Paper detail

An XMM-Newton Study of Hard X-ray Sources

We briefly report on an on-going spectroscopic study of hard X-ray sources selected serendipitously in 12 XMM-Newton fields. Results for the analysis of the 41 sources from the first seven EPIC observations have been discussed in a previous paper (Piconcelli et al. 2002, Paper I) where we found an absolute fraction of X-ray absorbed sources (~30%) lower than expected (~50%) by the predictions of popular CXB synthesis models at F(2-10)~5x10**(-14) erg cm**-2 s**-1. We present here the preliminary results concerning the whole sample including five new deeper XMM-Newton measurements increasing the sample to 90 sources. Even if still on-going, the present study appears to confirm and extend down to F(2-10)~10**(-14) erg cm**-2 s**-1 the above mismatch between observational data and theoretical expectations regarding the fraction of absorbed sources. Furthermore the sample average spectral index of 1.5-1.6 is steeper than the CXB slope indicating that the majority of obscured sources making the bulk of the CXB resides at even lower hard X-ray fluxes.

preprint2002arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.