Fe XVII 15.014 Angstroms

Models with anisotropic porosity

Note: Both MEG and HEG are being fit simultaneously

Same continuum fit as we used for the non-porous and isoporous models: n=2, best-fit norm=1.71e-3.

Note that the opacity bridging law used for these isoporosity fits is Rosseland.

Fe XVII 15.014: both, anisoporosity, rosseland, MEG Fe XVII 15.014: both, anisoporosity, rosseland, HEG [14.87:15.13]
vinf=2250
β=1
powerlaw continuum, n=2; norm=1.71e-3
q=0
hinf=0.00   +/- (0.00:0.04) and for 90%
      confidence, (0.00:0.10)

taustar=1.90   +/- (1.62:2.26)
uo=0.643   +/- (0.596:0.701)
norm=5.27e-4 +/- (5.07e-4:5.48e-4)
rejection probability = 27% (C=280.81; N=308)

Note that the above parameters don't agree exactly with those from the baseline (non-porous) fit, despite the fact that the above model has hinf=0. The parameter values are very close, though. The slight difference is just a result of the relative flatness of the fit statistic in the portion of parameter space surrounding the global minimum.

Here are the 68%, 90%, and 95% joint confidence limits on hinf and taustar. The asterisk represents the best-fit model, shown as the red histograms on the above two plots.

Fe XVII 15.014 MEG and HEG: anisoporous, Rosseland - confidence contours: hinf vs taustar

Models with anisotropic porosity provide such a bad fit, that even modest values of the porosity length are ruled out. And consequently, allowing a non-zero porosity length does not affect the confidence contours in taustar-uo parameter space. So we do not show a new version of that plot here.

Forcing a fit with taustar=8, the value implied by the literature mass-loss rate:

Fe XVII 15.014: both, anisoporosity, rosseland, MEG, taustar=8 Fe XVII 15.014: both, anisoporosity, rosseland, HEG, taustar=8 [14.87:15.13]
vinf=2250
β=1
powerlaw continuum, n=2; norm=1.71e-3
q=0
hinf=1.59   +/- (1.26:2.04) and for 90%
      confidence, (1.07:2.42)

taustar=8
uo=0.663   +/- (0.620:0.715)
norm=5.28e-4 +/- (5.08e-4:5.48e-4)
rejection probability = 84% (C=322.37; N=308)

Note that ΔC=42 (compared to the global best-fit model, which has zero porosity length), highly ruling out this model.

 

Back to main page.


last modified: 28 April 2008