences between emissivity curves of the same transitions in the APED (solid line) and CHIANTI (dashed line) databases.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0045f9.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: RGS-derived EM distribution (histogram; dashed in poorly constrained regions) and EPIC best-fit 3-T solutions (squares for the pn and diamonds for the MOS2). The dotted line is the power-law $EM(T) \propto T^{4.8}$ best-fitting the ascending part of the distribution.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{0045f10.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Ratios between the elemental abundances of Fe and other elements, relative to the solar photospheric ratios (Grevesse et al. 1992), as a function of first ionization potential, derived from RGS (triangles), pn (squares) and MOS2 (diamonds).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f11a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{0045f11b.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 11: Comparison between observed fluxes and the fluxes predicted with the pn 3-T model (upper panel) and MOS2 3-T model (lower panel), for lines used in the EM reconstruction; Fe: open diamonds, Ne: triangles, Mg: open squares, Si: filled diamond, Ni: filled circles, O: filled squares, C: open circle.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045f12.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 12: 3-T solutions best-fitting the pn and MOS simulated spectra, generated with the same EM(T) (histogram) shown in figure.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{0045f13.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 13: Filling factor (f) as a function of the density (assumed to be uniform along the loop), for different values of the loop height. If $n_{\rm e}$ is the density at the apex of an isobaric loop, the curves have to be considered as upper limits for f.
Open with DEXTER