1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\Msun}{{\mbox{$\rm\, M_{\odot}$}}}
44: \newcommand{\kTe}{$kT_{\rm e}$}
45: \newcommand{\rX}{reduced-$\chi^2$}
46:
47: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
48:
49: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
56: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{The plasma structure of the Cygnus Loop}
59: \shortauthors{Tsunemi et al.}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
67: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
68: %% you desire.
69:
70: \title{The Plasma Structure of the Cygnus Loop from the Northeastern
71: Rim to the Southwestern Rim}
72:
73: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
74: %% author and affiliation information.
75: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
76: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
77: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
78: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
79:
80: \author{Hiroshi Tsunemi\altaffilmark{1}, Satoru Katsuda\altaffilmark{1},
81: Norbert Nemes\altaffilmark{1}, and Eric D. Miller\altaffilmark{2}}
82: %\affil{Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate
83: % School of Science, Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka,
84: % Osaka 560-0043, Japan}
85: \email{tsunemi@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp, katsuda@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp,
86: nnemes@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp, milleric@space.mit.edu}
87:
88: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
89: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
90: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
91: %% affiliation.
92:
93: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate
94: School of Science, Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka,
95: Osaka 560-0043, Japan}
96: \altaffiltext{2}{Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research,
97: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.}
98:
99: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
100: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
101: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
102: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
103: %% editorial office after submission.
104:
105: \begin{abstract}
106: The Cygnus Loop was observed from the northeast to the southwest with
107: XMM-Newton. We divided the observed region into two parts, the north
108: path and the south path, and studied the X-ray spectra along two paths.
109: The spectra can be well fitted either by a one-component
110: non-equilibrium ionization (NEI) model or by a two-component NEI model.
111: The rim regions can be well fitted by a one-component model with
112: relatively low \kTe~whose metal abundances are sub-solar (0.1--0.2).
113: The major part of the paths requires a two-component model. Due to
114: projection effects, we concluded that the low \kTe~($\sim$0.2\,keV)
115: component surrounds the high \kTe~($\sim$0.6\,keV) component, with the
116: latter having relatively high metal abundances ($\sim$5 times solar).
117: Since the Cygnus Loop is thought to originate in a cavity explosion,
118: the low \kTe~component originates from the cavity wall while the high
119: \kTe~component originates from the ejecta.
120:
121: The flux of the cavity wall component shows a large variation along our
122: path. We found it to be very thin in the south-west region, suggesting a
123: blowout along our line of sight. The metal distribution inside the
124: ejecta shows non-uniformity, depending on the element. O, Ne and Mg are
125: relatively more abundant in the outer region while Si, S and Fe are
126: concentrated in the inner region, with all metals showing strong
127: asymmetry. This observational evidence implies an asymmetric
128: explosion of the progenitor star. The abundance of the ejecta also
129: indicates the progenitor star to be about 15\,\Msun.
130: \end{abstract}
131:
132: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
133: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
134: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
135: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
136:
137: \keywords{ISM: abundances --- ISM: individual (Cygnus Loop) --- supernova
138: remnants --- X-rays: ISM }
139:
140: \section{Introduction}
141:
142: A supernova remnant (SNR) reflects the abundance of the progenitor star when
143: the remnant is young and that of the interstellar matter (ISM) when it
144: becomes old. In this way, we can study the evolution of the ejecta and
145: the ISM. The Cygnus Loop is a proto-typical middle-aged shell-like SNR.
146: The angular diameter is about 2$^{\circ}$.4 and it is very close to us
147: (540\,pc; Blair et al.\ 2005), implying a diameter of $\sim$23\,pc.
148: The estimated age is about 10000\,years, less than half that based on
149: the previous distance estimate of 770\,pc \cite{minkowski58}.
150:
151: Since the Cygnus Loop is an evolved SNR, the bright shell mainly
152: consists of a shock-heated surrounding material. Its supernova (SN)
153: explosion is generally considered to have occurred in a preexisting
154: cavity \cite{mccray79}. Levenson et al. (1997) found that the Cygnus
155: Loop was a result of a cavity explosion that was created by a star no
156: later than B0. It is almost circular in shape with a break-out in the
157: south where the hot plasma extends out of the circular shape. Miyata et
158: al. (1994) observed the northeast (NE) shell of the Loop with ASCA and
159: revealed the metal deficiency there \cite{miyata94}. Since Dopita et
160: al. (1977) reported the metal deficiency of the ISM around the Cygnus
161: Loop, they concluded that the plasma in the NE-shell is
162: dominated by the ISM. Due to the constraints of the detector efficiency,
163: they assumed that the relative abundances of C, N and O are equal to
164: those of the solar value \cite{anders89}. More recently, Miyata et
165: al. (2007) used the Suzaku satellite
166: \cite{mitsuda07} to observe one pointing position in
167: the NE rim. They detected emission lines from C and N and determined
168: the relative abundances \cite{miyata07}. They concluded that the
169: relative abundances of C, N and O are consistent with those of the solar
170: values whereas the absolute abundances show depletion from the solar
171: values \cite{anders89}. Katsuda et al. (2007)
172: observed four pointings in the NE rim and detected a region where the
173: relative abundances of C and N are a few times higher than that of O.
174:
175: Hatsukade \& Tsunemi (1990) detected a hot plasma inside the Cygnus Loop
176: that is not expected in the simple Sedov model \cite{hatsukade90}. They
177: reported that the hot plasma was confined inside the Loop. Miyata et
178: al. (1998) detected strong emission lines from Si, S and Fe-L from
179: inside the Loop \cite{miyata98}. They found that the metal abundance is
180: at least several times higher than that of the solar value
181: \cite{anders89}, indicating
182: that a few tens of higher than that of the shell region. They
183: concluded that the metal rich plasma was a fossil of the SN explosion.
184: The abundance ratio of Si, S and Fe indicated the progenitor star mass
185: to be 25\Msun. Miyata \& Tsunemi (1999) measured the radial profile
186: inside the Loop and found a discontinuity around 0.9\,R$_\mathrm{s}$
187: where R$_\mathrm{s}$ is the shock radius. They measured
188: the metallicity inside the hot
189: cavity and estimated the progenitor mass to be 15\Msun. Levenson et
190: al. (1998) estimated the size of the cavity and the progenitor mass to
191: be 15\Msun. Therefore, the progenitor star of the Cygnus Loop is a
192: massive star in which the triple-$\alpha$ reaction should have dominated
193: rather than the CNO cycle. If the surrounding material of the Cygnus Loop
194: is contaminated by the stellar activity of the progenitor star, it may
195: explain the C abundance inferred for this region with Suzaku
196: \cite{katsuda07}.
197:
198: In order to study the plasma condition inside the Cygnus Loop, we
199: observed it from the NE rim to the south-west (SW) rim with the
200: XMM-Newton satellite. We report here the result covering a full
201: diameter by seven pointings.
202:
203: \section{Observations}
204:
205: We performed seven pointing observations of the Cygnus Loop so that we
206: could cover the full diameter from the NE rim to the SW rim (from Pos-1
207: to Pos-7) during the AO-1 phase. We concentrate on the data obtained
208: with the EPIC MOS and PN cameras. All the data were taken by using
209: medium filters and the prime full window mode. Fortunately, all the
210: data other than Pos-4 suffered very little from background flares.
211: Obs IDs, the observation date, the nominal point, and the effective
212: exposure times after rejecting the high-background periods are
213: summarized in table~\ref{obs}.
214:
215: All the raw data were processed with version 6.5.0 of the XMM Science
216: Analysis Software (XMMSAS). We selected X-ray events corresponding to
217: patterns 0--12 and 0 for MOS and PN, respectively. We further cleaned
218: the data by removing all the events in bad columns listed in the
219: literature~\cite{kirsch06}. After filtering the data, they were
220: vignetting-corrected using the XMMSAS task {\tt evigweight}. For the
221: background subtraction, we employed the data set accumulated from blank
222: sky observations prepared by \cite{read03}. After adjusting its
223: normalization to the source data by using the energy range between
224: 5\,keV and 12\,keV, where the emission is free from the
225: contamination~\cite{fujita04, sato05}, we subtracted the background data
226: set from the source.
227:
228:
229: \section{Spatially Resolved Spectral Analysis}
230:
231: \subsection{Band image}
232:
233: Figure~\ref{image} displays an exposure-corrected ROSAT HRI image of the
234: entire Cygnus Loop (black and white) overlaid with the XMM-Newton color
235: images of the merged MOS1/2, PN data from all the XMM-Newton
236: observations. In this figure, we allocated color codes as red
237: (0.3--0.52\,keV), green (0.52--1.07\,keV) and blue (1.07--3\,keV). We
238: see that the outer regions are reddish rather than
239: bluish while the central region is in bluish.
240:
241: The NE rim is the brightest in our field of view (FOV), showing a bright
242: filament at $45^{\circ}$ to the radial direction corresponding to
243: NGC6992. The SW rim is also bright in our FOV where there is a V-shape
244: structure \cite{aschenbach99}. In the center of the Loop, an X-ray
245: bright filament runs through Pos-4 and Pos-5 forming a circular
246: structure. In the ROSAT image, we can see it and find that it forms a
247: large circle within the Cygnus Loop. In this way, there are many fine
248: bright filaments in intensity. However, we find that there is a clear
249: intensity variation along our scan path: dim in the center and bright in
250: the rim.
251:
252: Figure~\ref{all_spectra} shows spectra for seven pointings; each is the
253: sum of the entire FOV. The NE rim (Pos-1) and the SW rim (Pos-7) show
254: strong emission lines below 1\,keV including O, Fe-L and Ne, while the
255: center (Pos-4) shows strong emission lines from Si and S. We can see
256: that the equivalent width of Si and S emission lines are bigger in the
257: center and gradually decrease toward the rim. We show the comparison of
258: spectra between Pos-1 and Pos-4 in figure~\ref{spec}. Prominent
259: emission lines are O-He$\alpha$, O-Ly$\alpha$, Fe-L complex,
260: Ne-He$\alpha$, Mg-He$\alpha$, Si-He$\alpha$, and S-He$\alpha$. We see
261: that the emission line shapes for O are quite similar to each other
262: while there is a big difference at higher energy band. Since the
263: spectrum in the NE rim can be well represented by a single temperature
264: plasma model~\cite{miyata94}, we need an extra component in the center.
265:
266: \subsection{Radial profile}
267:
268: Although there are many fine structures, no matter how finely we
269: divide our FOV, each region would contain different plasma conditions
270: due to the integration of the emission along the line of sight.
271: Therefore, we concentrate on large scale structure along the scan path.
272: First of all, we divided our FOV into two parts along the diameter: the
273: north path and the south path. Then we divided them into many small
274: annular sectors whose center is located at (20$^h$51$^m$34$^s$.7,
275: 31$^\circ$00$^\prime$00$^{\prime\prime}$), i.e., the center of the
276: nominal position of Pos-4. There are 141 and 172 annular sectors for
277: the north path and the south path, respectively. These small annular
278: sectors, shown in figure~\ref{image}, are divided such that each has at
279: least 60,000\,photons ($\sim$20,000 for MOS1/2 and $\sim$40,000 for PN)
280: to equalize the statistics. We extracted the spectrum from each sector
281: using the data set accumulated from blank sky observations as sky
282: background. We have confirmed that the emission above 3\,keV is
283: statistically zero. In this way, we obtained 313 spectra. These
284: sectors can be identified by the angular distance, ``R'', from the
285: center (east is negative and west is positive as shown in
286: figure~\ref{image}).
287:
288: The width of the sector depends on R. The sector widths range from
289: 3$^\prime$.8 to 0$^\prime$.2 in the north path and from
290: 3$^\prime$.0 to 0$^\prime$.2 in the south path. The widest sectors are
291: in Pos-4 due to its short exposure because of the background flare. The
292: narrowest sectors are in the NE rim where the surface brightness is the
293: highest.
294:
295: \subsection{Single temperature NEI model}
296:
297: We fitted the spectrum for each sector with an absorbed non-equilibrium
298: ionization (NEI) model with a single $kT_{\rm e}$, using the Wabs
299: \cite{morrison83} and VNEI model (NEI version 2.0) \cite{borkowski01} in
300: XSPEC v\,12.3.1 \cite{arnaud1996}). We fixed the column density,
301: $N_\mathrm{H}$ to be $4.0\times10^{20} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ (e.g., \cite{inoue80},
302: \cite{kahn80}). Free parameters were \kTe; the ionization time scale, $\tau$
303: (a product of the electron density and the elapsed time after the shock
304: heating); the emission measure (hereafter EM; EM = $\int n_{\rm e}n_{\rm
305: H} d\ell$, where $n_{\rm H}$ and $n_{\rm e}$ are the number densities of
306: hydrogens and electrons, $d\ell$ is the plasma depth); and abundances of C,
307: N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Fe, and Ni. We set abundances of C and N equal to
308: that of O, that of Ni equal to Fe, and other elements fixed to the
309: solar values~\cite{anders89}. In the fitting process, we set 20 as the
310: minimum counts in each spectral bin to perform the $\chi^2$ test. We
311: determined the value of the minimum counts such that it did not affect
312: the fitting results. Figure~\ref{chi2_dist} shows the distribution of
313: the \rX\, in black as a function of R along both the north path and
314: the south path. We found that values of \rX~ for all the sectors
315: are between 1.0 and 2.0. If we took into account a systematic
316: error~\cite{nevalainen03, kirsch04} of 5\,\%, the \rX~was around 1.5 or
317: less.
318:
319: In general, values of the \rX\, are a little higher in the central part
320: of the Cygnus Loop. Miyata et al. (1994) observed the NE rim with ASCA
321: and found that the spectra were well represented with a one-temperature
322: VNEI model with a temperature gradient towards the inside. The Suzaku
323: observation in the NE rim~\cite{miyata07} reveals that the X-ray
324: spectrum can be represented by a two-temperature model: one component is
325: 0.2--0.35\,keV and the other is 0.09--0.15\,keV. In our fitting, the value of
326: \kTe~obtained is 0.2--0.25\,keV. Therefore, we detected a hot component
327: that Suzaku detected. There may be an additional component with low
328: temperature that seems difficult to detect with
329: XMM-Newton due to the relatively lower sensitivity below 0.5\,keV
330: compared to Suzaku.
331:
332: The ASCA observation \cite{miyata94} also shows that the metal abundance
333: in the NE rim is deficient. The authors concluded that the plasma in
334: the NE-rim
335: consists of the interstellar matter (ISM) rather than the ejecta. This
336: is confirmed with the Suzaku observation \cite{miyata07} that indicates the
337: abundances of C, N and O to be $\sim$0.1, 0.05 and 0.1 solar , respectively.
338: We also obtained the metal deficiency in the NE rim data; the best-fit
339: results are given in figure~\ref{ex_spec} (left) and in table~\ref{param1}.
340: Leahy (2004) measured the X-ray spectrum of the southwest region of the
341: Cygnus Loop and reported that the oxygen abundance there is about 0.22
342: solar \cite{leahy04}. Therefore, the X-ray measurements of the Cygnus
343: Loop show that the metal abundances are depleted.
344:
345: Cartledge et al.\ (2004) measured the interstellar oxygen along 36 sight
346: lines and confirmed the homogeneity of the O/H ratio within 800\,pc of
347: the Sun. We found that they measured it in the direction about
348: $5^\circ$ away from the Cygnus Loop. The oxygen abundance they measured is
349: about 0.4 times the solar value \cite{anders89}. Wilms et
350: al.\ (2000) employed 0.6 of the total interstellar abundances for the
351: gas-phase ISM oxygen abundance, and suggest that this depletion may be
352: due to grains. Although the ISM near the Cygnus Loop may be
353: depleted, the abundances are still much higher than what we obtained at
354: the rim of
355: the Cygnus Loop. It is difficult to explain such a low abundance of
356: oxygen in material originating from the ISM. Therefore, the
357: origin of the low metal abundance is open to the question. Since the
358: Cygnus Loop is thought to have exploded in a pre-existing cavity, we
359: can say that the cavity material shows low metal abundance. The
360: abundance difference between our data and those from Suzaku may be due
361: to the difference in the detection efficiency at low energy. Taking
362: into account the projection effect, the plasma of the rim regions
363: consists only of the cavity material while that of the inner regions
364: consists both of the cavity material and of an extra component filling
365: the interior of the Loop.
366:
367: \subsection{Two-temperature NEI model}
368:
369: To further constrain the plasma conditions, we applied a two-component
370: NEI model with different temperatures. In this model, we added an extra
371: component to the single
372: temperature model. The extra component is also an absorbed VNEI model
373: with \kTe, $\tau$, and EM as free parameters. The metal
374: abundances of the extra component are fixed to those determined at the
375: NE rim so that the extra component represents the cavity material.
376: Figure~\ref{chi2_dist} shows \rX~values in red along the path. Applying
377: the $F$-test with a significance level of 99\% to determine whether or
378: not an extra component is needed, we found that most of the spectra
379: required a two-component model, particularly in the central part of the
380: Loop. Sectors that do not require two-component model are mainly
381: clustered in R$<$-65$^\prime$, +25$^\prime<$R$<+40^\prime$, and
382: +60$^\prime<$R. Therefore, we considered that the outer sectors
383: ($\mid$R$\mid >70^\prime$) can be safely represented by a one-component
384: model while other sectors can be represented by a two-component model. In
385: this way, we performed the analysis by applying a two-component VNEI
386: model with different temperatures. We assumed that the low temperature
387: component comes from the surrounding region of the Cygnus Loop and the
388: high temperature component occupies the interior of the Loop.
389:
390: We found that the values of \rX~are 1.0--1.8 even employing a
391: two-component model. This is partly due to the systematic
392: errors. Looking at the image in detail, there are fine structures within
393: the sector. Furthermore, the spectrum from each sector is an
394: integration along the line of sight. Since we only employ two VNEI
395: plasma models, the values of \rX~ are mainly due to the simplicity of the
396: plasma model employed here. Therefore, we think that the plasma
397: parameters obtained will represent typical values in each sector.
398:
399: Figure~\ref{ex_spec} (right) and table~\ref{param2} shows an example
400: result that comes from the sector at R=$+10^\prime$. Fixed parameters
401: in the low \kTe~component come from the fitting result at the NE rim
402: obtained by Suzaku observations \cite{Uchida06}. Metal abundances for
403: the high \kTe~component show higher values by an order of magnitude than
404: those of the low \kTe~component, surely confirming that the high
405: \kTe~component is dominated by fossil ejecta.
406:
407: Figure~\ref{kT_dist} shows temperatures as a function of position. The
408: low \kTe~component is in the temperature range of 0.12--0.34\,keV while
409: the high \kTe~component is above 0.35\,keV. There is a clear temperature
410: difference where a two-component model is required rather than a single
411: temperature model. The low \kTe~component represents the cavity
412: material surrounding the Cygnus Loop while the high \kTe~component
413: represents the fossil ejecta inside the Loop.
414: Figure~\ref{flux_dist} shows the fluxes for the two components as a function
415: of position. The low \kTe~component shows clear rim brightening. The
416: east part is stronger than the west part, showing asymmetry of the Loop.
417: On the other hand, the high \kTe~component has a relatively flat radial
418: dependence. From the center to the SW, we see that the flux of the high
419: \kTe~component is stronger than that of the low \kTe~component.
420:
421: \subsubsection{Distribution of the cavity material}
422:
423: As shown in figure~\ref{kT_dist}, the low \kTe~component shows
424: relatively constant temperature with radius. The distribution of the
425: flux shown in figure~\ref{flux_dist} shows peaks in the rim and
426: relatively low values inside the Loop. There are some differences
427: between the north path and the south path. The biggest one is a clear
428: difference
429: in peak position in the NE rim that is due to the bright filament at
430: $45^{\circ}$ to the radial direction, as seen in
431: figure~\ref{image}. However, these two paths show a globally similar
432: behavior in flux. Therefore, we can see that they are quite similar to
433: each other from a large scale point of view.
434:
435: We notice that there are many aspects showing asymmetry and
436: non-uniformity. The NE half is stronger in intensity than the SW half.
437: The flux in the inner part of the Loop shows relatively small values in
438: the west half, particularly at +25$^\prime<$R$<+40^\prime$. The NE half
439: is brighter by a factor of 5--10 than the SW half. Furthermore,
440: the SW half shows stronger intensity variation than the NE half.
441: This suggests that the thickness of the cavity shell is far from
442: uniform. The cavity shell in the SW half is much thinner than that in
443: the NE half. Since we assumed the metal abundances of the low
444: \kTe~component equal to those of the NE rim, we can calculate the EM.
445: Furthermore, we assumed the ambient density to be 0.7\,cm$^{-3}$ based
446: on the observation of the NE rim, and we estimate the mass of the low
447: \kTe~component to be 130\,\Msun. However, we should note that there are
448: is evidence that the SN explosion which produced the Cygnus
449: Loop occurred within a preexisting cavity (e.g., Hester et al.\ 1994;
450: Levenson et al.\ 1998; Levenson et al.\ 1999). The model predicts that the
451: original cavity density, $n_c$, is related to the wall density
452: $n_s$ by $n_c = 5$. Assuming that $n_0$ equals the ambient density,
453: $n_s$, we estimate $n_c$ to be 0.14 cm$^{-3}$. Then, we calculate the total
454: mass in the preexisting cavity to be $\sim$25 M$_\odot$.
455:
456:
457: \subsubsection{Ejecta distribution}
458:
459: The flux distribution from the ejecta along the path is shown with filled
460: circles in figure~\ref{flux_dist}. It has a relatively flat structure
461: with two troughs around R=$-35^\prime$ and R=+50$^\prime$. Since we
462: left the metal abundances as free parameters, we obtained distributions
463: of EM of various metals (C=N=O, Fe=Ni, Ne, Mg, Si and S) in the ejecta.
464: These are shown in figure~\ref{metal_dist}, where black crosses trace
465: the north path and red crosses trace along the south path. If we assume
466: uniform plasma conditions along the line of sight, the EM represents the
467: mass of the metal. Most elements show similar structure between the
468: north path and the south path while there is a big discrepancy in Fe/Ni
469: distribution at $-10^\prime <$ R $< +30^\prime$. In this region, the
470: south path shows two times more abundant Fe/Ni than the north path. A
471: similar discrepancy is seen in O ($-30^\prime <$ R $< -10^\prime$) and
472: in Ne (at $-10^\prime <$ R $< +10^\prime$). Therefore, the distribution
473: of metal abundance shows a north-south asymmetry along the path.
474:
475: The distributions of O and Ne show a central bump and increase at the
476: outer sectors. However, those of Mg, Si, S and Fe only show a central
477: bump. The increase of O and Ne at the outer sectors indicates that the
478: outer parts of the ejecta mainly consists of O and Ne and they may be
479: well mixed. Similarly heavy elements, Mg, Si, S and Fe/Ni forming
480: central bumps may show that they are well mixed. Therefore, a
481: significant convection has occurred in the central bumps while an
482: ``onion-skin'' structure remains in the outer sectors.
483:
484: \section{Discussion}
485:
486: The Cygnus Loop appears to be almost circular with a blowout in the
487: south. The ROSAT image indicates no clear shell in this blowout
488: region. Levenson et al. (1997) revealed that there is a thin shell left
489: at the edge of the blowout region. Therefore, there is a small amount
490: of cavity material in this region that surrounds the ejecta. This also
491: indicates the non-uniformity of the cavity wall. If the cavity wall is
492: thin, the ejecta can produce a blowout structure.
493:
494: Looking at the component of the cavity material along our path shown in
495: figure~\ref{flux_dist}, the flux is very weak at
496: +15$^\prime<$R$<+40^\prime$. This indicates that the cavity wall is
497: very thin in this region. When we calculate the flux ratio between the
498: ejecta plasma and the cavity material, we find that the ratio becomes
499: high (larger than 4) at +15$^\prime<$R$<+35^\prime$ in the north path
500: and +30$^\prime<$R$<+35^\prime$ in the south path. Therefore, we guess that
501: the thin shell region is larger in the north path than in the south
502: path. This also shows the asymmetry between the north and the south as
503: well as that between the east and the west. If the thin shell region
504: corresponds to a blowout similar to that in the south blowout, this
505: region must have a blowout structure along the line of sight either in
506: the near side or far side or both. This structure roughly corresponds
507: to Pos-5 and will extend further in the northwest direction. Looking at
508: the ROSAT image in figure~\ref{image}, we see a circular region with low
509: intensity. It is centered at (20$^h$49$^m$11$^s$,
510: 31$^\circ$05$^\prime$20$^{\prime\prime}$) with a radius of 30$^\prime$.
511: We guess that this circular region corresponds to a possible blowout in
512: the direction of our line of sight. CCD observation just north of
513: our path will answer this hypothesis.
514:
515: We obtained EMs of O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe for the ejecta along the
516: north path and the south path. Multiplying the EMs by the area of each
517: sector, we obtained emission integral (hereafter EI, EI$=\int
518: n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H} dV$, $dV$ is the X-ray-emitting volume) along
519: the path. Since we only observed the limited area of the Cygnus Loop
520: from the NE rim to the SW rim, we have to estimate the EIs for the
521: entire remnant in order to obtain the relative abundances as well as the
522: total mass of the ejecta. Therefore, we divide our observation region
523: into four parts: left-north part, right-north part, left-south part, and
524: right-south part. We assume that each part represents the average EIs
525: of the corresponding quadrant of the Loop.
526: In this way, we can calculate the total EIs for O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe
527: that are described in table~\ref{emission_integral}. The south
528: quadrant, corresponding to the right-south path, contains the largest
529: mass fraction of 31\%, while the other quadrants contain 23\% each. Then, we
530: calculate the relative abundances of Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe to O in the
531: entire ejecta. Since we cannot measure the abundance of light elements
532: like He, it is quite difficult to estimate the absolute abundances.
533: However, the relative abundance to O is robust.
534:
535: Since the Cygnus Loop is believed to be a result from a core-collapse
536: SN, we compared our data with core-collapse SN models. There are many
537: theoretical results from various authors (e.g.,
538: Woosley \& Weaver 1995; Thielemann et al.\ 1996; Rauscher et al.\ 2002;
539: Tominaga et al.\ 2007). We also employed a SN Type Ia model
540: \cite{iwamoto99} for comparison. We calculated the relative
541: abundance for various elements to O and compared them with models.
542: Figure~\ref{rel_abund} shows comparisons between the model
543: calculations and our results where we picked up Woosley's model with
544: one solar abundance \cite{anders89} for the core-collapse case
545: \cite{woosley95}. The Type Ia model yields more Si, S and Fe than our
546: results, but less Ne.
547: Models with massive stars produce better fits to our results than the Type
548: Ia model. Among them, we found that the model with 15\,\Msun~showed
549: good fits to our results. They fit within a factor of two with an
550: exception of Fe. We also noticed that the model with one solar
551: abundance looked better fit than that with depleted abundance.
552: Therefore, we can conclude that the Cygnus Loop originated from
553: an approximately 15\,\Msun~star with one solar abundance.
554:
555: Assuming that the ejecta density is uniform along the line of sight, we
556: estimate the total mass of the fossil ejecta to be 21\,\Msun. In
557: this calculation, we assumed that the electron density is equal to that
558: of hydrogen and that the plasma filling factor is unity, although the
559: fossil ejecta might be deficient in hydrogen. If it is the case, the
560: total mass of the fossil ejecta reduces to $\sim$12,\,\Msun~whereas
561: the relative abundances are not affected. The most suitable
562: nucleosynthetic model predicts that the total mass ejected is about
563: 6\,\Msun~without H. Therefore, there might be a significant amount of
564: contamination from the swept-up matter into the high-\kTe~component,
565: which we consider the ejecta. Otherwise, the assumption that the
566: density of the ejecta is uniform might be incorrect since
567: rim-brightening for the EMs of O, Ne, Mg, and Fe is clearly seen in
568: Fig.~\ref{metal_dist}. Non-uniformity reduces the filling factor and also the
569: mass of the high-\kTe~component.
570:
571: There is observational evidence of the asymmetry of supernova
572: explosions both for massive stars~\cite{leonard06} and for Type
573: Ia~\cite{motohara06}. We found that the ejecta plasma shows asymmetric
574: structure between NE half and SW half. Ne and Fe are evenly divided
575: while two thirds of O and Mg are in the NE half. On the contrary, two
576: third of Si and S are in the SW half. We calculated the ejecta mass for
577: each quadrant and found that the south quadrant contains the largest
578: ejecta mass. Similar asymmetries are seen in other SNR, such as Puppis A,
579: which shows asymmetric structure with O-rich, fast-moving knots
580: (Winkler \& Kirscher 1985; Winkler et al.\ 1988) . The central compact
581: object in Puppis~A is on the opposite side of the SNR from the O-rich,
582: fast-moving knots \cite{petre96}. If the asymmetry of the ejecta in the
583: Cygnus Loop is similar to that of Puppis A, we may expect a compact
584: object to be in the north direction.
585:
586: \section{Conclusion}
587:
588: We have observed the Cygnus Loop along the diameter from the NE rim to
589: the SW rim employing XMM Newton. The FOV is divided into two paths: the
590: north path and the south path. Then it is divided into many small
591: annuli so that each annulus contains a similar number of photons to
592: preserve statistics.
593:
594: The spectra from the rim regions can be expressed by a
595: one-\kTe~component model while those in the inner region require a
596: two-\kTe~component model. The low
597: \kTe~plasma shows relatively low metal abundance and covers the entire
598: FOV. It forms a shell that originates from the preexisting cavity. The
599: high \kTe~plasma shows high metal abundance and occupies a large part of
600: the FOV. The origins of these two components are different: the high
601: \kTe~plasma with the high metal abundance must come from the ejecta while
602: low \kTe~plasma with low metal abundance must come from the cavity
603: material. We find that the thickness of the shell is very thin in the
604: south west part where, we guess, the ejecta plasma is blow out in the
605: direction of our line of sight.
606:
607: We estimate the mass of the metals. Based on the relative metal
608: abundance, we find that the Cygnus Loop originated from a
609: 15\,\Msun~star. The distribution of the ejecta is asymmetric,
610: suggesting an asymmetric explosion.
611:
612: \acknowledgments
613:
614: This work is partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
615: by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
616: (16002004). This study is also carried out as part of the 21st Century
617: COE Program, \lq{\it Towards a new basic science: depth and
618: synthesis}\rq. S. K. is supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young
619: Scientists.
620:
621:
622: %\end{document}
623: \newpage
624:
625: \begin{thebibliography}{}
626:
627: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse 1989]{anders89}
628: Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, {\bf 53}, 197
629: \bibitem[Arnaud 1996]{arnaud1996}
630: Arnaud, K. A. 1996, ASP Conf. Ser., {\bf 101}, 17
631: \bibitem[Aschenbach \& Leahy 1999]{aschenbach99}
632: Ashcehnbach, B. \& Leahy, D. A. 1999, A\&A, {\bf 341}, 602
633: \bibitem[Burrows \& Hayes 1996]{burrows96}
634: Burrows, Adam; Hayes, John, 1996, Physical Review Letters, {\bf 76}, 352
635: \bibitem[Blair et al.\ 2005]{blair05}
636: Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., \& Raymond, J. C., 2005, AJ, {\bf 129}, 2268
637: %\bibitem[Borkowski et al.\ 1994]{borkowski94}
638: % Borkowski, K. J., Sarazin, C. L., \& Blondin, J. M. 1994, ApJ, {\bf 429}, 710
639: \bibitem[Borkowski et al.\ 2001]{borkowski01}
640: Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., \& Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, {\bf 548}, 820
641: \bibitem[Cartledge et al.\ 2004]{cartledge2004}
642: Cartledge, S. I. B., Lauroesch, J. T., Meyer, D. M., \& Sofia,
643: U. J. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1037
644: %\bibitem[Cox \& Franco 1981]{cox81}
645: % Cox, D. P., \& Franco, J. 1981, ApJ, {\bf 251}, 687
646: \bibitem[Dopita et al.\ 1977]{dopita77}
647: Dopita, M. A., Mathewson, D. S., and Ford, V. L. 1977, ApJ, {\bf 214}, 179
648: \bibitem[Fujita et al.\ 2004]{fujita04}
649: Fujita, Y., Sarazin, C. L., Reiprich, T. H., Andernach, H., Ehle, M., Murgia, M., Rudnich, L., \& Slee, O. B. 2004, ApJ, {\bf 616}, 157
650: \bibitem[Ghavamian et al.\ 2001]{ghavamian01}
651: Ghavamian, P., Raymond, John., Smith, R. C., \& Hartigan, P. 2001, ApJ, {\bf 547}, L995
652: %\bibitem[Hamilton et al.\ 1983]{hamilton83}
653: % Hamilton, A. J. S., Sarazin, C. L., \& Chevalier, R. A. 1983, ApJS, {\bf 51}, 115
654: \bibitem[Hatsukade \& Tsunemi 1990]{hatsukade90}
655: Hatsukade, I., \& Tsunemi, H. 1990, ApJ, {\bf 362}, 566
656: \bibitem[Hester et al.\ 1994]{hester94}
657: Hester, J. J., Raymond, J. C., \& Blair, W. P. 1994, ApJ, {\bf 420}, 721
658: \bibitem[Inoue et al.\ 1980]{inoue80}
659: Inoue, H., Koyama, K., Matsuoka, M., Ohashi, T., Tanaka, Y.,
660: Tsunemi, H. 1980 ApJ, {\bf 238} 886
661: \bibitem[Iwamoto et al.\ 1999]{iwamoto99}
662: Iwamoto, Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., Kishimoto, N., Umeda, H.,
663: Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F. K., 1999, ApJS, {\bf 125}, 439
664: \bibitem[Kahn et al.\ 1980]{kahn80}
665: Kahn, S. M., Charles, P. A., Bowyer, S., Blissett, R. J. 1980,
666: ApJ, {\bf 242}, L19
667: \bibitem[Katsuda et al.\ 2007]{katsuda07}
668: Katsuda, S., Tsunemi, H., Uchida, H., Miyata, E., Nemes, N.,
669: Miller, E. D., and Hughes, J. P. 2007, PASJ in press
670: \bibitem[Kirsch 2004]{kirsch04}
671: Kirsch, M. 2004, EPIC status of calibration and data analysis,
672: XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0018, issue 2.3
673: \bibitem[Kirsch 2006]{kirsch06}
674: Kirsch, M. 2006, XMM-EPIC status of calibration and data
675: analysis, XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0018,
676: issue 2.5
677: \bibitem[Leahy 2004]{leahy04}
678: Leahy, D. A. 2004, MNRAS, {\bf 351}, 385
679: \bibitem[Leonard et al.\ 2006]{leonard06}
680: Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V., Ganeshalingam, M., Serduke,
681: F. J. D., Li, W., Swift, B. J.,
682: Gal-Yam, A., Foley, R. J., Fox, D. B., Park, S., Hoffman, J. L., and Wong, D. S., 2006, Nature, {\bf 440}, 505.
683: \bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1997]{levenson97}
684: Levenson, N. A., et al., 1997, ApJ, {\bf 484}, 304.
685: \bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1998]{levenson98}
686: Levenson, N. A., Graham, J. R., Keller, L. D., Richter,
687: M. J. 1998, ApJS, {\bf 118}, 541
688: \bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1999]{levenson99}
689: Levenson, N. A., Graham, J. R., \& Snowden, S. L. 1999, ApJ,
690: {\bf 526}, 874.
691: %\bibitem[Liedahl et al.\ 1995]{liedahl95}
692: % Liedahl, D. A., Osterheld, A. L., \& Goldstein, W. H. 1995, ApJ,
693: {\bf 438}, L115
694: \bibitem[McCray \& Snow 1979]{mccray79}
695: McCray, R. \& Snow, T. P., Jr. 1979, ARA\&A, {\bf 17}, 213.
696: \bibitem[Minkowski 1958]{minkowski58}
697: Minkowski, R., Rev. Mod. Phys. 1958, {\bf 30}, 1048.
698: \bibitem[Mitsuda et al.\ 2007]{mitsuda07}
699: Mitsuda, K. et al., 2007, PASJ, {\bf 59S}, 1.
700: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 1994]{miyata94}
701: Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Pisarki, R., and Kissel, S. E. 1994,
702: PASJ, {\bf 46}, L101
703: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 1998]{miyata98}
704: Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Kohmura, T., Suzuki, S., and Kumagai,
705: S. 1998, PASJ, {\bf 50}, 257
706: \bibitem[Miyata \& Tsunemi 1999]{miyata99}
707: Miyata, E., \& Tsunemi, H. 1999, ApJ, {\bf 525}, 305
708: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 2007]{miyata07}
709: Miyata, E., Katsuda, S., Tsunemi, H., Hughes, J. P., Kokubun,
710: M., \& Porter, F. S. 2007, PASJ, {\bf 59S}, 163.
711: \bibitem[Morrison \& McCammon 1983]{morrison83}
712: Morrison, R. \& McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, {\bf 270}, 119
713: \bibitem[Motohara et al.\ 2006]{motohara06}
714: Motohara, K., Maeda, Keiichi, G., Christopher L.,
715: Nomoto, K., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., Ohkubo, T.,
716: Mazzali, P. A., Fesen, R. A., Hoflich, P., Wheeler, J. C.
717: 2006, ApJ. {\bf 652} L101
718: \bibitem[Nevalainen et al.\ 2003]{nevalainen03}
719: Nevalainen, J., Lieu, R., Bonamente, M., \& Lumb, D. 2003, ApJ,
720: {\bf 584}, L716
721: \bibitem[Petre et al.\ 1996]{petre96}
722: Petre, R., Becker, C. M., \& Winkler, P. F. 1996, ApJ, {\bf 456}, L43
723: %\bibitem[Rappaport et al., 1974]{rappaport74}
724: % Rappaport, S., Doxsey, R., Solinger, A., and Borken, R. 1974,
725: % ApJ, {\bf 194}, 329
726: \bibitem[Rauscher et al.\ 2002]{rauscher02}
727: Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E. 2002,
728: ApJ, {\bf 576}, 323
729: \bibitem[Read \& Ponman 2003]{read03}
730: Read, A., M., \& Ponman, T. J. 2003, A\&A, {\bf 409}, 395
731: \bibitem[Sato et al.\ 2005]{sato05}
732: Sato, K., Furusho, T., Yamasaki, Y., Ishida M., Matsushida, K.,
733: and Ohashi, T. 2005, PASJ, {\bf 57}, 743
734: %\bibitem[Sedov 1959]{sedov59}
735: % Sedov, L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in
736: % Mechanics (10th ed.; New York: Academic)
737: \bibitem[Thielemann et al.\ 1996]{thielemann96}
738: Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M., 1996, ApJ,
739: {\bf 460}, 408
740: \bibitem[Tominaga et al.\ 2007]{tominaga07}
741: Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K. in prep.
742: \bibitem[Uchida et al.\ 2006]{Uchida06}
743: Uchida, H. Katsuda, S., Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Hughes, J. P.,
744: Kokubun, M., \& Porter, F. S. 2006, Suzaku Conference in Kyoto
745: %\bibitem[Vink 1996]{vink96}
746: % Vink, 1996
747: \bibitem[Wilms et al.\ 2000]{wilms00}
748: Wilms, J., Allen, A., and McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, {\bf 542}, 914
749: \bibitem[Winkler et al.\ 1985]{winkler85}
750: Winkler, P. F. \& Kirshner, R. P. 1985, ApJ, {\bf 299}, 981
751: \bibitem[Winkler et al.\ 1988]{winkler88}
752: Winkler, P. F., Tuttle, J. H., Kirshner, R. P., \& Irwin, M.,
753: J. 1988, in IAU Colloq. 101: Supernova Remnants and
754: the Interstellar Medium, ed. R. S. Roger \&
755: T. L. Landecker, 65-+
756: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver 1995]{woosley95}
757: Woosley, S. E. \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, {\bf 101}, 181
758:
759: \end{thebibliography}
760:
761:
762: %\end{document}
763:
764: \begin{table*}
765: \begin{center}
766: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
767: \caption{Summary of the seven observations.}
768: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
769: \hline\hline
770: Obs. ID &Camera &Obs. Date& Coordinate (RA, DEC) &Effective Exposure\\
771: \hline
772: 0082540101 & MOS1 & 2002-11-25 & 20$^h$55$^m$23$^s$.6,
773: 31$^\circ$46$^\prime$17$^{\prime\prime}$.0 & 14.1\,ksec\\
774: (Pos-1) & MOS2 & & & 14.1\,ksec\\
775: & PN & & & 5.6\,ksec\\
776: \hline
777: 0082540201 & MOS1 & 2002-12-03 & 20$^h$54$^m$07$^s$.4,
778: 31$^\circ$30$^\prime$51.4$^{\prime\prime}$.0 & 14.4\,ksec\\
779: (Pos-2) & MOS2 & & & 14.4\,ksec\\
780: & PN & & & 11.7\,ksec\\
781: \hline
782: 0082540301 & MOS1 & 2002-12-05 & 20$^h$52$^m$51$^s$.1,
783: 31$^\circ$15$^\prime$25$^{\prime\prime}$.7 & 11.6\,ksec\\
784: (Pos-3) & MOS2 & & & 11.6\,ksec\\
785: & PN & & & 9.1\,ksec\\
786: \hline
787: 0082540401 & MOS1 & 2002-12-07 & 20$^h$51$^m$34$^s$.7,
788: 31$^\circ$00$^\prime$00$^{\prime\prime}$.0 & 4.9\,ksec\\
789: (Pos-4) & MOS2 & & & 4.9\,ksec\\
790: & PN & & & 3.4\,ksec\\
791: \hline
792: 0082540501 & MOS1 & 2002-12-09 & 20$^h$50$^m$18$^s$.4,
793: 30$^\circ$44$^\prime$34$^{\prime\prime}$.3 & 12.6\,ksec\\
794: (Pos-5) & MOS2 & & & 12.6\,ksec\\
795: & PN & & & 10.0\,ksec\\
796: \hline
797: 0082540601 & MOS1 & 2002-12-11 & 20$^h$49$^m$02$^s$.0,
798: 30$^\circ$28$^\prime$16$^{\prime\prime}$.1 & 11.5\,ksec\\
799: (Pos-6) & MOS2 & & & 11.5\,ksec\\
800: & PN & & & 5.9\,ksec\\
801: \hline
802: 0082540701 & MOS1 & 2002-12-13 & 20$^h$47$^m$45$^s$.8,
803: 30$^\circ$13$^\prime$42$^{\prime\prime}$.9 & 13.5\,ksec\\
804: (Pos-7) & MOS2 & & & 13.5\,ksec\\
805: & PN & & & 7.5\,ksec\\
806: \hline
807: \label{obs}
808: \end{tabular}
809: \end{center}
810: \end{table*}
811:
812: \begin{table*}
813: \begin{center}
814: \caption{Spectral-fit parameters.}
815: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
816: \begin{tabular}{lc}
817: \hline\hline
818: Parameter & region$-74.25$\\
819: \hline
820: $N_{\rm H} [10^{20}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$]\dotfill & 4 (fixed)\\
821: \hline
822: $kT_{\rm e}$[keV] \dotfill & 0.23 $\pm$0.01\\
823: O(=C=N) \dotfill& 0.068 $\pm$0.002\\
824: Ne\dotfill& 0.17$\pm$0.01 \\
825: Mg\dotfill& 0.14$\pm$0.03 \\
826: Si\dotfill& 0.3$\pm$0.1 \\
827: S\dotfill& 0.6$\pm$0.2 \\
828: Fe(=Ni)\dotfill& 0.157$\pm$0.006 \\
829: log$(\tau /\rm cm^{-3}\,sec)$ \dotfill & 11.31 $\pm$0.02\\
830: EM$^1$[$\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-5}$]\dotfill& 11.0$^{+1.4}_{-0.5}$\\
831: \hline
832:
833: $\chi^2$/d.o.f. \dotfill &420/314 \\
834:
835: \hline
836: & \\%[-10pt]
837: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Note. Other elements are fixed to solar values.}\\
838: \multicolumn{2}{l}{The values of abundances are multiples of solar value.}\\
839: \multicolumn{2}{l}{The errors are in the range $\Delta\,\chi^2\,<\,2.7$ on one parameter.}\\
840: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$^1$EM denotes emission measure, $\int n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H} d\ell$.}\\
841: \label{param1}
842: \end{tabular}
843: \end{center}
844: \end{table*}
845:
846:
847: \begin{table*}
848: \begin{center}
849: \caption{Spectral-fit parameters.}
850: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
851: \begin{tabular}{lc}
852: \hline\hline
853: Parameter & region$+10$\\
854: \hline
855: $N_{\rm H} [10^{20}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$]\dotfill & 4 (fixed)\\
856: \hline
857: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Low temperature component}\\
858: $kT_{\rm e}$[keV] \dotfill & 0.20 $\pm$0.01\\
859: C \dotfill& 0.27 (fixed) \\
860: N \dotfill& 0.10 (fixed) \\
861: O \dotfill& 0.11 (fixed) \\
862: Ne\dotfill& 0.21 (fixed)\\
863: Mg\dotfill& 0.17 (fixed) \\
864: Si\dotfill& 0.34 (fixed)\\
865: S\dotfill& 0.17 (fixed)\\
866: Fe(=Ni)\dotfill& 0.20 (fixed)\\
867: log$(\tau /\rm cm^{-3}\,sec)$ \dotfill & $12 <$\\
868: EM$^1$[$\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-5}$]\dotfill& 1.34$^{+0.03}_{--0.04}$\\
869: \hline
870:
871: \multicolumn{2}{c}{High temperature component}\\
872: $kT_{\rm e}$[keV] \dotfill & 0.48 $\pm$0.01\\
873: O(=C=N) \dotfill& $<$0.01\\
874: Ne\dotfill& 0.15 $^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$\\
875: Mg\dotfill& 0.21$\pm$0.08\\
876: Si\dotfill& 2.5$\pm$0.3\\
877: S\dotfill& 5$\pm$1\\
878: Fe(=Ni)\dotfill& 1.03$\pm$0.04\\
879: log$(\tau /\rm cm^{-3}\,sec)$\dotfill &11.12$\pm$0.05\\
880: EM$^1$[$\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-5}$]\dotfill& 0.094$^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$\\
881: \hline
882: $\chi^2$/d.o.f. \dotfill &531/377 \\
883:
884: \hline
885: & \\%[-10pt]
886: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Note. Other elements are fixed to solar values.}\\
887: \multicolumn{2}{l}{The values of abundances are multiples of solar value.}\\
888: \multicolumn{2}{l}{The errors are in the range $\Delta\,\chi^2\,<\,2.7$ on one parameter.}\\
889: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$^1$EM denotes emission measure, $\int n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H} d\ell$.}\\
890: \label{param2}
891: \end{tabular}
892: \end{center}
893: \end{table*}
894:
895:
896: \begin{table*}
897: \begin{center}
898: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
899: \caption{Calculated emission integral of the Cygnus Loop ejecta.}
900: \begin{tabular}{lc}
901: \hline\hline
902: Element & 10$^{53}$\,cm$^{-3}$\\
903: \hline
904: O & 7.4$\pm$0.5\\
905: Ne & 1.5$\pm$0.2 \\
906: Mg & 0.34$\pm$0.1\\
907: Si & 2.9$\pm$0.5 \\
908: S & 1.2$\pm$0.3\\
909: Fe & 1.30$\pm$0.05 \\
910: \hline
911: \label{emission_integral}
912: \end{tabular}
913: \end{center}
914: \end{table*}
915:
916: \begin{figure}
917: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.45]{f1.eps}
918: \caption{Left: Exposure-corrected ROSAT HRI image of the entire Cygnus
919: Loop (black and white) overlaid with the XMM-Newton color images of the
920: merged MOS1/2, PN data from all the XMM-Newton observations.
921: Right: Spectral extraction regions overlaid on the XMM-Newton
922: three-color image shown in left figure.}
923: \label{image}
924: \end{figure}
925:
926:
927: \begin{figure}
928: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1]{f2.eps}
929: \caption{MOS1 spectra for the seven pointings; each is the sum of the entire FOV.}
930: \label{all_spectra}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933: \begin{figure}
934: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f3.eps}
935: \caption{Comparison of spectra between Pos-1 (circles) and Pos-4
936: (triangles). They are equalized in intensity at O-He$\alpha$.
937: }
938: \label{spec}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f4.eps}
943: \caption{Distribution of the \rX\, as a function of R along the
944: north path (upper panel) and the south path (lower panel). The
945: single-component model is shown in black and the two-component model is
946: shown in red.}
947: \label{chi2_dist}
948: \end{figure}
949:
950: \begin{figure}
951: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f5.eps}
952: \caption{Left: An example spectrum that comes from the sector at
953: R=$-74.25^\prime$. The best-fit curves are shown with solid lines and
954: the lower panels show the residuals. Right: Same as left but for the
955: sector at R=$+10^\prime$. Both the ejecta and cavity components are
956: shown only for MOS1 spectrum as dashed lines.}
957: \label{ex_spec}
958: \end{figure}
959:
960: \begin{figure}
961: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f6.eps}
962: \caption{Temperature distributions of the two components as a function of
963: position.
964: Filled circles show the ejecta component, while crosses show the cavity
965: component. Black show the north path and red shows the south path.
966: Typical errors are $\pm$5\% for both components.
967: }
968: \label{kT_dist}
969: \end{figure}
970:
971: \begin{figure}
972: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f7.eps}
973: \caption{Flux distributions of the two components as a function of position.
974: The marks in this figure are the same as those in
975: figure~\ref{kT_dist}.}
976: \label{flux_dist}
977: \end{figure}
978:
979: \begin{figure}
980: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.8]{f8.eps}
981: \caption{Distributions of EM for various metals (O(=C=N), Ne, Mg, Si, S,
982: and Fe(=Ni)) in the ejecta. Black indicates the north path
983: and red indicates the south path. Data points showing only upper limits are excluded
984: in these figures.}
985: \label{metal_dist}
986: \end{figure}
987:
988: \begin{figure}
989: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.5]{f9.eps}
990: \caption{Number ratios of Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe relative to O of the
991: high-$kT_{\rm e}$ component estimated for the entire Loop (black solid
992: line). Dash-dotted red lines represent CDD1 and W7
993: model of Type-Ia \cite{iwamoto99}. Dotted green, blue, light blue, and
994: magenta lines represent core-collapse models whose progenitor masses
995: are 13, 15, 20, and 25 \Msun, respectively \cite{woosley95}. }
996: \label{rel_abund}
997: \end{figure}
998:
999: \end{document}
1000:
1001: