All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2113fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: O V (629.732 Å) image of the chosen dataset (s6011r00). It shows on the left the ten raster steps and on the right the positions of the 8 sements each 40 pixels long alongside all the pixels of the relevant raster step. These are denoted as follows: the segment from step 0 as 1(0); the segment from step 1 as 2(1); the segment from step 4 as 3(4); the two segments from step 7 as 4(7L) for the lower one and 5(7U) for the upper one; the two segments from step 8 as 6(8L) for the lower one and 7(8U) for the upper one; the segment from step 9 as 8(9).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2113fig2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Same as Fig. 1 for Mg IX (368.057 Å).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.55cm,clip]{2113fig3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Variation of intensity in the O V (629.732 Å) line along the slit for the 40 pixels long segments chosen.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.55cm,clip]{2113fig4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Same as Fig. 3 for Mg IX (368.057 Å).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=16.5cm,clip]{2113fig5.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Intensity variation compared to the mean spectrum and wavelength shift in velocity units with respect to the mean spectrum of the lines selected for the integral inversion in each segment. Error bars are evaluated combining the measurement errors as in Sect. 3.3. Data points with no bars have uncertainties below the size of the symbols. Note that in segments 1(0) and 2(1) we are unable to obtain a reliable Gaussian fit of the Si XII (520.662 Å) and therefore this line is not reported for such segments.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=11.5cm,clip]{2113fig6.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: DEM from the selected segments compared with the mean spectrum (thick solid line). Above $\log~T$ = 6.0 the DEM is less reliable because of the weakness of the lines. The ratio of each segment's DEM with the mean spectrum DEM ( lower panels) show that the plasma distribution in temperature is essentially the same in all segments except 1(0) and 2(1). These latter show the largest downflow velocities (see Fig. 5).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{2113fig7.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Derived elemental abundances for our CDS s6011r00 observation compared with the Feldman et al. (1992) coronal abundances. Abundances are plotted as ratios with the photospheric values taken from Feldman (1992). The 3- $\sigma$ confidence interval is also reported, obtained for all elements except Mg by a Monte Carlo simulation. The 3- $\sigma$ confidence interval for Mg is obtained by propagation of errors via the Mg/ Ne constraint (see text). Ne is taken as reference.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2113fig8.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: $I_{\rm th}/I_{\rm obs}$ ratio for NIS-1 lines with $(\sigma _0 \chi _i)^2 \le 3$ , excluding also lines affected by unknown blends or large uncertainties in the atomic data (crosses), together with a $I_{\rm th}/I_{\rm obs} = {\rm const.}$ least-square fit.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2113fig9.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Same as Fig. 8 for NIS-2 lines. From the comparison with the previous plot we infer that the error in the NIS-1/NIS-2 cross calibration is at most 10%.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2113fig2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Same as Fig. 1 for Mg IX (368.057 Å).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.55cm,clip]{2113fig3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Variation of intensity in the O V (629.732 Å) line along the slit for the 40 pixels long segments chosen.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.55cm,clip]{2113fig4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Same as Fig. 3 for Mg IX (368.057 Å).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2113fig8.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: $I_{\rm th}/I_{\rm obs}$ ratio for NIS-1 lines with $(\sigma _0 \chi _i)^2 \le 3$ , excluding also lines affected by unknown blends or large uncertainties in the atomic data (crosses), together with a $I_{\rm th}/I_{\rm obs} = {\rm const.}$ least-square fit.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2113fig9.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: Same as Fig. 8 for NIS-2 lines. From the comparison with the previous plot we infer that the error in the NIS-1/NIS-2 cross calibration is at most 10%.
Open with DEXTER