Focal Plane of the Arcus Probe X-Ray Spectrograph

Abraham D. Falcone; Andrew Malonis; Benjamin Schneider; Beverly LaMarr; Catherine E. Grant; Christopher Leitz; Eric D. Miller; Gregory Prigozhin; Marshall W. Bautz; Richard F. Foster

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Focal Plane of the Arcus Probe X-Ray Spectrograph

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Laboratory testing of the CCID-94 CCDs for the Arcus X-ray Spectrograph focal plane shows they meet the spectral resolution and noise requirements, with 66 eV FWHM at 0.7 keV and 2 to 3 e- readout noise.

desk verdict Solid engineering report on the new CCID-94 CCD for Arcus, but the flight-performance claim is softer than the summary suggests because the tested devices lack the on-chip OBF and the margin is only 4 eV. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16344 v1 pith:B5NA5QZU submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Catherine E. Grant , Marshall W. Bautz , Eric D. Miller , Richard F. Foster , Beverly LaMarr , Andrew Malonis , Gregory Prigozhin , Benjamin Schneider

show 2 more authors

Christopher Leitz Abraham D. Falcone

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE

keywords ArcusX-rayCCDCCID-94focalplanespectralresolutionreadoutnoisesoftspectroscopydetectors

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the CCDs built for the Arcus X-ray Spectrograph focal plane meet the instrument's two hardest detector requirements in laboratory testing. The measured spectral resolution, 66 eV FWHM at 0.7 keV, is below the 70 eV requirement, and the readout noise of 2 to 3 e- RMS is below the 4 e- requirement, with similar performance on all eight readout nodes of the device. This matters because the focal plane must separate overlapping diffraction orders of the grating spectra by X-ray energy and detect the softest photons in the 0.25 to 1 keV band. The paper argues that these results confirm the CCID-94 detector design is ready for the Arcus focal plane, while noting a small non-Gaussian line tail under investigation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CCID-94, a back-illuminated, frame-transfer X-ray CCD designed for Arcus: a 2048 by 1024 pixel imaging array with 24 micron pixels, a 50 micron fully depleted silicon layer, and eight two-stage pJFET output amplifiers that allow fast readout at low noise. The argument is carried by laboratory measurements of this device: X-ray line spectra from radioactive sources and the in-focus monochromator, processed with event recognition and 3 by 3 pixel islands with multiplicities up to four. The two-stage amplifier and the readout electronics are the mechanism that keeps noise at 2 to 3 e- while reading at the speed needed to avoid pile-up.

What would settle it

Measure FWHM and readout noise on a flight-like CCID-94 carrying the 40 nm on-chip aluminum filter at 0.5 and 0.7 keV; the central claim fails if the 0.5 keV FWHM exceeds 70 eV, if readout noise exceeds 4 e- RMS, or if the non-Gaussian tail grows to include 10% or more of line counts on any of the eight nodes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that laboratory testing confirms CCID-94 performance more than meets the required CCD spectral resolution and readout noise for low-energy sensitivity and order sorting of grating photons. On a single segment the F-K line at 0.7 keV shows 66 eV FWHM, and all eight nodes behave similarly, while readout noise ranges from 2 to 3 e- RMS. With the in-focus monochromator, the FWHM stays below the Arcus requirement up to about 1 keV. A non-Gaussian tail containing fewer than 10% of the counts appears on the F-K line, and the paper reports its cause is still under investigation. The tested CCDs do not carry the flight 40 nm on-chip aluminum optical blocking filter, so the demonstrated performance is for the bare back-illuminated device.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance measured on lab CCDs without the flight 40 nm aluminum optical blocking filter will hold on flight devices with that filter, and that the small unexplained low-energy tail will not grow enough to break the resolution requirement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The focal plane can separate the co-spatial diffraction orders of the grating spectra using CCD energy resolution across the 0.25 to 1 keV band, because the measured FWHM is below 70 eV up to about 1 keV.
With readout noise of 2 to 3 e- RMS, the softest photons in the Arcus passband near 0.25 keV remain detectable, supporting the low-energy sensitivity requirement.
Uniform performance across all eight nodes of the device means the eight independent readout chains can be calibrated with one consistent approach, simplifying ground calibration.
The 1 Hz frame time with low pile-up, together with the charge-injection capability, supports both the dispersed-spectrum science and on-orbit radiation damage mitigation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: because the lab devices lack the flight 40 nm aluminum blocking filter, the natural next test is to repeat these measurements on flight-like devices with the filter; a few eV of added FWHM would still leave margin at 0.5 keV.
Inference: the sub-10% low-energy tail, tentatively attributed to surface charge losses, implies backside passivation quality is a driver of soft-X-ray resolution; tracking the tail fraction through radiation testing would show whether on-orbit degradation is a risk.
Inference: if the tail originates at the illuminated surface, modifying the molecular beam epitaxy passivation layer is a testable lever for suppressing it in the same laboratory setup.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is the first published characterization of the CCID-94, the CCD Arcus plans to fly, and it does what a good detector paper should: state the requirement, describe the device, show the measurements. The headline result, 66 eV FWHM at 0.7 keV against a 70 eV requirement at 0.5 keV, is real new device data and is consistent across all eight nodes. Readout noise of 2–3 e- against a 4 e- requirement is solid. The device is a modest redesign of heritage CCID-41/17 parts, not a new architecture, but that is exactly what a probe mission wants. The paper is honest about heritage and test facilities; the self-citations point to earlier CCDs and calibration protocols, not to the measured values, so there is no circularity.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. Section 4 explicitly says the lab devices lack the flight 40 nm on-chip aluminum optical blocking filter. That filter sits on the backside entrance surface, and at 0.5 keV it can add dead-layer absorption and interface recombination, both of which widen the line and can feed the non-Gaussian tail the paper already sees at <10% of counts at 0.7 keV. The demonstrated margin is 4 eV, so the summary's claim that lab testing confirms performance "more than meets" the requirement is an overstatement until OBF-equipped devices are measured or the OBF effect is bounded. The paper also does not give fit uncertainties for the FWHM values, so we cannot tell whether 66 eV is really 62 or 70. Figure 7, which shows FWHM below 70 eV down to 0.5 keV using the in-focus monochromator, helps, but again no OBF and no error bars. The low-energy tail is openly described and flagged for future work, which I credit; it is a known open item, not a hidden one. Data not being public is a mild annoyance for a paper making a flight-readiness claim.

Net: the central claim that the lab devices meet the requirement is defensible. The central claim as written, that the flight devices meet the requirement, is not yet closed. For a proposal-development paper, that is a normal stage, not a fatal flaw.

Who gets value: the X-ray detector community, Arcus reviewers, and anyone comparing CCD options for soft X-ray missions. A serious referee should engage because this is the planned focal plane for a NASA probe concept and these are the only public measurements of it. I would recommend acceptance after the authors add fit uncertainties, state explicitly that OBF testing remains to be done, and soften the "more than meets" language.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes the focal plane of the Arcus Probe X-ray Spectrograph: the detector assemblies, the CCID-94 back-illuminated CCDs, the readout electronics, and the event recognition processor. Laboratory X-ray measurements of a CCID-94 device are reported: a FWHM of 66 eV at 0.7 keV, readout noise of 2–3 e- RMS, and FWHM values below 70 eV down to about 0.5 keV as measured with an in-focus monochromator. The authors conclude that lab testing confirms the CCID-94 performance meets the Arcus spectral-resolution and readout-noise requirements for low-energy sensitivity and order sorting.

Significance. If the reported performance holds for the as-built flight detectors, this paper is a valuable confirmation that the Arcus XRS focal plane can meet its core spectral-resolution and noise requirements, which is critical for the mission concept. The paper has concrete strengths: it reports direct laboratory measurements on eight nodes of a real device, uses two independent X-ray sources, states the noise and FWHM values against explicit external requirements, and describes the instrument architecture in sufficient detail to be useful to the community. The historical heritage from Chandra and Suzaku is well documented. The main limitation is that the tested devices lack the flight 40 nm aluminum optical blocking filter, so the central claim is an extrapolation rather than a fully closed demonstration.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, second paragraph; Section 5] The central claim that the CCID-94 meets the Arcus spectral-resolution requirement rests on lab devices that, as stated in Section 4, do not have the on-chip 40 nm Al optical blocking filter planned for flight. The requirement is FWHM < 70 eV at 0.5 keV (Table 1), and the headline measured value is 66 eV at 0.7 keV, a margin of only 4 eV. Because the OBF is directly deposited on the backside entrance surface and can add dead-layer absorption and interface recombination, an unquantified OBF-induced degradation could consume this margin. The authors should either test OBF-coated devices, provide a quantitative upper bound on the OBF effect, or explicitly rescope the claim to devices without the OBF and discuss the implications for the flight requirement.
[Section 4, Figures 6 and 7] The FWHM values are reported as point values without statistical or systematic uncertainties. For example, the 66 eV at 0.7 keV and the IFM data in Figure 7 are shown without error bars or fit uncertainties. Given the 4 eV margin over the requirement, the authors should report the uncertainty on each FWHM measurement, the number of counts in the fitted lines, and the node-to-node reproducibility, so the reader can judge whether the margin is significant.
[Section 4, paragraph 3] The paper reports a non-Gaussian tail at energies below 1 keV containing less than 10% of the line counts at 0.7 keV, with cause under investigation. If this tail is due to incomplete charge collection near the back surface, it contributes to the spectral line profile beyond the Gaussian FWHM, and it may be affected by the OBF in flight devices. The paper should state whether the Arcus resolution requirement applies to the Gaussian core or to the total line width, and should quantify the tail's contribution to the effective spectral resolution at 0.5 keV, where the requirement is set.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 5] The phrase "more than meets" the required spectral resolution is stronger than the data support given the 4 eV margin and the absence of the OBF. I suggest rewording to "meets with margin" or "meets the requirement in laboratory devices without the OBF".
[Figure 6 caption] Chemical symbols such as 210Po and 55Fe should use proper superscripts for consistency with standard notation.
[Section 1, first paragraph] The phrase "with an agile response capability to address time-domain science (response to target of opportunity triggers in as little as 4 hours)" is slightly awkward; consider splitting into two sentences.
[Author affiliation line] The author name "Richard F . Fostera" contains an erroneous space before the period; it should read "Richard F. Foster".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claims are direct laboratory measurements compared against external mission requirements, not predictions derived from the claims themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: CCID-94 devices were fabricated, packaged, illuminated with X-ray line sources, and their readout noise and spectral FWHM were measured directly. The reported values (2–3 e- RMS readout noise; 66 eV FWHM at F-K 0.7 keV; FWHM below 70 eV from 0.5 to 2 keV in Figure 7) are presented as measurements, and the comparison yardstick is the externally fixed Arcus requirement (FWHM < 70 eV at 0.5 keV; read noise ≤ 4 e- RMS). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the FWHM is obtained from Gaussian fits to measured line spectra, and the readout noise is an independently measured quantity. The self-citations (Refs. 6–8 for calibration protocols, Ref. 9 for the ERP, Refs. 10–11 for charge injection heritage, Refs. 13–14 for earlier CCD development work) document facilities, algorithms, and lineage but do not supply the measured FWHM or noise values that carry the central claim. The paper itself flags the relevant limitation — “The CCDs tested in the lab do not have the on-chip optical blocking layer that is planned for the flight devices” (Section 4) — which is an extrapolation risk, not a circularity. Likewise, the unexplained non-Gaussian tail (“under 10% of the photon counts”) is an open empirical issue, not a definitional loop. The summary statement that lab testing “confirms CCID-94 performance more than meets the required CCD spectral resolution and read out noise” is a direct measurement-vs-requirement comparison. There is no equation in the paper that defines the output in terms of the input, no parameter fitted to a subset of the data and then predicted on a closely related quantity, and no load-bearing argument that reduces to a self-citation. The finding is a normal honest non-finding: score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an engineering performance claim, not a derivation. It relies on standard detector physics, trusted calibration sources, and the assumption that lab devices without the flight optical blocking filter represent flight behavior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

F-K noise continuum power-law parameters = not reported
The 66 eV FWHM at 0.7 keV is obtained after subtracting a best-fit power law to the noise continuum; the fit parameters are free and their uncertainties are not propagated into the line width.

assumptions (4)

standard math Standard CCD noise model: Fano noise and readout noise combine to set the X-ray line FWHM.
Used for the theoretical curve in Figure 7; standard detector physics for fully depleted silicon.
domain assumption Calibration energies of 55Fe, 210Po+Teflon, and the in-focus monochromator are accurate.
Section 4 depends on these sources for line positions; no independent calibration verification is included.
domain assumption Ground event processing with multiplicities up to four approximates the flight Event Recognition Processor.
Section 4 says processing is similar to on-board; quantitative agreement is not demonstrated.
ad hoc to paper Lab CCDs without the flight 40 nm aluminum optical blocking filter are representative of flight devices for spectral resolution.
Explicitly stated limitation in Section 4; the OBF effect on FWHM and the low-energy tail is not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Focal Plane of the Arcus Probe X-Ray Spectrograph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5NA5QZU

@misc{pith2026241216344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Focal Plane of the Arcus Probe X-Ray Spectrograph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5NA5QZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16344}
}

read the original abstract

The Arcus Probe mission concept provides high-resolution soft X-ray and UV spectroscopy to reveal feedback-driven structure and evolution throughout the universe with an agile response capability ideal for probing the physics of time-dependent phenomena. The X-ray Spectrograph (XRS) utilizes two nearly identical CCD focal planes to detect and record X-ray photons from the dispersed spectra and zero-order of the critical angle transmission gratings. In this paper we describe the Arcus focal plane instrument and the CCDs, including laboratory performance results, which meet observatory requirements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Smith , `` The Arcus probe mission ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O

R. Smith , `` The Arcus probe mission ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12678 , 126780E (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

Girou , L

D. Girou , L. Keek , R. K. Smith , et al. , `` Silicon pore optics: a mature and adaptable x-ray mirror technology ,'' in Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI , S. L. O'Dell , J. A. Gaskin , G. Pareschi , et al. , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12679 , 1267905 (2023). [doi:10.1117/12.2677388]

work page doi:10.1117/12.2677388 2023
[3]

R. K. Heilmann , A. R. Bruccoleri , E. M. Gullikson , et al. , `` Soft x-ray performance and fabrication of flight-like blazed transmission gratings for the x-ray spectrometer on Arcus probe ,'' in Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI , S. L. O'Dell , J. A. Gaskin , G. Pareschi , et al. , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Enginee...

work page doi:10.1117/12.2676797 2023
[4]

France , B

K. France , B. Fleming , L. Brenneman , et al. , `` Far-ultraviolet spectroscopy on the Arcus x-ray probe ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12678 , 126780F (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

B. T. Fleming , K. France , T. Patton , et al. , `` The Arcus ultraviolet spectrograph (UVS): technical design of the far-ultraviolet spectrograph on the Arcus probe ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 1...

work page 2023
[6]

M. W. Bautz , S. E. Kissel , G. Y. Prigozhin , et al. , `` X-ray CCD calibration for the AXAF CCD Imaging Spectrometer ,'' in EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VII , O. H. Siegmund and M. A. Gummin , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 2808 , 170--181 (1996)

work page 1996
[7]

M. W. Bautz , M. J. Pivovaroff , S. E. Kissel , et al. , `` Absolute calibration of ACIS x-ray CCDs using calculable undispersed synchrotron radiation ,'' in X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III , J. E. Truemper and B. Aschenbach , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 4012 , 53--67 (2000)

work page 2000
[8]

LaMarr , M

B. LaMarr , M. W. Bautz , S. E. Kissel , et al. , `` Ground calibration of X-ray CCD detectors with charge injection for the X-ray imaging spectrometer on Astro-E2 ,'' in High-Energy Detectors in Astronomy , A. D. Holland , Ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 5501 , 385--391 (2004)

work page 2004

Show all 16 references

[9]

D. N. Burrows , E. Hughes , T. Anderson , et al. , `` Fast event recognition for x-ray silicon imagers ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , and M. Bautz , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentatio...

2016 doi
[10]

M. W. Bautz , B. J. LaMarr , E. D. Miller , et al. , `` Mitigating CCD radiation damage with charge injection: first flight results from Suzaku ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV , O. H. Siegmund , Ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentati...

2007 doi
[11]

Nakajima , H

H. Nakajima , H. Yamaguchi , H. Matsumoto , et al. , `` Performance of the Charge-Injection Capability of Suzaku XIS ,'' PASJ 60 , S1--S9 (2008). [doi:10.1093/pasj/60.sp1.S1]

2008 doi
[12]

Bautz , S

M. Bautz , S. Kissel , R. Masterson , et al. , `` Directly-deposited blocking filters for high-performance silicon x-ray detectors ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , and M. Bautz , Eds., Society of ...

2016 doi
[13]

Bautz , R

M. Bautz , R. Foster , C. E. Grant , et al. , `` Performance of high frame-rate x-ray CCDs for future strategic missions ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , and K. Nakazawa , Eds., Society of Photo-Opti...

2022 doi
[14]

E. D. Miller , M. W. Bautz , C. E. Grant , et al. , `` The high-speed x-ray camera on AXIS ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Ser...

2023 doi
[15]

M. C. Hettrick , `` In-focus monochromator: theory and experiment of a new grazing incidence mounting ,'' Applied Optics 29 , 4531--4535 (1990). [doi:10.1364/AO.29.004531]

1990 doi
[16]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Smith , `` The Arcus probe mission ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O

R. Smith , `` The Arcus probe mission ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12678 , 126780E (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Girou , L

D. Girou , L. Keek , R. K. Smith , et al. , `` Silicon pore optics: a mature and adaptable x-ray mirror technology ,'' in Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI , S. L. O'Dell , J. A. Gaskin , G. Pareschi , et al. , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12679 , 1267905 (2023). [doi:10.1117/12.2677388]

work page doi:10.1117/12.2677388 2023

[3] [3]

R. K. Heilmann , A. R. Bruccoleri , E. M. Gullikson , et al. , `` Soft x-ray performance and fabrication of flight-like blazed transmission gratings for the x-ray spectrometer on Arcus probe ,'' in Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI , S. L. O'Dell , J. A. Gaskin , G. Pareschi , et al. , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Enginee...

work page doi:10.1117/12.2676797 2023

[4] [4]

France , B

K. France , B. Fleming , L. Brenneman , et al. , `` Far-ultraviolet spectroscopy on the Arcus x-ray probe ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12678 , 126780F (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

B. T. Fleming , K. France , T. Patton , et al. , `` The Arcus ultraviolet spectrograph (UVS): technical design of the far-ultraviolet spectrograph on the Arcus probe ,'' in UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII , O. H. Siegmund and K. Hoadley , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 1...

work page 2023

[6] [6]

M. W. Bautz , S. E. Kissel , G. Y. Prigozhin , et al. , `` X-ray CCD calibration for the AXAF CCD Imaging Spectrometer ,'' in EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VII , O. H. Siegmund and M. A. Gummin , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 2808 , 170--181 (1996)

work page 1996

[7] [7]

M. W. Bautz , M. J. Pivovaroff , S. E. Kissel , et al. , `` Absolute calibration of ACIS x-ray CCDs using calculable undispersed synchrotron radiation ,'' in X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III , J. E. Truemper and B. Aschenbach , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 4012 , 53--67 (2000)

work page 2000

[8] [8]

LaMarr , M

B. LaMarr , M. W. Bautz , S. E. Kissel , et al. , `` Ground calibration of X-ray CCD detectors with charge injection for the X-ray imaging spectrometer on Astro-E2 ,'' in High-Energy Detectors in Astronomy , A. D. Holland , Ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 5501 , 385--391 (2004)

work page 2004