1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
5: \newcommand{\myemail}{katsuda@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
6:
7:
8:
9: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
10:
11: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
12:
13:
14: \shorttitle{Slow Expansion of RX J0852-4622 NW Rim}
15: \shortauthors{Katsuda, Tsunemi, \& Mori}
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20:
21: \title{The Slow X-Ray Expansion of the Northwestern Rim of the Supernova
22: Remnant RX J0852.0-4622}
23:
24:
25: \author{S. Katsuda\altaffilmark{1}, H. Tsunemi\altaffilmark{1}, and
26: K. Mori\altaffilmark{2}
27: }
28:
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Earth and Space Science, Graduate School
31: of Science, Osaka University,\\ 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka,
32: 560-0043, Japan; katsuda@ess.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
33:
34: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Engineering,
35: University of Miyazaki, 1-1 Gakuen Kibana-dai Nishi, Miyazaki, 889-2192,
36: Japan}
37:
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40:
41: The detection of radioactive decay line of $^{44}$Ti provides a unique
42: evidence that the $\gamma$-ray source is a young ($<$ 1,000 yr) supernova
43: remnant because of its short lifetime of $\sim$90 yr. Only two Galactic
44: remnants, Cassiopeia A and RX J0852.0-4622, are hitherto reported to
45: be the $^{44}$Ti line emitter, although the detection from the latter
46: has been debated. Here we report on an expansion measurement of the
47: northwestern rim of RX J0852.0-4622 obtained with X-ray observations
48: separated by 6.5 yr. The expansion rate is derived to be
49: 0.023$\pm$0.006 \% that is about five times
50: lower than those of young historical remnants. Such a slow expansion
51: suggests that RX J0852.0-4622 is not a young remnant as has been
52: expected. We estimate the age of 1,700-4,300 yr of this remnant
53: depending on its evolutionary stage. Assuming a high shock speed of
54: $\sim$3000\,km\,sec$^{-1}$, which is suggested by the detection of
55: non-thermal X-ray radiation, the distance of $\sim$750 pc to this
56: remnant is also derived.
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59: \keywords{ISM: individual (RX J0852.0-4622) --- shock waves ---
60: supernova remnants --- X-rays: ISM}
61:
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: Ten years have passed after the discovery of the supernova remnant
66: (SNR) RX J0852.0-4622. It was uncovered in the southeastern corner of
67: the Vela SNR from the high energy band (above 1.3 keV) image obtained
68: by the {\it ROSAT} all-sky survey (Aschenbach 1998). The shape is
69: nearly a perfect circle with a large angular radius, $\Theta$, of
70: $\sim$60 arcmin. The discovery of this remnant was accompanied by a
71: report of the {\it COMPTEL}
72: detection of $\gamma$-ray line emission from $^{44}$Ti (Iyudin et al.\
73: 1998), suggesting that this new remnant is a young and nearby because
74: of the very short lifetime ($\sim$90 yr) of $^{44}$Ti. Combining it with
75: X-ray and $\gamma$-ray data, the age and the distance of this remnant are
76: estimated to be $\sim$680 yr and $\sim$200 pc, respectively
77: (Aschenbach et al.\ 1999). So far, most of the
78: follow-up works support the young (less than 1000 yr) age of this
79: remnant (Tsunemi et al.\ 2000; Iyudin et al.\ 2005; Bamba et al.\
80: 2005). However, the detection of $^{44}$Ti line itself has been
81: debated; independent reanalysis of the {\it COMPTEL} data finds that the
82: detection of this remnant as a $^{44}$Ti source is only significant at the
83: 2-4 sigma level (Sch$\ddot{\mathrm o}$nfelder et al.\ 2000).
84: In addition, Slane et al.\ (2001) questioned the close distance to the
85: remnant, based on their analysis of {\it ASCA} data; a larger column density
86: for this remnant than that for the Vela SNR indicated that RX
87: J0852.0-4622 was at a larger distance of 1--2\,kpc. The age
88: and the distance are quite curious in the light of the other
89: exceptional natures of this remnant, namely predominance of
90: non-thermal X-ray radiation (e.g., Tsunemi et al.\ 2000, Slane et al.\
91: 2001), existance of an enigmatic central-compact object (e.g., Aschenbach
92: 1998; Kargaltsev et al.\ 2002), and detection of the TeV $\gamma$-ray
93: emission (Aharonian et al.\ 2007).
94:
95: If RX J0852.0-4622 is really as young as 680 yr, its large apparent
96: radius of about 60$^{\prime}$ indicates that the proper motion of the
97: shock front would be as fast as 5$^{\prime\prime}$.3
98: ($\Theta$/60$^{\prime}$)($t$/680 yr)$^{-1}$ per year assuming
99: the free expansion of the shock. The expected motion is large enough to be
100: measured with current X-ray observatories. We perform the first
101: measurement of the shock expansion rate of the northwestern (NW) rim
102: of RX J0852.0-4622 from XMM-Newton observations taken over 6.5 yr.
103:
104: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
105:
106: The NW rim of RX J0852.0-4622 has been observed several times with
107: {\it XMM-Newton}. Four observations performed in 2001, 2003, 2005,
108: and 2007 are analyzed here. The information of the four
109: observations is summarized in Table.~\ref{tab:obs}. The time
110: difference between the first (2001) and the last (2007) one is exactly
111: 6.5 yr. In this interval, the shift of the undecelerated shock front is
112: expected to be $\sim$35$^{\prime\prime}$. We note that the difference
113: between the Medium filter (for 2001 and 2003 observations) and the
114: Thin1 filter (for 2005 and 2007 observations) has negligible effects
115: in the following analysis, in which we only use high energy events of
116: 1.5--8\,keV band.
117: All the raw data were processed with version 7.1.0 of the XMM Science
118: Analysis Software (XMMSAS). We concentrate on the data only taken by
119: European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) MOS1 and MOS2 detectors, since
120: the spatial resolution of the EPIC MOS is slightly better than that of
121: the EPIC pn detector. We select X-ray events corresponding to patterns
122: 0--12. We further clean the data by rejecting high background (BG)
123: intervals. After the filtering, the data were vignetting-corrected using
124: the XMMSAS task {\tt evigweight}. We further need to subtract the
125: cosmic X-ray BG and the Cosmic Ray (CR) induced BG at energies above
126: typically 1.5\,keV (Arnaud et al.\ 2001). To this end, we subtract
127: the data set accumulated from blank sky observations prepared by Read
128: \& Ponman (2003).
129:
130: \section{Analysis}
131:
132: Figure~\ref{fig:image} {\it left} shows the BG-subtracted {\it
133: XMM-Newton} hard band (1.5--8 keV) image of the NW rim of RX
134: J0852.0-4622. We can
135: clearly see sharp filamentary structures whose emission is dominated
136: by non-thermal emission (Tsunemi et al.\ 2000; Slane et al.\ 2001).
137: These structures mark the current locations of the shock fronts of the
138: NW rim of RX J0852.0-4622. There is a significant X-ray contamination
139: from the Vela SNR along the line of sight. However, the emission is
140: negligible in this hard energy band, since it is believed to be
141: dominated by thermal emission with the electron temperature of below
142: 0.3\,keV (e.g., Iyudin et al.\ 2005).
143:
144: According to the {\it XMM-Newton} calibration status report (Kirsch
145: 2007), the absolute astrometric accuracy, i.e., the precision with which
146: astronomical coordinates can be assigned to source images in the EPIC
147: focal plane, is less than 2$^{\prime\prime}$. This value is small
148: enough to detect the expected shift of the undecelerated shock front,
149: $\sim$35$^{\prime\prime}$ per 6.5 yr. We check whether the same
150: position accuracy is achieved in our data. Applying an XMMSAS tool
151: {\tt edetect\_chain}, we determine positions of three point sources
152: (P1--P3) indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:image} {\it left}. Naval
153: Observatory Merged Astrometric
154: Dataset (NOMAD) catalog (Zacharias et al.\ 2005) identifies several
155: stars as possible optical counterparts for three point sources.
156: We check that the proper motion of the possible optical counter parts
157: themselves are all less than $\sim$1$^{\prime\prime}$ per 6.5
158: yr. Therefore, we expect to detect the X-ray point sources within
159: circles with radius of $\sim$1$^{\prime\prime}$ in all the four {\it
160: XMM-Newton} observations. In fact, we find that all the positions
161: determined in our four X-ray data sets (MOS1 and MOS2 separately) are
162: well within 2$^{\prime\prime}$ circles around their mean positions.
163: Therefore, without extra corrections of the coordinates for our
164: data, the absolute astrometric accuracy is achieved to be less than
165: 2$^{\prime\prime}$. In the following analysis, we take account of
166: 2$^{\prime\prime}$-error for the position accuracy as the conservative
167: systematic uncertainty.
168:
169: The difference of the 2001 and 2007 images of 1.5--8\,keV band is
170: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:image} {\it right}. We can clearly see a
171: black (negative) narrow line running from the northeast (NE) to the
172: southwest (SW) as a sign of the expansion of the shock front in 6.5
173: yr. Other black or white lines are due to artificial effects such as
174: bad columns or gaps of CCD chips.
175:
176: Next, we quantitatively measure the shift of the X-ray filament based
177: on one-dimensional profiles across the filament. We select a northern
178: portion of the narrow NW filament as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:image}
179: {\it left} and {\it right}, since we find few bad columns there. We slice the
180: area into 2$^{\prime\prime}$-spaced regions parallel to the filament.
181: The BG-subtracted radial profiles for the four observations are
182: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:profile}. In the figure, we clearly see that
183: the peak position of the filament at around
184: R$\sim$115$^{\prime\prime}$ in 2001 is shifted to
185: R$\sim$120$^{\prime\prime}$ in 2007.
186:
187: In order to quantitatively measure shifts, we also apply the method
188: of calculating $\chi^2$ probability that two observed profiles from
189: different epochs have the same shapes. Let $l$ be the shift parameter,
190: and $\theta$ be the angular distance perpendicular to the shock
191: front. Then we calculate the $\chi^2$ value as
192:
193: \[\chi^2(l) = \sum_{\theta} \frac{[x_1(\theta+l)-x_2(\theta)]^2}{\sigma_{1}^2(\theta+l)+\sigma_{2}^2(\theta)}.
194: \]
195:
196: Here, $x_1(\theta)$ and $x_2(\theta)$ represent the observed count rates in
197: angular distance $\theta$ at epochs 1 and 2, and $\sigma_1(\theta)$ and
198: $\sigma_2(\theta)$ represent the uncertainties at each bin. The minimum
199: for $\chi^2(l)$, $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$, is around 39, since we sum 40
200: bins roughly around the shock front. We shift the radial profile of
201: 2001 and compare the shifted profile with the profiles of 2003, 2005,
202: and 2007. We examine $l$ = 0$^{\prime\prime}$, 2$^{\prime\prime}$,
203: 4$^{\prime\prime}$, 6$^{\prime\prime}$, 8$^{\prime\prime}$, and
204: 10$^{\prime\prime}$. The $\chi^2(l)$-values as a function of $l$ are
205: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2}. In
206: the figure, three kinds of data points with rectangular, circular, or
207: triangular marks are, respectively, responsible for three cases in which
208: we focus on different two epochs, i.e., 2001-2003, 2001-2005, and
209: 2001-2007. We find that $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ occurs
210: at $l$ = 0$^{\prime\prime}$, 4$^{\prime\prime}$, and
211: 6$^{\prime\prime}$ for each two-epoch of 2001-2003, 2001-2005, and
212: 2001-2007, respectively. Using the criteria of $\chi^2_\mathrm{
213: min} + 2.7$, we can determine the values of the shifts less than
214: 2$^{\prime\prime}$, at 90\% confidence level in all the cases. With
215: taking into account the systematic uncertainty, we derive the shifts
216: of the X-ray filament in 2003, 2005, and 2007 from 2001 to be
217: 0$\pm$2$^{\prime\prime}$, 4$\pm$2$^{\prime\prime}$, and
218: 6$\pm$2$^{\prime\prime}$, respectively. These values lead us to
219: calculate the proper motion to be 0.84$\pm$0.23 arcsec yr$^{-1}$,
220: assuming the constant velocity of the shock front in the four
221: observations. Then, the expansion rate is calculated to be
222: 0.023$\pm$0.006 \% yr$^{-1}$.
223:
224: \subsection{Discussion and Conclusion}
225:
226: Assuming that the shock speed has not decelerated (i.e., the free
227: expansion of the shock), a rigid upper limit of the age for RX
228: J0852.0-4622 is calculated to be 4300$\pm$1200
229: ($\Theta$/60$^{\prime}$)($\mu$/0$^{\prime\prime}$.84 yr$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$
230: yr, where $\mu$ is the proper motion at present.
231: Table.~\ref{tab:param} summarizes expansion rates, ages,
232: velocities of the forward shock $v$, and expansion indices $m$ for
233: several SNRs, where $m$ is defined as the ratio between the current
234: shock velocity and the mean shock velocity that is gradually decreases
235: from 1 (free expansion phase) to $\sim$0 (disappearance phase) through
236: 0.4 (Sedov phase), 0.3 (radiative cooling phase), and 0.25
237: (pressure-driven snowplough phase) (e.g., Woltjer 1972).
238: We notice that the expansion rate of the NW rim of RX J0852.0-4622 is
239: about five times lower than those in the Cas A SNR ($\sim$320 yr),
240: Kepler's SNR ($\sim$400 yr), and Tycho's SNR ($\sim$430 yr), whereas
241: it is comparable to that determined for the NW filaments in SN1006
242: ($\sim$1000 yr). Assuming the young currently best-estimated age of
243: 680 yrs, we derive the value of $m$ for RX J0852.0-4622 to be
244: 0.16$\pm$0.04 ($\mu$/0$^{\prime\prime}$.84 yr$^{-1}$)($t$/680
245: yr)($\Theta$/60$^{\prime}$)$^{-1}$. This value is similar to that in
246: the Cygnus Loop which is a
247: representative remnant in the further later phase than the Sedov
248: phase. Therefore, the young age of 680 yr
249: is apparently inconsistent with the value derived. In this context,
250: it is natural to consider that RX J0852.0-4622 is not a young SNR but
251: a middle-aged one. In the upper limit of the age of $\sim$4,300 yr,
252: it is reasonable to consider that this remnant is in no later phase
253: than the Sedov phase ($m$=0.4). Then, we estimate the age of this
254: remnant to be $\sim$1,700 ($m$/0.4) yr.
255:
256: Within the currently accepted theory of diffusive shock acceleration,
257: non-thermal synchrotron radiation in the X-ray band requires a high
258: shock speed, $v\sim$3,000\,km\,sec$^{-1}$ (Uchiyama et al.\ 2003;
259: Zirakashvili \& Aharonian 2007). Such a high shock speed is actually
260: derived about other four SNRs with non-thermal X-ray radiation (see
261: Table.~2). With the derived proper motion of the shock front, the
262: distance to the remnant, D, is obtained as D$\sim$750
263: ($v$/3000\,km\,s$^{-1}$)($\mu$/0$^{\prime\prime}$.84 yr$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$
264: pc. Although the distance to this remnant is also highly uncertain,
265: our low expansion rate measured supports a relatively distant value
266: within the suggested range of $\sim$0.2 to $\sim$1\,kpc (Iyudin et
267: al.\ 1998; Ashchenbach et al.\ 1999). Since our distance estimation
268: relies on only an assumption of the shock speed, which has theoretical
269: and observational bases, we belive that our value is the most reliable
270: one so far, and thus allow more conclusive discussion about the nature
271: of this remnant, e.g., the origin of the TeV $\gamma$-ray emission
272: (Aharonian et al.\ 2007).
273:
274: We have estimated the age of this remnant to be 1,700-4,300 yr,
275: which is at least 2.5 times larger than the previously estimated age
276: of 680 yr. The new age determined here critically affects the
277: estimation of the initial amount of $^{44}$Ti; it must be about 10,000
278: times of that assumed in the paper which reported the {\it COMPTEL}
279: detection of the $\gamma$-ray line at 1.157 MeV from $^{44}$Ti
280: associated with this remnant (Iyudin et al.\ 1998). In addition, we
281: should note that the distance estimated here is about four times that
282: derived in the paper, which requires about 16 times larger initial
283: amount of the $^{44}$Ti than that assumed in the paper. As a result,
284: the initial mass of $^{44}$Ti is estimated to be a few solar masses,
285: using the $\gamma$-ray line flux derived by {\it COMPTEL}. Such a large
286: amount of $^{44}$Ti is far from reality; at least four orders of
287: magnitude larger than that expected in nucleosynthesis models
288: (Theilemann et al.\ 1996; Rauscher et al.\ 2002). Therefore, it is
289: very likely that the {\it COMPTEL} detection of the $\gamma$-ray line at
290: 1.157 MeV around RX J0852.0-4622 has no relations to the decay line
291: from $^{44}$Ti associated with this remnant.
292:
293: Finally, we note a possiblity to explain the current low expansion
294: rate without any modifications of the age of this remnant: the forward
295: shock recently encountered a dense interstellar medium (or a cloud) in the
296: NW rim and was rapidly decelerated. If such an interaction really
297: occurred, it would be a very recent event so that it did not modify
298: the nearly perfect circular shape of this remnant. Also, a rapid and
299: strong deceleration of the shock would cause a reflection shock near
300: the forward shock. A filamentary structure somewhat distant (about
301: 2$^{\prime}$) behind the forward shock (see, Fig.~\ref{fig:image} {\it
302: left}) is suggested to be a hint of the reflection shock. However,
303: based on the radial profile of the filament obtained
304: by {\it Chandra} (see, Fig.~2 in Bamba et al.\ 2005), this suggestion
305: is unlikely and there is no other implications of the reflection
306: shock. Although we can not still completely exclude the possibility
307: of such a rapid deceleration, we think that more straightforward
308: interpretation of the current slow expansion is simply because this
309: remnant is relatively old. Further expansion measurements of the
310: other rim of this remnant will clearly reveal which hypothesis is at
311: work.
312:
313: \acknowledgments
314:
315: This work is partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
316: by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
317: (16002004). The work of K.M.\ is partially supported by the
318: Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) of the MEXT (No.\ 18740108).
319: S.K.\ is supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.
320:
321: \clearpage
322:
323: \begin{thebibliography}{}
324: %\bibitem[Acero et al.\ 2007]{Acero2007}
325: % Acero, F., Ballet, J., Decourchelle, A. 2007, A\&A, 475, 883
326: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.\ 2007]{Aharonian2007}
327: Aharonian, F., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 661, 236
328: \bibitem[Arnaud et al.\ 2001]{Arnaud2001}
329: Arnaud, M., Neumann, D. M., Aghanim, N., Gastaud, R., Majerowicz,
330: S., \& Hughes J. P. 2001, A\&A, 365, L80
331: \bibitem[Aschenbach 1998]{Aschenbach1998}
332: Aschenbach, B 1998, Nature, 396, 141
333: \bibitem[Aschenbach 1999]{Aschenbach1999}
334: Aschenbach, B., Iyudin, A. F., \& Sch$\ddot{\mathrm o}$nfelder,
335: V. 1999, A\&A, 350, 997
336: %\bibitem[Bamba 2003]{Bamba2003}
337: % Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., Ueno, M., \& Koyama, K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 827
338: \bibitem[Blair et al.\ 2005]{Blair2005}
339: Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., \& Raymond, J. C. 2005, AJ, 129, 2268
340: \bibitem[Iyudin 1998]{Iyudin1998}
341: Iyudin, A. F., et al.\ 1998, Nature, 396, 142
342: \bibitem[Iyudin 2005]{Iyudin2005}
343: Iyudin, A., F., Aschenbach, B., Becker, W., Dennrl, K., Haberl,
344: F. 2005, A\&A, 429, 225
345: %\bibitem[Kirsch(2006)]{Kirsch2006}
346: % Kirsch, M. 2006, XMM-EPIC status of calibration and data
347: % analysis, XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0018, issue 2.5
348: \bibitem[Kirsch(2007)]{Kirsch2007}
349: Kirsch, M. 2007, XMM-EPIC status of calibration and data
350: analysis, XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0018, issue 2.6
351: \bibitem[Hughes 1999]{Hughes1999}
352: Hughes, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 527, 298
353: \bibitem[Hughes 2000]{Hughes2000}
354: Hughes, J. P. 2000, ApJ, 545, L53
355: %\bibitem[Hwang et al.\ 2002]{Hwang2002}
356: % Hwang, U., Decourchelle, A., Holt, S. S., \& Petre, R. 2002, ApJ,
357: % 581, 1101
358: \bibitem[Kargaltsev et al.\ 2002]{Kargaltsev2002}
359: Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2002, ApJ, 619, L163
360: \bibitem[Koralesky et al.\ 1998]{Koralesky 1998}
361: Koralesky, B., Rudnick, L., Gotthelf, E. V., \& Keohane, J. W. 1998,
362: ApJ, 505, L27
363: \bibitem[Rauscher(2002)]{Rauscher2002}
364: Rauscher T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., and Woosley
365: S. E. 2002, ApJ, 576, 323
366: \bibitem[Read(2003)]{Read2003}
367: Read, A., M., \& Ponman, T. J. 2003, A\&A, 409, 395
368: \bibitem[Schonfelder 2000]{Schonfelder2000}
369: Sch$\ddot{\mathrm o}$nfelder, V., et al. 2000, A\&AS, 143, 145
370: \bibitem[Slane et al. 2001]{Slane 2001}
371: Slane, P., Hughes, J. P., Edgar, R. J., Plucinsky, P. P., Miyata,
372: E., Tsunemi, H., \& Aschenbach, B., 2001, ApJ, 548, 814
373: \bibitem[Thielemann(1996)]{Thielemann}
374: Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M., 1996, ApJ,
375: 460, 408
376: \bibitem[Tsunemi 2000]{Tsunemi2000}
377: Tsunemi, H., Miyata, E., Aschenbach, B., Hiraga, J., \& Akutsu,
378: D. 2000, PASJ, 52, 887
379: \bibitem[Uchiyama et al.\ 2003]{Uchiyama2003}
380: Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., \& Takahashi, T. 2003, ApJ, 400, 567
381: \bibitem[Vink et al.\ 1998]{Vink1998}
382: Vink, J., Bloemen, H., Kaastra, J. S., Bleeker, A. M. 1998, A\&A,
383: 339, 201
384: %\bibitem[Winkler et al.\ 2003]{Winkler2003}
385: % Winkler, P. F., Gupta, G., \& Long, K. S. 2003, ApJ, 585, 324
386: \bibitem[Woltjer 1972]{Woltjer1972}
387: Woltjer, L. 1972, ARA\&A, 10, 129
388: \bibitem[Zacharias et al.\ 2005]{Zacharias2005}
389: Zacharias, N., Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Urban, S. E., Gaume, R.,
390: \& Wycoff, G. L. 2005, NOMAD Catalog in VizieR Online Data Catalog
391: \bibitem[Zirakashvili \& Aharonian 2007]{Zirakashvili2007}
392: Zirakashvili, V. N., \& Aharanian, F. 2007, ApJ, 456, 695
393: \bibitem[]{}
394:
395: \end{thebibliography}
396:
397: \clearpage
398:
399: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccrrrrcrl}
400: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
401:
402: \tablecaption{XMM-Newton observations}
403: \tablewidth{0pt}
404: \tablehead{
405: \colhead{Obs.\ ID} &\colhead{Camera} &\colhead{Instrument Mode} &
406: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{Obs.\ Date}& \colhead{Good Time Interval}
407: }
408: \startdata
409: 0112870301 & MOS1/2 & PrimeFullWindow & Medium & 2001-04-25 & 31.3\,ksec\\
410: 0159760101 & MOS1/2 & PrimeFullWindow & Medium & 2003-06-22 & 19.5\,ksec\\
411: 0159760301 & MOS1/2 & PrimeFullWindow & Thin1 & 2005-11-01 & 38.0\,ksec\\
412: 0412990201 & MOS1/2 & PrimeFullWindow & Thin1 & 2007-10-24 & 62.6\,ksec\\
413: %\hline
414: \enddata
415:
416: %\tablecomments{}
417: \label{tab:obs}
418: \end{deluxetable}
419:
420: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
421: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
422:
423: \tablecaption{Physical parameters of several SNRs}
424: \tablewidth{0pt}
425: \tablehead{
426: \colhead{SNR Name} &\colhead{Expansion Rate (\%)} &\colhead{Age (yr)
427: } &\colhead{Velocity (km\,sec$^{-1}$)} &\colhead{Expansion Index}
428: &\colhead{References}
429: }
430: \startdata
431: Kepler (mean)\dotfill& $\sim$0.24\% &390 &4,800 (D/5\,kpc)& $\sim$0.9 & 1\\
432: Cas~A (mean)\dotfill& $\sim$0.20\%&350 &3,200 (D/3.4\,kpc)& $\sim$0.7 & 2, 3\\
433: Tycho (mean)\dotfill& $\sim$0.12\%&430 &3,300 (D/2.3\,kpc)& $\sim$0.54 & 4\\
434: SN1006 (NW filament)\dotfill& $\sim$0.03\%&1,000 &3,100 (D/2.2\,kpc)& $\sim$0.34 & 5\\
435: Cygnus Loop (NE filament)\dotfill& $\sim$0.003\% &10,000 &180 (D/0.54\,kpc)& $\sim$0.17& 6\\
436: \enddata
437:
438: \tablecomments{1: Hughes (1999), 2: Koralesky et al.\ (1998), Vink et al.\
439: (1998), 4: Hughes (2000), 5: Winkler et al.\ (2003), 6: Blair et
440: al.\ (2005)}
441: \label{tab:param}
442: \end{deluxetable}
443:
444:
445: \begin{figure}
446: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f1.eps}\hspace{1cm}
447: \caption{{\it Left}: {\it XMM-Newton} 1.5--8\,keV band image obtained
448: in 2001. The image is binned by 5$^{\prime\prime}$ and has been
449: smoothed by Gaussian kernel of $\sigma = 10^{\prime\prime}$. The
450: intensity scale is square root. Point source positions which we use
451: to examine the astrometric accuracy are indicated as P1, P2, and P3.
452: We investigate the radial profile of the X-ray filament in the
453: rectangular area. {\it Right}: Same image but
454: subtracted one obtained in 2007. The intensity is linearly scaled
455: from $-1.5\times10^{-4}$ to $+1.5\times10^{-4}$
456: counts\,sec$^{-1}$\,pixel$^{-1}$.
457: }
458: \label{fig:image}
459: \end{figure}
460:
461: \begin{figure}
462: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.65]{f2.eps}
463: \caption{Radial profiles at each epoch in the 1.5--8\,keV band, binned
464: with a 2$^{\prime\prime}$ scale. Four profiles from top to bottom
465: are responsible for the one in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.}
466: \label{fig:profile}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: \begin{figure}
470: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.65]{f3.eps}
471: \caption{$\chi^2$ distribution as a function of the shift parameter,
472: $l$. Data points with rectangular, circular, and triangular marks
473: are responsible
474: for three cases in which we focus on different two epochs, i.e.,
475: 2001-2003, 2001-2005, and 2001-2007, respectively.}
476: \label{fig:chi2}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479:
480: \end{document}
481: