All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Combined EPIC MOS1+MOS2 image of the field around SU Aur.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig2.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 2: Combined MOS1+MOS2 light curve of SU Aur, binned in 600 s intervals. The intervals where time-dependent spectral analysis has been performed are indicated by horizontal segments.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig3.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 3: MOS1 spectrum of SU Aur for the entire observation. The MOS2 spectrum is very similar and is not shown for clarity. The best-fit model from the joint MOS1+MOS2 fit is also shown. In the bottom panel the residuals in units of $\chi$ are plotted.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=17.6cm,clip]{7110fig4.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Co-added RGS1 and RGS2 spectra of SU Aur. For a better display the summed spectrum has been rebinned with a bin size of 0.04 Å. The dashed line shows the adopted continuum level. The main lines identified in the spectrum are also indicated. Note that the apparent weakness of the spectrum between 10.5 and 13.5 Å is due to the lack of RGS1 data in this wavelength range because of the failure of CCD 7.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig5.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 5: Emission measure distribution of SU Aur derived from the RGS analysis. Unconstrained EMD components are indicated with a dashed line. The results of the 3-temperature MOS fit are also plotted for comparison ( diamonds).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig6.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 6: Comparison between the observed and predicted fluxes for the lines used in the EMD reconstruction. Points relative to lines formed at the same $\log T_{\rm max}$ have been slightly displaced for clarity. Fe: open diamonds; Ne: filled circles; O: open triangles; Mg: filled triangle; Si: filled square.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig7.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 7: Elemental abundances of SU Aur, relative to the solar abundances of Anders & Grevesse (1989), plotted in order of increasing FIP. Filled diamonds and open squares refer to the abundances derived from RGS and MOS, respectively.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig8.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 8: MOS1+MOS2 light curve of HD 31305. The intervals used for time-dependent spectral analysis are also shown.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig9.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 9: Comparison of the EMD derived for SU Aur (black thick line) with that of the WTTS HD 283572 (red thin line) derived by Scelsi et al. (2005).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig1.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Combined EPIC MOS1+MOS2 image of the field around SU Aur.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig2.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 2: Combined MOS1+MOS2 light curve of SU Aur, binned in 600 s intervals. The intervals where time-dependent spectral analysis has been performed are indicated by horizontal segments.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig3.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 3: MOS1 spectrum of SU Aur for the entire observation. The MOS2 spectrum is very similar and is not shown for clarity. The best-fit model from the joint MOS1+MOS2 fit is also shown. In the bottom panel the residuals in units of $\chi$ are plotted.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig5.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 5: Emission measure distribution of SU Aur derived from the RGS analysis. Unconstrained EMD components are indicated with a dashed line. The results of the 3-temperature MOS fit are also plotted for comparison ( diamonds).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig6.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 6: Comparison between the observed and predicted fluxes for the lines used in the EMD reconstruction. Points relative to lines formed at the same $\log T_{\rm max}$ have been slightly displaced for clarity. Fe: open diamonds; Ne: filled circles; O: open triangles; Mg: filled triangle; Si: filled square.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig7.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 7: Elemental abundances of SU Aur, relative to the solar abundances of Anders & Grevesse (1989), plotted in order of increasing FIP. Filled diamonds and open squares refer to the abundances derived from RGS and MOS, respectively.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig8.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 8: MOS1+MOS2 light curve of HD 31305. The intervals used for time-dependent spectral analysis are also shown.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{7110fig9.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 9: Comparison of the EMD derived for SU Aur (black thick line) with that of the WTTS HD 283572 (red thin line) derived by Scelsi et al. (2005).
Open with DEXTER