1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% PASJ LaTeX template for draft(body)<2007/01/19>
3: %%%
4: %%% IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR AUTHORS
5: %%% 1. ``\draft'' creates single column and double spaces format.
6: %%% 2. If you comment out ``\draft'', the output will be double column
7: %%% and single space.
8: %%% 3. For cross-references, the use of \label/\ref/\cite and the
9: %%% thebibliography environment is strongly recommended
10: %%% 4. Do NOT use \def/\renewcommand.
11: %%% 5. Do NOT redifine commands provided by PASJ00.cls.
12: %%%
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \documentclass{pasj00}
15: \draft
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19: \SetRunningHead{S. Katsuda et al.}{The Ejecta Structure of the Cygnus Loop}
20: \Received{2007/05/31}%{yyyy/mm/dd}
21: \Accepted{2007/08/08}%{yyyy/mm/dd}
22:
23: \title{Asymmetric Ejecta Distribution of the Cygnus Loop revealed
24: with Suzaku}
25:
26: %%% begin:list of authors
27: % Do NOT capitalize all letters in "textsc".
28: %\author{Satoru \textsc{Katsuda}, Hiroshi \textsc{Tsunemi}}
29: %,Emi \textsc{Miyata}, \author{Koji \textsc{Mori} Masaaki \textsc{Namiki}, Norbert \textsc{Nemes},
30: %Naohisa \textsc{Anabuki}, and Hiroyuki \textsc{Uchida}} %
31: % \thanks{Example: Present Address is xxxxxxxxxx}}
32: %\affil{Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate School of
33: % Science, Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka
34: % 560-0043, Japan
35: % }\email{katsuda@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp, tsunemi@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
36: % miyata@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp, namiki@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp,
37: % nnemes@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp, anabuki@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp,
38: % uchida@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
39:
40: %\author{Eric \textsc{Miller}}
41: %\affil{Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts
42: %Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,
43: %U.S.A.}\email{milleric@space.mit.edu}
44:
45: %
46: %\affil{$Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Engineering,
47: %University of Miyazaki, 889-2192, Japan}\email{mori@astro.miyazaki-u.ac.jp}
48:
49: %%% end:list of authors
50:
51: %%% Please use the following style in case that sorting by
52: %%% affilation is impossible.
53: %
54: \author{
55: Satoru \textsc{Katsuda}\altaffilmark{1},
56: Hiroshi \textsc{Tsunemi}\altaffilmark{1},
57: Emi \textsc{Miyata}\altaffilmark{1},
58: Koji \textsc{Mori}\altaffilmark{2},
59: Masaaki \textsc{Namiki}\altaffilmark{1},
60: Norbert \textsc{Nemes}\altaffilmark{1}
61: \and
62: Eric D. \textsc{Miller}\altaffilmark{3}
63: }
64: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate School of
65: Science, Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka
66: 560-0043}
67: \email{katsuda@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
68: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Engineering,
69: University of Miyazaki, 889-2192}
70: \altaffiltext{3}{Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research,
71: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.}
72:
73: %% `\KeyWords{}' always has to be placed before `\maketitle'.
74: \KeyWords{ISM: abundances -- ISM: individual (Cygnus Loop) -- ISM: supernova remnants -- X-rays: ISM} %Do NOT move this preamble from here!
75:
76: \maketitle
77:
78: \begin{abstract}
79: We observed a linearly sliced area of the Cygnus Loop from the
80: north-east to the south-west with Suzaku in seven pointings. After
81: dividing the entire fields
82: of view (FOV) into 119 cells, we extracted spectra from all of the cells and
83: performed spectral analysis for them. We then applied both
84: one- and two-component non-equilibrium ionization (NEI)
85: models for all of the spectra, finding that almost all were
86: significantly better fitted by the two-component NEI
87: model rather than the one-component NEI model.
88: Judging from the abundances, the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component must be
89: the ejecta component, while the low-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component comes from the
90: swept-up matter. Therefore, the ejecta turn out to be distributed
91: inside a large area (at least our FOV) of the Cygnus Loop.
92: We divided the entire FOV into northern and southern parts, and
93: found that the ejecta distributions were asymmetric to the geometric
94: center: the ejecta of Si, S, and Fe seem to be distributed more in
95: the south than in the north of the Cygnus Loop by a factor of
96: $\sim$2. The degree of ejecta-asymmetry is consistent with that
97: expected by recent supernova explosion models.
98: \end{abstract}
99:
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: The asymmetry of a supernova (SN) explosion is considered to be a key
104: point to understand the mechanism driving an SN explosion.
105: The spectropolarimetry of young SNe revealed a non-spherical core of the SN
106: explosion. The degree of departure from spherical
107: symmetry is considered to be anti-correlated with the mass of the hydrogen
108: envelope, i.e., the remaining hydrogen shell of the progenitor star
109: (e.g., Leonard et al.\ 2006).
110: In the extreme case of departure from spherical symmetry, for
111: example Type-IIn SN 1998S, the major-to-minor axis
112: ratio of the explosion core is expected to be larger than 2.5,
113: suggesting a highly asymmetric explosion mechanism, possibly mediated by
114: jets (Wang et al.\ 2001).
115: From theoretical aspects, recent SN explosion models generally show
116: aspherical ejecta distributions may also be produced by convection (e.g.,
117: Herant et al.\ 1994; Burrows et al.\ 1995; Janka \& Muller 1996) as well as
118: hydrodynamical instabilities (e.g., Kifonidis et al.\ 2006;
119: Burrows et al.\ 2007; Janka et al.\ 2007) during SN explosions.
120:
121: After a SN explosion, the ejecta initially expand without deceleration
122: (so-called ``free expansion'') behind the forward shock wave, which
123: sweeps up the interstellar medium (ISM). When the mass of the swept-up
124: matter becomes comparable to that of the ejecta, the expansion is
125: decelerated by the swept-up matter. The deceleration initiates a
126: reverse shock propagating into the ejecta. Both the swept-up matter and
127: the ejecta are hot enough to emit X-rays. The swept-up matter forms a
128: shell structure, while the ejecta fill its interior. Therefore, we can
129: attempt to address the ejecta distributions by observing the structure
130: of supernova
131: remnants (SNRs) in X-rays. In fact, ejecta-dominated X-ray emission are
132: detected in many SNRs (e.g., Cas A: Hughes et al.\ 2000; Tycho:
133: Decourchelle et al.\ 2001; Vela: Tsunemi et al.\ 1999; G292.0+1.8:
134: Park et al.\ 2001). Recent deep Chandra X-ray observations of Cas A SNR
135: have revealed a bipolar structure of Si-rich ejecta (Hwang et al.\ 2004;
136: Laming et al.\ 2003), suggesting an asymmetric explosion with bipolar jets.
137:
138: The Cygnus Loop is a nearby (540\,pc: Blair et al.\ 2005) proto-typical
139: middle-aged ($\sim$10000 yrs) SNR. A number of pieces of evidence
140: that the SN explosion of the Cygnus Loop occurred in a preexisting cavity
141: (e.g., McCray 1979; Levenson et al.\ 1999), suggesting that the Cygnus
142: Loop was produced by a core-collapse SN. Since it is an evolved SNR,
143: the ejecta-material is embedded in swept-up matter. Miyata et al.\ (1994)
144: observed the northeast (NE) shell of the Loop with ASCA, and revealed the
145: metal deficiency there. Recent Suzaku observations
146: of this region confirm the metal deficiency there (Miyata et al.\ 2007).
147: Although the reason for the metal deficiency is not yet
148: understood, it can be safely stated that contamination of the
149: ejecta-material is negligible in the rim regions. In contrast to the
150: rim regions, ASCA detected evidence of Si-, S-, and Fe-rich plasma at
151: the center portion of the Cygnus Loop (Miyata et al.\ 1998), which is
152: thought to be ejecta. The relative abundances of the ejecta support
153: that the idea that the Cygnus Loop was the result from a core-collapse
154: SN, and that the progenitor mass is estimated to be 25\,M$_\odot$
155: based on the central portion of the Cygnus Loop (Miyata et al.\ 1998).
156: Recent XMM-Newton observations across the Cygnus Loop from the NE
157: rim to the SW rim revealed ejecta distributed inside of
158: $\sim0.85\,R_s$ of the Cygnus Loop, where $R_s$ is the shock radius
159: (Tsunemi et al.\ 2007). The relative abundances inferred for the total
160: ejecta are almost consistent with those expected for the core-collapse
161: SN, whose progenitor mass is 13\,M$_\odot$ (Katsuda \& Tsunemi 2008), which
162: can be considered to be more reliable than that estimated from the ASCA
163: observation, since the coverage of the total FOV of the XMM-Newton
164: observations is about an order of magnitude larger than that of the ASCA
165: observation, giving a more representative sample of the ejecta
166: abundances to compare with theoretical models.
167:
168: Since the Cygnus Loop is very large in apparent size
169: (\timeform{2.5D}$\times$\timeform{3.5D}: Levenson et al.\ 1997;
170: Aschenbach \& Leahy 1999), it is an ideal target to study the spatial
171: distribution of the ejecta material. In order to reveal ejecta
172: structures in this SNR, we observed the Cygnus Loop from the NE rim to
173: the SW rim with Suzaku (Mitsuda et al.\ 2007). We selected our fields of
174: view (FOV) so as to cover just southern regions of the XMM-Newton
175: observation path since the distribution of Si-, S-, and Fe-rich ejecta is
176: suggested to be elongated toward the south of the Loop (Tsunemi et
177: al.\ 2007).
178:
179: \begin{figure*}
180: \begin{center}
181: \FigureFile(80mm,80mm){fig1.eps}
182: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
183: \end{center}
184: \caption{ROSAT HRI image of the entire Cygnus Loop. The Suzaku FOV
185: (P8, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, and P17) are shown as white
186: rectangles. }\label{fig:hri_image}
187: \end{figure*}
188:
189:
190: %\newpage
191:
192: \section{Observations and Data Screening}
193:
194: The observations comprised seven pointings: P8, P12, P13,
195: P14, P15, P16, and P17. The FOV of our Suzaku observations are
196: shown in figure~\ref{fig:hri_image}. We employed revision 1.2 of the
197: cleaned event data. We excluded data taken in the low cut-off
198: rigidity $<$\,6\,GV. As a background, we used a spectrum obtained
199: from the Lockman Hole because its observation date, 2006 May 17 was
200: close to those of the Cygnus Loop.
201: Obs. IDs, the nominal point, roll angle, observation date, and
202: the effective exposure times after the screening
203: are summarized in table~\ref{obs}.
204: Figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image} shows a merged XIS1 (back-illuminated CCD; BI
205: CCD) three-color image. Red, green, and blue colors correspond to
206: narrow energy bands of
207: 0.54--0.59\,keV (O {\scshape VII} K$\alpha$), 0.88--0.94\,keV (Ne
208: {\scshape IX} K$\alpha$), and 0.69--0.85\,keV (Fe L), respectively.
209: We can see strong blue color around the center portion (i.e., P15 and
210: P16), whereas red and green colors are enhanced in the NE regions
211: (i.e., P8 and P12). For spectrum fitting, we used photons
212: in the energy ranges of 0.2--3.0\,keV and 0.4--3.0\,keV for XIS1 and
213: XIS0, 2, 3 (front-illuminated CCD; FI CCD), respectively.
214:
215: \begin{table*}
216: \begin{center}
217: \caption{Information of observations of the Cygnus Loop and Lockman Hole.}
218: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
219: \hline
220: Obs. ID &Coordinate (RA, DEC)&Roll &Obs. Date& Effective Exposure\\
221: \hline
222: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Cygnus Loop}\\
223: 501028010 (P8) & 314.005, 31.464 & \timeform{58.5D} & 2006.05.13 & 4.7\,ks\\
224: 501029010 (P12) & 313.751, 31.263 & \timeform{58.7} & 2006.5.09 & 13.2\,ks\\
225: 501030010 (P13) & 313.498, 31.061 & \timeform{58.9} & 2006.05.10 & 13.9\,ks\\
226: 501031010 (P14) & 313.245, 30.859 & \timeform{59.1} & 2006.5.12 & 18.2\,ks\\
227: 501032010 (P15) & 312.993, 30.653& \timeform{59.3} & 2006.05.25 & 17.4\,ks\\
228: 501033010 (P16) & 312.745, 30.450 & \timeform{59.5} & 2006.05.22 & 20.0\,ks\\
229: 501034010 (P17) & 312.207, 30.005 & \timeform{60.0} & 2006.05.22 & 13.9\,ks\\
230: \hline
231: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Lockman Hole}\\
232: 101002010 & 162.938, 57.267 & \timeform{32.7D} & 2006.05.17 & 69.0\,ks\\
233: \hline
234: \label{obs}
235: \end{tabular}
236: \end{center}
237: \end{table*}
238:
239: \begin{figure*}
240: \begin{center}
241: \FigureFile(160mm,160mm){fig2.eps}
242: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
243: \end{center}
244: \caption{Three-color image merged by seven XIS FOV
245: (Red: O {\scshape VII} K$\alpha$, Green: Ne {\scshape IX} K$\alpha$,
246: Blue: Fe L ). The data were binned by 8 pixels and smoothed by
247: a Gaussian kernel of $\sigma = 25^{\prime\prime}$. The effects
248: of exposure, vignetting, and contamination are corrected. Small
249: rectangles were the cells where we extracted spectra. We show
250: example spectra from black cells for $<$2\,keV and green cells for
251: $>$2\,keV in figure~\ref{fig:ex_spec}.}
252: \label{fig:xis1_image}
253: \end{figure*}
254:
255:
256: \section{Spatially Resolved Spectral Analysis}
257:
258: We divided the entire FOV into 119 rectangular small cells, indicated in
259: figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image}, such that each cell contained 2500--5000
260: photons for XIS0 to equalize the statistics. The sizes of small cells
261: ranged from 1/32 FOV to 1/8 FOV. We then extracted spectra
262: from them. Generally, count rates above 2\,keV were so low that the
263: statistics were too poor in each cell. It is quite difficult to constrain
264: the abundance of S. Therefore, by dividing each FOV into the NE part and
265: the SW part, we accumulated photons in the energy range
266: above 2\,keV from the NE or SW half, where each small cell was included,
267: whereas we extracted spectra below 2\,keV from each small cell.
268: Example regions in each FOV, a black cell for $<$2\,keV and a green cell for
269: $>$2\,keV, are shown in figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image}.
270: In this way, we obtained much better constraints on the S
271: abundance for each cell than those determined by fitting
272: entire-energy-band spectra extracted from each small cell.
273: The S abundances were different for each small cell due to the spectral
274: differences below 2\,keV. To generate the response matrix file (RMF) and the
275: ancillary response file (ARF), we employed {\tt xisrmfgen} and {\tt
276: xissimarfgen} (Ishisaki et al.\ 2007) (version 2006-10-26),
277: respectively. The low-energy efficiency of the XIS shows degradation
278: caused by contaminants accumulated on the optical blocking filter
279: (Koyama et al.\ 2007), which was taken into
280: account generating of the ARF file.
281:
282: Firstly, all spectra were fitted by an absorbed non-equilibrium
283: ionization (NEI) model with a single component [the wabs;
284: Morrison \& McCammon 1983 and the VNEI model (NEI version 2.0);
285: e.g., Borkowski et al.\ 2001 in XSPEC v\,11.3.1].
286: Free parameters are the hydrogen column density in cm$^{-2}$,
287: $N_\mathrm{H}$; electron temperature in keV, $kT_\mathrm{e}$; the
288: ionization time, $\tau$, where $\tau$ is the electron density in
289: cm$^{-3}$ times the elapsed time in sec after the shock heating; the
290: emission measure, EM (EM$=\int n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H} dl$, where
291: $n_\mathrm{e}$ and $n_\mathrm{H}$ are the number densities of
292: electrons and hydrogens in cm$^{-3}$, respectively and $dl$ is the
293: plasma depth in cm); the abundances of C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Fe,
294: and Ni. We set abundance of Ni to be equal to that of Fe.
295: The abundances of other elements included in the VNEI model (i.e., Ar
296: and Ca) were fixed to the solar values (Anders \& Grevesse 1989).
297: An example spectrum from the black cell in P16, shown in
298: Figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image}, is presented in figure~\ref{fig:ex_spec},
299: indicated as P16 (left) together with the best-fit model.
300: This model gave us quite good fits, except for the energy bands around
301: Si- and S-K lines where we can see a large discrepancy between our data
302: and the model. Since the emission from both
303: the ejecta and the swept-up matter were detected as a projection effect
304: around the center portion of the Cygnus Loop (Miyata et al.\ 1998;
305: Tsunemi et al.\ 2007; Katsuda \& Tsunemi 2008), it is natural to
306: consider that we need at least two (i.e., the swept-up matter and the
307: ejecta) components to reproduce our data.
308: %Also, recent XMM-Newton observations across the Cygnus Loop from NE rim
309: %to SW rim showed that spectra in outer regions of $R > 0.7\,R_s$ were
310: %represented by one component NEI model with low abundances, which was hence
311: %considered to be originated from the swept-up ISM, on the other hand
312: %most of the spectra in $R <0.7\,R_s$ required additional component with
313: %high abundances whose origin is naturally considered to be the ejecta.
314:
315: We then applied a two-component NEI model for all spectra. In this
316: model, $kT_\mathrm{e}$, $\tau$, and EM are free parameters for both
317: components. $N_\mathrm{H}$ is also left as a free parameter, but
318: tied in the two components. Assuming that the swept-up matter surrounds
319: the ejecta, we fixed the metal abundances for the swept-up matter
320: component to those of the NE rim regions of the Cygnus Loop, where we
321: expect no ejecta component (Uchida et al.\ 2006). The metal abundances
322: are described in the footnote of table \ref{tab:ex_param}. Then, we
323: left the metal abundances of O(=C=N), Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe(=Ni) for
324: the ejecta component as free parameters. We confined the values of
325: $N_\mathrm{H}$ in the range from 0.01 to 0.06
326: $\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$ (Inoue et al.\ 1980; Miyata et al.\ 2007).
327: Figure~\ref{fig:ex_spec} shows example spectra from seven black cells
328: shown in figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image}. We summarize the best-fit
329: parameters for the example spectra in table~\ref{tab:ex_param}.
330: Based on table~\ref{tab:ex_param}, we found that the two components
331: clearly showed different temperature with each other. The
332: low-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component was responsible for the swept-up matter while
333: the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component was responsible for another component.
334: We found that the metal abundances for at least one element of the
335: high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component were about an order-of-magnitude higher
336: than those for the low-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component, which clearly
337: showed that the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component represented the ejecta
338: component. In this way, we performed spectral fittings for all
339: spectra from 119 small cells. Applying the $F$-test with a significance
340: level of 99\%, we found that this model gave us better fits than those
341: for one-component NEI models for almost all of the spectra [e.g., from
342: figure~\ref{fig:ex_spec} P16 (left) to P16 (right)]. We obtained fairly
343: good fits for all spectra by the two-component NEI model (reduced
344: $\chi^2 < 1.7$).
345: If we consider the calibration uncertainty of the energy scale
346: ($\pm$5\,eV; Koyama et al.\ 2007), the values of reduced $\chi^2$ become
347: lower than 1.4. Nonetheless, the fits are not acceptable for many
348: spectra from a statistical point of view, which suggests that
349: our model is too simple. However, we believe that the two-component
350: model is a good approximation to represent our data. Taking into
351: consideration that the spectra from almost all cells require the
352: two-component model, the ejecta turned out to be
353: distributed inside a large fraction (at least our FOV) of the Cygnus Loop.
354: Since the outer edge of our FOV is located around $0.85\,R_s$,
355: our result matches the view from XMM-Newton observations that
356: the ejecta are distributed inside $\sim0.85\,R_s$ of the Cygnus Loop.
357:
358: \begin{table*}
359: %\tabletypesize{\tiny}
360: \begin{center}
361: \caption{Spectral-fit parameters for the example
362: spectra.}\label{tab:ex_param}
363: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
364: \hline
365: Parameter & P8 & P12 & P13 & P14 & P15 & P16 & P17\\
366: \hline
367: $N_\mathrm{H}$[$\times10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$] \dotfill & 0.044$^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$ &
368: 0.049$^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$ & 0.060$\pm$0.004&0.060$\pm$0.004&
369: 0.049$^{+0.006}_{-0.003}$& 0.060$\pm$0.003&
370: 0.031$\pm$0.002\\
371: \hline
372: \multicolumn{8}{c} {High temperature component}\\
373: $kT_\mathrm{e1}$[keV] \dotfill & 0.55$\pm$0.01 & 0.73$^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$
374: & 0.60$\pm$0.04 & 0.60$\pm$0.04 & 0.38$\pm$0.01 &
375: 0.39$\pm$0.01& 0.35$\pm$0.01 \\
376: O(=C=N) \dotfill& 0.9$\pm$0.1 & 0.6$\pm$0.1 & 0.47$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ &
377: 1.2$\pm$0.4 &
378: 0.30$\pm$0.05 & 0.5$\pm$0.1 & 0.20$\pm$0.05\\
379: Ne \dotfill& 0.8$\pm$0.1& 0.7$\pm$0.1 & 0.8$\pm$0.2 & 0.7$\pm$0.2&
380: 0.29$\pm$0.06 & 0.46$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & 0.15$\pm$0.05\\
381: Mg \dotfill& 0.5$\pm$0.1& 0.5$\pm$0.1 & 0.8$\pm$0.2 & 0.6$\pm$0.2&
382: 0.16$\pm$0.09 & 0.14$\pm$0.09 & 0.14$\pm$0.09 \\
383: Si \dotfill& 0.6$\pm$0.2& 1.0$\pm$0.2 & 5.1$\pm$0.6 & 6.1$\pm$0.7&
384: 3.6$\pm$0.4 & 4.1$\pm$0.4 & 2.7$^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$\\
385: S \dotfill& 1.2$\pm$0.4& 2.8$\pm$0.5 & 10$\pm$1 & 11$\pm$1&
386: 7.1$\pm$0.9 & 7.5$\pm$0.8 & 4$\pm$3\\
387: Fe(=Ni) \dotfill&0.62$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$& 1.1$\pm$0.1 & 3.3$\pm$0.1
388: &3.9$\pm$0.2&
389: 2.04$\pm$0.04 & 2.30$\pm$0.05 & 0.75$\pm$0.03\\
390: log$(\tau_1 /\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\,\mathrm{s})$\dotfill
391: &11.2$^{+0.04}_{-0.09}$& 10.73$^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & 11.11$^{+0.07}_{-0.11}$
392: &11.5$\pm$0.1 &
393: 11.76$^{+0.10}_{-0.07}$ & 11.76$^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & 12.0$^{+1.7}_{-0.2}$\\
394: EM$^\dagger_1$[$\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-5}$]\dotfill& 0.22$\pm$0.01 &
395: 0.072$^{+0.006}_{-0.005}$ & 0.043$\pm$0.001 &0.061$\pm$0.002 &
396: 0.166$\pm$0.003 &
397: 0.131$\pm$0.002 & 0.102$\pm$0.003 \\
398: \hline
399: \multicolumn{8}{c} {Low temperature component}\\
400: $kT_\mathrm{e2}$[keV] \dotfill & 0.24$\pm$0.01 & 0.23$\pm$0.01
401: & 0.23$\pm$0.01 & 0.21$\pm$0.01& 0.18$\pm$0.01 & 0.15$\pm$0.01&
402: 0.22$\pm$0.01 \\
403: Abundances \dotfill& \multicolumn{7}{c} {(fixed to those
404: determined for the NE rim of the Cygnus Loop)$^\ddagger$}\\
405: log$(\tau_2 /\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\,\mathrm{s})$\dotfill
406: &11.33$\pm$0.04 & 11.3$\pm$0.1 & 11.21$\pm$0.05 &
407: 11.67$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$&
408: 13.1$^{+0.6}_{-1.1}$ & 12.0$^{+1.7}_{-0.2}$ & 11.58$\pm$0.04\\
409: EM$^\dagger_2$[$\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-5}$]\dotfill& 4.4$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ &
410: 2.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & 1.91$\pm$0.06 & 2.16$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ &
411: 0.67$\pm$0.05 & 1.5$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$& 0.63$\pm$0.01 \\
412: \hline
413: $\chi^2$/d.o.f. \dotfill & 772/643 & 749/617 & 524/492 & 653/576 & 654/459 & 751/525 & 769/523\\
414: \hline
415: \\[-8pt]
416: \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\hbox to 0pt{\parbox{140mm}{\footnotesize
417: \par\noindent
418: \footnotemark[$*$]Other elements are fixed to those of solar values.\\
419: The values of abundances are multiples of solar value.\\ The errors
420: are in the range $\Delta\,\chi^2\,<\,2.7$ on one parameter.
421: \par\noindent
422: \footnotemark[$^\dagger$]EM denotes the emission measure, $\int
423: n_\mathrm{e} n_\mathrm{H} dl$.
424: \par\noindent
425: \footnotemark[$^\ddagger$]C$=$0.27, N$=$0.10, O$=$0.11, Ne$=$0.21,
426: Mg$=$0.17, Si$=$0.34, S$=$0.17, and Fe($=$Ni)$=$0.20
427: (Uchida et al.\ 2006).\\
428: \par\noindent
429: }\hss}}
430: \end{tabular}
431: \end{center}
432: \end{table*}
433:
434:
435: \begin{figure*}
436: \begin{center}
437: \FigureFile(150mm,200mm){fig3.eps}
438: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
439: \end{center}
440: \caption{Top-left panel: X-ray spectra extracted from the black cell in P16
441: indicated in figure~\ref{fig:xis1_image}. The best-fit curves for
442: one-component NEI model are shown with solid lines and the lower panels
443: show the residuals. The small gap around 2\,keV is due to the fact that
444: we extracted spectra below 2\,keV from each small cell, while above
445: 2\,keV from half of each FOV.
446: Top-right panel: Same as top left but with two-component
447: NEI best-fit models. The contribution of each component is
448: shown by the dotted lines only for XIS1. Other panels: Same as
449: top-right panel but from black cells in P8, P12, P13, P14, P15, and P17,
450: respectively.}\label{fig:ex_spec}
451: \end{figure*}
452:
453: Figure~\ref{fig:param} shows maps of the best-fit parameters
454: obtained from the two-component NEI model. The subscript, H, denotes
455: the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$, i.e., the ejecta component while L denotes the
456: low-$kT_\mathrm{e}$, i.e., the swept-up matter component.
457: We showed EMs of O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe for the ejecta component.
458: We marked the geometric center of the Cygnus Loop
459: (RA=\timeform{20h51m19s}, DEC=$31^\circ02^\prime48^{\prime\prime}$ [J2000]:
460: Ku et al.\ 1984) as a white dot in each figure.
461: There is a point source, 1RXH J$205036.4+302448$, within P16 (see,
462: figure~\ref{fig:hri_image}). We excluded the responsible cell from
463: our analysis, which can be seen as a black box in the map
464: of log($\tau_\mathrm{H}$) shown in figure~\ref{fig:param}. $N_\mathrm{H}$s
465: tend to show relatively large values around the center in each FOV to
466: those in the edge regions.
467: Since such $N_\mathrm{H}$ variations must be due to the contamination
468: problem of the XIS (Koyama et al.\ 2007), the
469: current model of a spatial variation of the contaminants accumulated on
470: the optical blocking filter should be modified properly. We found that
471: the value of $kT_\mathrm{e}$ for the swept-up matter component is
472: $\sim$0.2\,keV in our entire FOV other than P15 and P16, where we can see
473: slightly higher values ($\sim$0.3\,keV). The values of $kT_\mathrm{e}$
474: for the ejecta component show a significant variation from the SW
475: ($\sim$0.35\,keV) to the NE ($\sim$0.7\,keV) portion in our FOV as
476: Miyata et al.\ (2000) already noted the hard X-ray-emitting region in
477: the NE portion by ASCA
478: GIS observations and suggested that the hard X-ray might come from the
479: ejecta. The collisional ionization equilibrium (CIE) has already been
480: established for both components in most cells in P17, which seems
481: consistent with the results from Chandra observations of the SW rim of
482: the Cygnus Loop (Leahy 2004).
483:
484: We noticed a clear unti-correlation between $kT_\mathrm{eH}$ and
485: $\tau_\mathrm{H}$, and a correlation between $\tau_\mathrm{H}$ and
486: EMs of Si, S, and Fe in the ejecta component. We examined the
487: systematic effect between the ionization age (and/or temperature) and the
488: distributions of the Si-, S-, and Fe-ejecta. We re-fitted the example
489: spectrum in P15, employing the same two-component model used in this
490: paper, but with a fixed ionization age of
491: $1\times10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\,\mathrm{s}$ for the ejecta
492: component (which is the typical value in P8, 12, 13). We noticed a
493: slight increase of $kT_\mathrm{eH}$ that is still significantly lower
494: than that in the northern part of our FOV. We found
495: that the emission measures of Si, S, and Fe were, respectively,
496: reduced by 30\%, 30\%, and 15\% from those
497: obtained in the case that we left the ionization age as a free parameter.
498: These values are still higher than those obtained in P8, 12, and 13 by
499: $\sim$50\%. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the EMs of
500: Si-, S-, and Fe-ejecta in the southern part of our FOV are higher than
501: those in the northern part of our FOV.
502:
503: The ionization states for the ejecta component in P15 and P16 also
504: reached the CIE condition. Apart from P15, P16, and P17, the ionization
505: states for both components are in NEI condition in almost all of the cells.
506: We found that all of the elements were distributed asymmetric to the
507: geometric center. The EMs for O, Ne, and Mg are enhanced in P8 while
508: no enhancements are seen for the other elements there. Also, the EMs
509: for all the elements other than Mg show enhancements in P15 and P16.
510:
511: \begin{figure*}
512: \begin{center}
513: \FigureFile(160mm,100mm){fig4.eps}
514: %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
515: \end{center}
516: \caption{Maps of the best-fit parameters. The values of
517: $N_\mathrm{H}$, $kT_\mathrm{e}$, EM$_\mathrm{L}$ are in units of
518: $10^{22} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, keV, and $10^{19} \mathrm{cm}^{-5}$,
519: respectively. Lower six maps show EMs of O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe for
520: the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component in units of $10^{14}
521: \mathrm{cm}^{-5}$. We adjusted the color code, such that we can see the
522: differences in each figure. }\label{fig:param}
523: \end{figure*}
524:
525: We obtained EMs of O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe for the ejecta component in
526: 119 cells. Multiplying the EM by the area of each cell, we obtained the
527: emission integral (hereafter EI, EI$=\int n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H} dV$,
528: $dV$ is the X-ray-emitting volume) of all elements for each cell,
529: and summed up the EIs for all cells within each FOV.
530: The summed-up EIs are summarized in table~\ref{tab:EI}.
531:
532: \begin{table*}
533: %\tabletypesize{\tiny}
534: \caption{Summary of EI ($=\int n_\mathrm{e} n_\mathrm{i} dV$ for the
535: ejecta component in units of 10$^{52}$\,cm$^{-3}$) in each
536: FOV.$^{\ast}$}\label{tab:EI}
537: \begin{center}
538: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
539: \hline
540: Elements & P8 & P12 & P13 & P14 & P15 & P16 & P17 \\
541: \hline
542: O& 5.3$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & 2.4$\pm$0.4 & 2.6$\pm$0.4&
543: 2.0$^{+2.3}_{-1.0}$& 2.9$\pm$0.6& 3.0$\pm$0.5 &
544: 1.8$\pm$0.2\\
545: Ne& 1.2$\pm$0.1& 0.50$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$& 0.26$\pm$0.08&
546: 0.26$\pm$0.12& 0.44$\pm$0.09&
547: 0.51$\pm$0.08 & 0.30$\pm$0.05\\
548: Mg& 0.26$\pm$0.05& 0.12$\pm$0.02& 0.10$\pm$0.03&
549: 0.06$^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$& 0.036$^{+0.038}_{-0.025}$&
550: 0.03$\pm$0.02& 0.06$\pm$0.03\\
551: Si& 0.25$\pm$0.10& 0.24$\pm$0.03& 0.49$\pm$0.06&
552: 0.7$\pm$0.1& 1.3$\pm$0.2&
553: 1.2$\pm$0.1& 0.5$\pm$0.2 \\
554: S& 0.18$\pm$0.07& 0.23$\pm$0.03& 0.40$\pm$0.04& 0.63$\pm$0.06&
555: 0.9$\pm$0.1&
556: 0.9$\pm$0.1& 0.18$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\\
557: Fe& 0.24$\pm$0.04& 0.29$\pm$0.02& 0.44$\pm$0.01&
558: 0.57$\pm$0.02& 0.89$\pm$0.02&
559: 0.82$\pm$0.02& 0.30$\pm$0.01\\
560: \hline
561: & & \\[-8pt]
562: \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\hbox to 0pt{\parbox{140mm}{\footnotesize
563: \par\noindent
564: \footnotemark[$*$]Errors quoted are the mean 90\% confidence level for
565: each cell.
566: \par\noindent
567: }\hss}}
568:
569: \end{tabular}
570: \end{center}
571: \end{table*}
572:
573: %Assuming that the ejecta component is confined in a spherical region of
574: %R $<$ 75$'$, i.e., 90\% of the radius of the Cygnus Loop, we estimated the
575: %plasma depth for each cell. Then, we calculated the electron density
576: %based on the assumption that $n_\mathrm{e} = n_\mathrm{H}$. Using the
577: %elemental abundances obtained, we calculated the masses of O, Ne, Mg, Si,
578: %S, and Fe for all the cells. We summed up the mass from all the cells
579: %in each FOV and showed the summary in table~\ref{tab:mass}.
580:
581: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
582:
583: We observed the Cygnus Loop from NE to SW with Suzaku in seven
584: pointings. Dividing the entire FOV into 119 cells, we extracted
585: spectra from all of the cells, and performed spectral analyses for them.
586: Almost all of the spectra were significantly better fitted by a
587: two-component NEI model, rather than a one-component NEI
588: model. Judging from the abundances, the high-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component
589: must be ejecta, while the low-$kT_\mathrm{e}$ component comes from the
590: swept-up matter.
591:
592: \subsection{Swept-up-Matter Distribution}
593:
594: The temperature for the swept-up matter component is significantly
595: lower than that for the ejecta component. On the other hand, it is
596: similar to that obtained for the rim of the Loop, where we expect no
597: contamination of the ejecta (e.g., Miyata et al.\ 2007).
598: Therefore, we believe that we surely separated the X-ray emission of the
599: ejecta inside the Loop from that of the surrounding matter. The EM
600: distribution of the swept-up matter (EM$_\mathrm{L}$) is inhomogeneous
601: in our FOV, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:param}. The shell of the swept-up
602: matter seems to be thin in the SW part
603: (i.e., P15 and P16) of the Loop relative to that in the NE part. Such
604: a trend is also reported by XMM-Newton observations covering just north
605: of our Suzaku path (Tsunemi et al.\ 2007). As Tsunemi
606: et al.\ (2007) mentioned, there might be a blowout in the direction of
607: our line of sight around P15 and P16, such as a south blowout of the Loop
608: (see, figure~\ref{fig:hri_image}).
609: The relatively high temperature in P15 and P16 suggests that the
610: velocity of the blast wave is higher than that in the other regions.
611: This fact indicates that the density of ambient matter in P15 and P16 is
612: lower than that in the other regions, supporting the thin
613: swept-up-matter shell.
614:
615: \subsection{Metal Distribution in Ejecta Component}
616:
617: We divided our FOV into two parts: the NE part (P8, P12, P13, and P14)
618: and the SW part (P15, P16, and P17). There is a gap between P16 and
619: P17, which we did not observe. Assuming EIs of the ejecta in the gap
620: to be averages of those in P16 and P17, we calculated the ratios
621: between EIs in the NE part and those in the SW part. They are
622: O$\sim$1.2, Ne$\sim$1.3, Mg$\sim$3.2,
623: Si$\sim$0.44, S$\sim$0.57, and Fe$\sim$0.60. For simplicity, we assumed
624: that the mass ratios of those elements are equal to the EI ratios.
625: Regarding the O-Ne group, similar amounts of those
626: elements exist in the NE and SW parts. In contrast to the O-Ne group, the
627: other elements show non-uniform distributions: Mg is distributed more in the
628: NE part by a factor of $\sim$3, while Si, S, and Fe are distributed more in the
629: SW part by a factor of $\sim$2. (Note that the mass ratio
630: being proportional to a product of the density times the emitting
631: volume will be lower than that of the EI ratio.)
632:
633: A natural explanation for the asymmetries is an asymmetry at the time of
634: the SN explosion of the Cygnus Loop. The degree of north-south (1:2)
635: asymmetry of the innermost ejecta, such as Si-, S-, and Fe-ejecta, is
636: consistent with that expected from asymmetric explosions resulting from
637: hydrodynamic instabilities, which are described in recent theoretical
638: models of SN explosions (e.g., Burrows et al.\ 2007).
639: However, we should keep in mind that there are some other possibilities
640: that can produce the asymmetries of the ejecta. The X-ray emission is
641: sensitive to both temperature and density, i.e., dense ejecta emit more
642: strongly than do thin ejecta and cooled ejecta will not continue to emit
643: X-rays. Furthermore, an asymmetric environment that might be created by
644: stellar winds (e.g., Blondin et al.\ 1996; Dwarkadas 2007) as well
645: as hydrodynamic instabilities during the remnant evolution (
646: Jun \& Norman 1995) can make the ejecta distribution distorted.
647:
648: If the mass ejection were to be anisotropic, it would lead a recoil of
649: a stellar remnant due to momentum conservation.
650: Therefore, we expect to see the velocity of the stellar remnant directed
651: opposite to the momentum of the gaseous SN ejecta (e.g.,
652: Scheck et al.\ 2006). In fact, recent observations of a stellar remnant
653: in Puppis~A SNR revealed that its velocity was very high
654: ($>$1000\,km\,sec$^{-1}$) and directed opposite to the momentum of
655: fast-moving O-rich ejecta (Winkler \& Petre 2006; Hui \& Becker 2006).
656: Since the Cygnus Loop is believed to be a remnant of a core-collapse SN
657: explosion, the presence of a stellar remnant is strongly expected.
658: So far, we have not found any stellar remnant associated with the SN
659: explosion of the Cygnus Loop (e.g., Miyata et al.\ 2001). Taking into
660: consideration that the momentum of innermost ejecta (which is considered
661: to be strongly related to the stellar remnant) seems to be directed
662: toward south of the Loop, we might find the stellar remnant
663: associated with the Cygnus Loop in the north of the Loop.
664: We observed the Cygnus Loop from the NE rim to the SW rim with Suzaku
665: as well as XMM-Newton. The observation paths covered about one seventh of
666: the entire Loop. Further, Suzaku and/or XMM-Newton observations of the
667: rest of the area are required to obtain the relative abundances for
668: the total ejecta as well as to reveal the ejecta structure in the
669: entire Loop.
670:
671: %Next, we compared abundance ratios in P15 with those from
672: %theoretical models. Since this region is rich in Si, S, and Fe as shown
673: %in Fig.~\ref{fig:param}, the relative abundances among those elements
674: %are considered to represent those in the inner most core of the progenitor
675: %star. Based on table~\ref{tab:EI}, we calculated mass ratios of S
676: %and Fe to Si to be 0.8$\pm$0.15 and 1.3$\pm$0.2, respectively.
677: %To compare our data with theoretical calculations, we integrated
678: %masses of the three elements from the explosion center toward some mass
679: %radius according to mass fractions as a function of the mass radius.
680: %This is the same method as Miyata et al.\ (1998) did.
681: %We again employed the same nucleosynthetic
682: %models as we used above. Figure~\ref{fig:rel_abund_p15} shows
683: %comparisons between our data and the theoretical models.
684: %Our data are indicated inside the two dotted horizontal lines
685: %with same colors: red for S/Si while black for Fe/Si. Curves are
686: %those for theoretical models as a function of the mass radius.
687: %We found that 15\,M$_\odot$, 25\,M$_\odot$, and 30\,M$_\odot$ progenitor
688: %stars reproduced both of the S/Si and Fe/Si ratios at some mass radius
689: %(2.1\,M$_\odot < M_r$ for 15\,M$_\odot$, 2.3$< M_r <$2.35\,M$_\odot$
690: %for 25\,M$_\odot$, $M_r$ is the mass radius). Combined with the result
691: %from the previous paragraph
692: %(i.e., the comparison of relative abundances in P8 with those from
693: %theoretical calculations), the most plausible mass of the progenitor
694: %star of the Cygnus Loop is 25\,M$_\odot$. This result is consistent
695: %with that from the ASCA observation ( \cite{Miyata1998}). We should
696: %note that the relative abundances for 15\,M$_\odot$ and 30\,M$_\odot$
697: %progenitor stars show quite similar values to our data. Also, we
698: %should keep in mind that there are two main factors which affect this
699: %result. Firstly, the ejected mass of Fe depends strongly on the mass
700: %cut which is still unclear. Secondly, our data come from only limited
701: %area of the Cygnus loop.
702: %\begin{figure*}
703: % \begin{center}
704: % \FigureFile(160mm,100mm){fig9.eps}
705: % %%% \FigureFile(width,height){filename}
706: % \end{center}
707: % \caption{Comparison of the obtained mass ratios of S/Si (the region
708: % between two black dotted lines) and Fe/Si (the region between two red
709: % dotted lines) in P15 with the nucleosynthetic models (curves). The
710: % horizontal axises are the mass radius inside the progenitor star and
711: % start from the position of the mass cut.}\label{fig:rel_abund_p15}
712: %\end{figure*}
713: %
714:
715: \bigskip
716:
717: This work is partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
718: Research by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
719: Technology (16002004). This study is also carried out as part of
720: the 21st Century COE Program, \rq{Towards a new basic science:
721: depth and synthesis}\rq. S. K. is supported by a JSPS Research
722: Fellowship for Young Scientists.
723:
724:
725:
726: %\newpage
727: %\newpage
728:
729: %\newpage
730: %\newpage
731: %\newpage
732:
733:
734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
735:
736: %%%
737: % See the manual for the detail.
738: %%%
739: \begin{thebibliography}{}
740: % Journals(e.g. A\&A,ApJ,AJ,NMRAS,PASP ...)
741: % Authors, Year, Journal, Vol#, Page#
742: % Journal Title Abbreviation >> http://www.asj.or.jp/pasj/Jabb.html
743: %\bibitem[Aauthor et al.(2001)]{}
744: % Aauthor, A., Bauthor, B., Cauthor, C.\ 2001, PASJ, vol, page
745: % Books
746: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse 1989]{Anders1989}
747: Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197
748: %\bibitem[Aschenbach et al.\ 1995]{Aschenbach1995}
749: % Aschenbach, B., Egger, R., \& Trumper, J. 1995, Nature, 373, 587
750: \bibitem[Aschenbach \& Leahy D. A. 1999]{Aschenbach1999}
751: Aschenbach, B. \& Leahy 1999, A\&A, 341, 602
752: %\bibitem[Blair et al.\ 1999]{Blair1999}
753: % Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., \& Raymond, J. C., and
754: % Long. K. S. 1999, AJ, 118, 942
755: \bibitem[Blair et al.\ 2005]{Blair2005}
756: Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., \& Raymond, J. C. 2005, AJ, 129, 2268
757: \bibitem[Blondin et al.\ 1996]{Blondin1996}
758: Blondin, J. M., Lundqvist, P., \& Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ,
759: 472, 257
760: %\bibitem[Borkowski et al.\ 1994]{Borkowski1994}
761: % Borkowski, K. J., Sarazin, C. L., \& Blondin, J. M. 1994, ApJ,
762: % 429, 710
763: \bibitem[Borkowski et al.\ 2001]{Borkowski2001}
764: Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., \& Reynolds, S. P. 2001,
765: ApJ, 548, 820
766: \bibitem[Burrows et al.\ 1995]{Burrows1995}
767: Burrows, A., Hayes, J., \& Fryxell, B. A. 1995, ApJ, 450, 830
768: \bibitem[Burrows et al.\ 2007]{Burrows2007}
769: Burrows, A., Livne, E., Dessart, L., Ott, C. D., Murphy,
770: J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 416
771: \bibitem[Decourchelle et al.\ 2001]{Decourchelle2001}
772: Decourchelle, A., et al.\ 2001, A\&A, 365, L218
773: %\bibitem[Dopita et al.\ 1977]{Dopita1977}
774: % Dopita, M. A., Mathewson, D. S., \& Ford, V. L. 1977 ApJ, 214, 179
775: \bibitem[Dwarkadas 2007]{Dwarkadas2007}
776: Dwarkadas V. V. 2007, Ap\&SS, 307, 153
777: %\bibitem[Fesen 2001]{Fesen2001}
778: % Fesen, R. A.\ 2001, ApJS, 133, 161
779: %\bibitem[Hamilton et al.\ 1983]{Hamilton1983}
780: % Hamilton, A. J. S., Chevalier, R. A., \& Sarazin, C. L. 1983,
781: % ApJS, 51, 115
782: %\bibitem[Hayashida et al.\ 2007]{Hayashida2007}
783: % Hayashida et al.\ 2007, this issue
784: \bibitem[Herant et al.\ 1994]{Herant1994}
785: Herant, M., Benz, W., Hix, W. R., Fryer, C. L., \& Colgate,
786: S. A. 1994, ApJ, 435, 339
787: \bibitem[Hughes et al.\ 2000]{Hughes2000}
788: Hughes, J. P., Rakowski, C. E., Burrows, D. N., Slane,
789: P. O. 2000, ApJ, 528, L109
790: \bibitem[Hui \& Becker 2006]{Hui2006}
791: Hui, C. Y., \& Becker, W. 2006, A\&A, 454, 543
792: %\bibitem[Hwang et al.\ 2000]{Hwang2000}
793: % Hwang, U., Holt, S. S., and Petre R. 2000, ApJ, 537, L119
794: \bibitem[Hwang et al.\ 2004]{Hwang2004}
795: Hwang, U. et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, L117
796: \bibitem[Inoue et al.\ 1980]{Inoue1980}
797: Inoue, H., Koyama, K., Matsuoka, M., Ohashi, T., Tanaka, Y., \&
798: Tsunemi, H. 1980 ApJ, 238, 886
799: \bibitem[Ishisaki et al.\ 2007]{Ishisaki2007}
800: Ishisaki, Y., et al.\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S113
801: %\bibitem[Iwamoto et al.\ 1999]{Iwamoto1999}
802: % Iwamoto, Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., Kishimoto, N., Umeda, H.,
803: % Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F. K., 1999, ApJS, 125, 439
804: %\bibitem[Katsuda \& Tsunemi 2005]{Katsuda2005}
805: % Katsuda, S. \& Tsunemi, H. 2005, PASJ, 57, 621
806: \bibitem[Janka \& M$\ddot{u}$ller 1996]{Janka1996}
807: Janka, H. T \& M$\ddot{u}$ller, E. 1996, A\&A, 306, 167
808: \bibitem[Janka et al.\ 2007]{Janka2007}
809: Janka, H. -Th., Marek, A., Kitaura, F.-S. 2007, astro-ph/0706.3056
810: \bibitem[Jun \& Norman 1995]{Jun1995}
811: Jun, B. -I., \& Norman, M. L. 1995, Ap\&SS, 233, 267
812: \bibitem[Katsuda \& Tsunemi 2008]{Katsuda2008}
813: Katsuda, S. \& Tsunemi, H. 2008, Adv. Space Res. in press
814: %\bibitem[Kifonidis et al.\ 2003]{Kifonidis2003}
815: % Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H.-Th., \& Muller, E. 2003,
816: % A\&A, 408, 621
817: \bibitem[Kifonidis et al.\ 2006]{Kifonidis2006}
818: Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Scheck, L., Janka, H.-T., \& M$\ddot{u}$ller,
819: E. 2006, A\&A, 453, 661
820: \bibitem[Koyama et al.\ 2007]{Koyama2007}
821: Koyama, K. et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S221
822: \bibitem[Ku et al.\ 1984]{Ku1984}
823: Ku, W. H. -M., Kahn, S. M., Pisarski, R., \& Long, K. S. 1984,
824: ApJ, 278, 615
825: \bibitem[Laming \& Hwang 2003]{Laming2003}
826: Laming, J. M., \& Hwang, U., 2003, ApJ, 597, L347
827: \bibitem[Leonard et al.\ 2006]{Leonard2006}
828: Leonard D. C. et al.\ 2006, Nature, 440, 505
829: \bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1997]{Levenson1997}
830: Levenson, N. A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 484, 304
831: %\bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1998]{Levenson1998}
832: % Levenson, N. A., Graham, J. R., Keller, L. D., \& Richter,
833: % M. J. 2002, ApJS, 118, 541
834: \bibitem[Levenson et al.\ 1999]{Levenson1999}
835: Levenson, N. A., Graham, J. R., \& Snowden, S. L. 1999, ApJ, 526, 874
836: \bibitem[Leahy 2004]{Leahy2004}
837: Leahy, D. A. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 385
838: %\bibitem[Liedahl et al.\ 1995]{Liedahl1995}
839: % Liedahl, D. A., Osterheld, A. L., \& Goldstein, W. H. 1995,
840: % ApJ, 438, L115
841: \bibitem[McCray1979]{McCray1979}
842: McCray, R., \& Snow, T. P., Jr. 1979, ARA\&A, 17, 213
843: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 1994]{Miyata1994}
844: Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Pisarski, R., \& Kissel, S. E. 1994,
845: PASJ, 46, L101
846: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 1998]{Miyata1998}
847: Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Kohmura, T., Suzuki, S., \& Kumagai,
848: S. 1998, PASJ, 50, 257
849: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 2000]{Miyata2000}
850: Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Koyama, K., \& Ishisaki, Y. 2000,
851: Adv. Space Res., 25, 555
852: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 2001]{Miyata2001}
853: Miyata, E., Ohta, K., Torii, K., Takeshima, T., Tsunemi, H.,
854: Hasegawa, T., \& Hashimoto, Y. 2001, ApJ, 550, 1023
855: %\bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 1999]{Miyata1999}
856: % Miyata, E., \& Tsunemi, H. 1999, ApJ, 525, 305
857: \bibitem[Miyata et al.\ 2007]{Miyata2007}
858: Miyata, E., Katsuda, S., Tsunemi, H., Hughes, J. P., Kokubun,
859: M., \& Porter, F. S. 2007, PASJ, 59, S163
860: \bibitem[Mitsuda et al.\ 2007]{Mitsuda2007}
861: Mitsuda, K., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S1
862: \bibitem[Morrison \& McCammon 1983]{Morrison1983}
863: Morrison, R., \& McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119
864: %\bibitem[Nomoto et al.\ 1984]{Nomoto1984}
865: % Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644
866: \bibitem[Park et al.\ 2001]{Park2001}
867: Park, S., Roming, P. W. A., Hughes, J. P., Slane, P. O.,
868: Burrows, D. N., Garmire, G.P. \& Nousek, J. A. 2002, ApJ,
869: 564, L39
870: %\bibitem[Rauscher et al.\ 2002]{Rauscher2002}
871: % Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E. 2002,
872: % ApJ, 576, 323
873: \bibitem[Scheck et al.\ 2006]{Scheck2006}
874: Scheck, L., Kifonidis, K., Janka, H.-T., M$\ddot{u}$ller,
875: E. 2006, A\&A, 457, 963
876: %\bibitem[Serlemitsos et al.\ 2007]{Serlemitsos2007}
877: % Serlemitsos, P. J. et al. 2007, PASJ, 59S, 9
878: %\bibitem[Thielemann et al.\ 1996]{Thielemann1996}
879: % Thilemann, F-K., Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 408
880: %\bibitem[Tominaga 2007]{Tominaga2007}
881: % Tominaga N. 2007....
882: \bibitem[Tsunemi et al.\ 1999]{Tsunemi1999}
883: Tsunemi, H., Miyata, E., \& Aschenbach, B. 1999, PASJ, 51, 711
884: \bibitem[Tsunemi et al.\ 2007]{Tsunemi2007}
885: Tsunemi, H., Katsuda, S., \& Nemes, N., \& Miller, E. D. 2007
886: ApJ in press submitted to ApJ
887: \bibitem[Uchida et al.\ 2006]{Uchida2006}
888: Uchida, H. Katsuda, S., Miyata, E., Tsunemi, H., Hughes, J. P.,
889: Kokubun, M., \& Porter, F. S. 2006, a poster presentation at
890: Suzaku Conference (2006) held in Kyoto
891: \bibitem[Wang et al.\ 2001]{Wang2001}
892: Wang, L., Howell, D. A., H$\ddot{o}$flich, P., \& Wheeler, J. C. 2001,
893: ApJ, 550, 1030
894: \bibitem[Winkler et al.\ 2006]{Winkler2006}
895: Winkler, P. F., \& Petre, R. 2006, astroph/0608205
896: %\bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver 1995]{Woosley1995}
897: % Woosley, S. E. \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
898: %\bibitem[Nordstrom et al.\ 2004]{Nordstrom2004}
899: % Nordstrom B., Mayor M., Andersen J., Holmberg J., Pont F.,
900: %Jorgensen B.R., Olsen E.H., Udry S., Mowlavi N. 2004, A\&A, 418, 989
901: %\bibitem[]{}
902:
903: \end{thebibliography}
904:
905: \end{document}
906: % LocalWords: pointings FOV NEI ejecta Spectropolarimetry SNe IIn aspherical
907: % LocalWords: hydrodynamical SNRs Cas SNR pc proto yrs ASCA XMM SW eps ROSAT
908: % LocalWords: HRI GV Lockman Obs IDs XIS CCD keV FI ksec RMF ARF xisrmfgen sec
909: % LocalWords: xissimarfgen wabs McCammon VNEI Borkowski XSPEC eV pt EMs RXH
910: % LocalWords: GIS collisional CIE unti SiSFe EI EIs Puppis nucleosynthetic
911: % LocalWords: COE
912: