All Tables

Table 1: Summary of pointing directions for each observation, the overall scheduled durations, and redshift data (^s Southern SHARC, Burke et al. 2003; ^b Bright SHARC, Romer et al. 2000; ^v 160SD Vikhlinin et al. 1998).
Table 2: Summary of the usable exposure durations obtained for the different clusters after accounting for the GTI filtering, telemetry losses etc. In some observations data from only one camera was available. For operational reasons the PN camera commences exposures somewhat later than the MOS cameras. Losses due to proton flares, telemetry drops etc. are given in Col. 4 as a percentage of the total exposure time.
Table 3: The scaling ratio of the >10 keV count rates outside (Col. 2) and inside (Col. 3) the telescope FOV in the background template files compared to the cluster files. The former ratio is an indication of the particle (cosmic ray) background rate, while the latter indicates the level of the soft proton background rate. These ratios are plotted as a function of Julian date in Fig. 4.
Table 4: Comparison of parameter fits to the RX J1120.1 observation by Arnaud et al. (2002) (first line) and this work (second line). Here L_x refers to the bolometric luminosity.
Table 5: Summary of cluster parameters for EdS model H₀=50, q₀=0.5. Spectral fitting errors, L, $\beta$ and $r_{\rm c}$ are 1 $\sigma$ on one parameter. Fluxes are the measured, absorbed fluxes in ROSAT band. Fract_r is the fractional correction made from the spectral extraction region, to the total counts within the $r_{\rm v}$ radius after accounting for point source excision, inter-chip gaps loss etc.. The 3rd & 4th rows summarise the data for the case when the core region has been excised from the cluster core. (Except for RX J1701.3, where following the CHANDRA data, we excise a cooling flow enhancement to 120 kpc).
Table A.1: The identifications (XMM-Newton informal ID, nominal RA and Dec ) of point sources that were excised from the spectral and imaging analysis.