Search

Article

x
中国物理学会期刊
Chinese Physics Letters Chinese Physics B 物理学报 物理 中国物理学会期刊网
Advance Search

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

Expectation on observations of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray sources using the HADAR experiment

Sun Hui-Ying ,  Qian Xiang-Li ,  Chen Tian-Lu ,  Danzengluobu ,  Feng You-Liang ,  Gao Qi ,  Gou Quan-Bu ,  Guo Yi-Qing ,  Hu Hong-Bo ,  Kang Ming-Ming ,  Li Hai-Jin ,  Liu Cheng ,  Liu Mao-Yuan ,  Liu Wei ,  Qiao Bing-Qiang ,  Wang Xu ,  Wang Zhen ,  Xin Guang-Guang ,  Yao Yu-Hua ,  Yuan Qiang ,  Zhang Yi

downloadPDF
Citation:
shu
Previous

Expectation on observations of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray sources using the HADAR experiment

Sun Hui-Ying, Qian Xiang-Li, Chen Tian-Lu, Danzengluobu, Feng You-Liang, Gao Qi, Gou Quan-Bu, Guo Yi-Qing, Hu Hong-Bo, Kang Ming-Ming, Li Hai-Jin, Liu Cheng, Liu Mao-Yuan, Liu Wei, Qiao Bing-Qiang, Wang Xu, Wang Zhen, Xin Guang-Guang, Yao Yu-Hua, Yuan Qiang, Zhang Yi
Acta Phys. Sin., 2023, 72(19): 199501.
doi: 10.7498/aps.72.20230977
PDF
HTML
Get Citation

  • Abstract

    High altitude detection of astronomical radiation (HADAR) is an innovative array of atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes that employs pure water as its medium. By utilizing large-aperture hemispherical lenses, HADAR can capture atmospheric Cherenkov light, enabling the detection of gamma rays and cosmic rays in the energy range of 10 GeV to 10 TeV. Compared to traditional Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, HADAR offers distinct advantages such as a low energy threshold, high sensitivity, and a wide field of view. The telescope mainly consists of a hemispherical lens with a diameter of 5 m acting as a Cherenkov light collector, a cylindrical metal tank with a 4 m radius and 7 m height, and an imaging system at the bottom of the tank. The sky region covered by HADAR is much larger than the current generation of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes. The field of view of HADAR can reach up to 60 degrees. Its continuous scanning capability allows for comprehensive observations of gamma-ray sources throughout the entire celestial sphere, making it an ideal instrument for studying transient and variable sources. In this study, the observational capabilities of HADAR are thoroughly investigated using the latest 4FGL-DR3 and 4LAC-DR3 gamma-ray source catalogs from Fermi-LAT. For extragalactic sources, the energy spectra in the high energy range have been extrapolated to the very high energy range, taking into account the absorption effect caused by extragalactic background light. By comparing the extrapolated results with existing VHE experimental data, the feasibility of this extrapolation method has been demonstrated. Through simulated analyses of the significance of these sources, it is anticipated that HADAR will detect a total of 93 gamma-ray sources with a significance exceeding 5 standard deviations during one year of operation. These sources comprise 45 galactic sources, 39 extragalactic sources, 3 sources of unknown type, and 6 unassociated sources.

    Authors and contacts

    • 1.

      School of Intelligent Engineering, Shandong Management University, Jinan 250357, China

    • 2.

      Key Laboratory of Cosmic Rays, Ministry of Education, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China

    • 3.

      Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

    • 4.

      University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

    • 5.

      College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China

    • 6.

      Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

    • 7.

      Suzhou Aerospace Information Research Institute, Suzhou 215000, China

    • 8.

      College of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China

    • 9.

      Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210023, China

      • Corresponding author: Qian Xiang-Li, qianxl@sdmu.edu.cn ; Guo Yi-Qing, guoyq@ihep.ac.cn ; 
    • Funds: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12263005, 12005120, 12147218, U1831208, U2031110) and the Key Laboratory of Cosmic Ray of the Ministry of Education of China, Tibet University (Grant No. KLCR-202201)

    References

    [1]

    Hinton J A 2004 New Astron. Rev. 48 331Google Scholar

    [2]

    Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2008 Astrophys. J. 674 1037Google Scholar

    [3]

    Holder J, Acciari V, Aliu E 2008 4th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany, July 7–11, p657
    [4]

    CTA Consortium 2018 Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (Singapore: World Scientific) pp11–26
    [5]

    Ellison D C, Drury L O’C, Meyer J P 1997 Astrophys. J. 487 197Google Scholar

    [6]

    Gaensler B M, Slane P O 2006 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 44 17Google Scholar

    [7]

    Abdalla H, Abramowski A, Aharonian F 2018 Astron. Astrophys. 612 A1Google Scholar

    [8]

    Abeysekara A U, Archer A, Aune T 2018 Astrophys. J. 861 134Google Scholar

    [9]

    Albert A, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2020 Astrophys. J. 905 76Google Scholar

    [10]

    Antonucci R 1993 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 31 473Google Scholar

    [11]

    Urry C M, Padovani P 1995 Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 107 803Google Scholar

    [12]

    Sikora M, Begelman M C, Rees M J 1994 Astrophys. J. 421 153Google Scholar

    [13]

    Aharonian F 2000 New. Astron. 5 377Google Scholar

    [14]

    Mücke A, Protheroe R J, Engel R, Rachen J P, Stanev T 2003 Astropart. Phys. 18 593Google Scholar

    [15]

    Mannheim K, Biermann P L 1989 Astron. Astrophys. 221 211
    [16]

    Mannheim K 1998 Science 279 684Google Scholar

    [17]

    Böttcher M, Reimer A, Sweeney K, Prakash A 2013 Astrophys. J. 768 54Google Scholar

    [18]

    Urry C M 1999 Astropart. Phys. 11 159Google Scholar

    [19]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Agudo I 2010 Astrophys. J. 716 30Google Scholar

    [20]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2010 Astrophys. J. 715 429Google Scholar

    [21]

    Xin G G, Yao Y H, Qian X L 2021 Astrophys. J. 923 112Google Scholar

    [22]

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2022 Front. Phys.-Beijing 17 64602Google Scholar

    [23]

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2023 Acta Phys. Sin. 72 049501 [钱祥利, 孙惠英, 陈天禄 2023 物理学报 72 049501Google Scholar

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2023 Acta Phys. Sin. 72 049501Google Scholar

    [24]

    Ajello M, Atwood W B, Baldini L 2017 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 232 18Google Scholar

    [25]

    Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 76Google Scholar

    [26]

    Bartoli B, Bernardini P, Bi X J 2013 Astrophys. J. 779 27Google Scholar

    [27]

    Abeysekara A U, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2013 Astropart. Phys. 50 26
    [28]

    Amenomori M, Bi X J, Chen D 2009 Astrophys. J. 692 61Google Scholar

    [29]

    Ma X H, Bi Y J, Cao Z 2022 Chin. Phys. C 46 030001Google Scholar

    [30]

    Cai H, Zhang Y, Liu C 2017 J. Instrum. 12 09023
    [31]

    Chen T L, Liu C, Gao Q 2019 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 927 46Google Scholar

    [32]

    Atwood W B, Abdo A A, Ackermann M 2009 Astrophys. J. 697 1071Google Scholar

    [33]

    Abdollahi S, Acero F, Baldini L 2022 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 260 53Google Scholar

    [34]

    Ajello M, Baldini L, Ballet J 2022 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 263 24Google Scholar

    [35]

    Abdollahi S, Acero F, Ackermann M 2020 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 247 33Google Scholar

    [36]

    Ajello M, Angioni R, Axelsson M 2020 Astrophys. J. 892 105Google Scholar

    [37]

    Gilmore R C, Somerville R S, Primack J R, Domínguez A 2012 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422 3189Google Scholar

    [38]

    Domínguez A, Primack J R, Rosario D J 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2556Google Scholar

    [39]

    Patel S, Maier G, Kaaret P 2021 arXiv: 210806424 [astro-ph.HE
    [40]

    Ghisellini G, Righi C, Costamante L, Tavecchio F 2017 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469 255Google Scholar

    [41]

    Abdalla H, Abe H, Acero F 2021 J. Cosmol. Astropart. P. 2021 048Google Scholar

    [42]

    Amenomori M, Ayabe S, Chen D 2005 Astrophys. J. 633 1005Google Scholar

    [43]

    Aliu E, Archambault S, Arlen T 2012 Astrophys. J. 750 94Google Scholar

    [44]

    Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2012 Astron. Astrophys. 538 A103Google Scholar

    [45]

    Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2013 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434 1889Google Scholar

    [46]

    Aleksić J, Antonelli L A, Antoranz P 2011 Astrophys. J. Lett. 730 L8Google Scholar

    [47]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, Bazer-Bachi A R 2007 Astron. Astrophys. 470 475Google Scholar

    [48]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, de Almeida U B 2007 Astron. Astrophys. 475 L9Google Scholar

    [49]

    Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2014 Science 346 1080Google Scholar

    [50]

    H.E.S.S. Collaboration 2020 Nature 582 356Google Scholar

    [51]

    VERITAS Collaboration, VLBA 43 GHz M87 Monitoring Team, H.E.S.S. Collaboration, MAGIC Collaboration 2009 Science 325 444Google Scholar

    [52]

    Acero F, Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G 2009 Science 326 1080Google Scholar

    [53]

    Abdalla H, Aharonian F, Benkhali F A 2018 Astron. Astrophys. 617 A73Google Scholar

    [54]

    Acciari V A, Aliu E, Arlen T 2009 Nature 462 770Google Scholar

    [55]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2010 Astrophys. J. Lett. 709 L152Google Scholar

  • 图 1  HADAR阵列示意图　(a)阵列分布图; (b)单个水透镜详细结构图[21]

    Figure 1.  Schematic of HADAR: (a) Layout of the HADAR experiment; (b) detailed design of a water-lens telescope[21].

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    图 2  HADAR及其他伽马射线实验的灵敏度曲线对比图[23]

    Figure 2.  Comparisons of the sensitivity of HADAR with other γ-ray instruments[23]

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    图 3  伽马射线衰减因子与能量的关系图, 分别对应红移为0.03, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5和1.0处的源. 实线代表基于威尔金森微波各向异性探测器卫星(WMAP5)数据的模型, 作为对比, 基于固定参数的WMAP5模型(紫色点划线)和Domínguez模型[38] (红色点划线)也分别画出. 可以看出伽马射线的衰减主要集中在甚高能段, 随着红移的增加吸收效应逐渐变强, 且衰减逐渐向低能段发展. 低红移时在1—10 TeV能量区间存在一个较平缓的变化[37]

    Figure 3.  Attenuation ${\rm{e}}^{-\tau}$ of gamma-rays versus gamma-ray energy, for sources at z = 0.03, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0. Results are compared for Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe 5-year (WMAP5, solid) and WMAP5 + fixed (dash-dotted violet) models, as well as the model of Domínguez[38] (dash-dotted red). Increasing distance causes absorption features to increase in magnitude and appear at lower energies. A plateau can be seen between 1–10 TeV at low redshift[37]

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    图 4  外推得到的源3C 66A, 1ES 1218+304, PKS 1424+240和PG 1553+113的宽能量段伽马射线谱能量分布图, 可以看出, 采用内禀谱函数加EBL吸收的谱模型能较好地描述能谱的实验观测数据. 其中低能段为Fermi-LAT 4FGL的实验数据(蓝色菱形), VHE能段为VERITAS的实验数据(黄色圆圈代表低态, 黄色圆点代表不同耀发态的数据). 三种不同的红色虚线分别代表不同的谱函数模型, 实线代表Fermi-LAT采用的谱函数. 纵坐标代表观测的流强, 其中包含了EBL的吸收效应

    Figure 4.  Gamma-ray spectral energy distribution for the sources 3C 66A, 1ES 1218+304, PKS 1424+240, and PG 1553+113 obtained over a wide energy range by extrapolation. The resulting data show that the spectral models using the intrinsic spectral function and EBL absorption fit the experimental data well. The Fermi-LAT 4FGL data is represented by blue diamonds in the low-energy band, while in the VHE band the VERITAS data is depicted by yellow circles for the low state and yellow dots for the different flaring states. Three different red dashed lines represent different spectral function models, while the solid line represents the Fermi-LAT preferred function. The y-axis represents the flux, which includes the absorption effect of EBL

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    图 5  河外源的预期能谱图, 图中蓝色实线为BL Lacs, 红色虚线为FSRQs, 绿色实线为BCUs, 黑色虚线为Nonblazar AGN, 黑色实线为HADAR运行1 a的灵敏度曲线

    Figure 5.  Expected energy spectrum for extragalactic sources. The blue solid line represents BL Lacs, the red dashed line represents FSRQs, the green solid line represents BCUs, the black dashed line represents Nonblazar AGN, and the black solid line indicates the sensitivity of HADAR operating for 1 a

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    图 6  赤道坐标系(J2000 坐标)下HADAR对Fermi-LAT源的观测显著性预期天图, 上面标注为河外源, 下面标注为河内源及未知类型和未关联的源, 显著性显示范围为–3—15

    Figure 6.  Expected significance sky map of HADAR observations with respect to Fermi-LAT sources in the equatorial coordinates (J2000 epoch). The map is annotated with extragalactic sources above, and with galactic sources, unknown sources, and unassociated sources below. Significance levels are displayed in the range of –3 to 15

    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    表 1  HADAR及其他IACT和EAS实验的性能对比, 表中列出了各实验的名称、覆盖天区、视场、能量阈值、角分辨、观测点源的灵敏度和参考文献

    Table 1.  Comparison of the performance of HADAR and other IACT/EAS experiments. For each experiment, the name, spatial coverage, field of view, energy threshold, angular resolution, point-source ssensitivity and reference are given.

    Experiment Hemisphere/(N, S) FOV/sr Energy threshold Angular resolution/(°) Sensitivity/Crab Ref.
    Fermi-LAT 2FHL space 2.7 10 GeV–2 TeV 0.1°(30 GeV) 3%–4% [24]
    LHAASO-WCDA N 1.5 100 GeV–30 TeV 0.4°(2 TeV) < 10% [29]
    HAWC N 1.5 100 sGeV–10 sTeV ~0.5° 5%–10% [9]
    H.E.S.S. S 0.006 30 GeV–100 TeV 0.08° 0.4%–2.0% [7]
    MAGIC N 0.003 50 GeV–10 TeV ~0.1° ~0.7% [25]
    CTA N, S 0.0048–0.015 20 GeV–300 TeV 0.07°(1 TeV) 0.2%–0.4% [4]
    HADAR N 0.84 10 GeV–10 TeV 0.4°(100 GeV) 1.3%–2.4% [22]
    DownLoad: CSV

    表 2  HADAR视场内4个AGN源的性质参数, 谱的模型参数从4LAC/4FGL导出. 表中从左到右分别为: 4FGL源名称、源对应体、AGN类型、SED分类、红移、模型, 该谱模型下的能量参考值、对应在能量$ E_0 $处的微分流强、谱指数Γ和曲率参数β

    Table 2.  Property parameters for four AGN sources, where the spectral model parameters are based on 4LAC or 4FGL. Columns from left to right are as follows: 4FGL source name, counterpart, type, class, redshift, model, $ E_0 $, differential flux at $ E_0 $ with the fit model, spectral index Γ, curvature parameter β

    4FGL Name Counterpart Type Class Redshift Model E0/GeV F0 /(TeV–1·cm–2·s–1) Γ β
    J0222.6+4301 3C 66A BLL ISP 0.444 LP 1.197 1.03 × 10–5 1.89 0.04
    J1221.3+3010 1ES 1218+304 BLL EHSP 0.184 PL 4.501 1.83 × 10–7 1.71 —
    J1427.0+2348 PKS 1424+240 BLL HSP 0.604 LP 1.205 7.03 × 10–6 1.71 0.06
    J1555.7+1111 PG 1553+113 BLL HSP 0.360 LP 1.802 3.84 × 10–6 1.54 0.07
    DownLoad: CSV

    表 3  HADAR预期观测到的Fermi-LAT源的种类和数目

    Table 3.  Types and numbers of Fermi-LAT sources that HADAR is expected to detect

    4FGL-DR3 source classes Number of sources in 4FGL-DR3 Number of sources in HADAR FOV Expected to be observed by HADAR in 1 a Expected to be observed by HADAR in 5 a
    Young / Millisecond pulsars 292 106 34 52
    PWNe, SNR 63 22 10 13
    SNR / PWNe 114 26 0 1
    Globular cluster 35 5 0 0
    Star-forming region 5 2 1 1
    High-mass Binary, Low-mass Binary, Binary, Nova 30 6 0 0
    BL Lacs 1458 492 34 66
    FSRQs 792 376 2 5
    Blazar candidate of uncertain type 1493 88 0 2
    Nonblazar AGN (RDG, AGN, SSRQ, CSS, NLSY1, SEY) 71 36 3 8
    Starburst galaxy 8 3 0 0
    Normal galaxy 6 3 0 0
    Unkown 134 48 3 7
    Unassociated 2157 592 6 25
    Total 6658 1805 93 180
    DownLoad: CSV

    表 4  HADAR视场内Fermi-LAT河外源的能谱参数及观测信息, 谱的参数从4LAC-DR3导出. 表中从左到右分别为: 4FGL源名称, 源对应体, 赤经, 赤纬, SED分类, 红移, 拟合模型, 该谱模型下的能量参考值, 对应在能量$ E_0 $处的微分流强, 谱指数Γ, 曲率参数β, 有效观测时间, 观测显著性

    Table 4.  Property parameters for extragalactic sources in HADAR FOV, where the spectral model parameters are derived from 4LAC-DR3. Columns from left to right are as follows: 4FGL source name, counterpart, right ascension, declination, class, redshift, model, $ E_0 $, differential flux at $ E_0 $ with the fit model, spectral index Γ, curvature parameter β, live time and significance

    4FGL name Counterpart R.A. Dec. Type Redshift Model E0/GeV F0/(TeV–1·cm–2·s–1) Γ β Time/h S/σ
    J0112.1+2245 S2 0109+22 18.03 22.75 BLL 0.265 LP 0.769 1.46 × 10–5 1.99 0.060 277.8 9.05
    J0211.2+1051 MG1J021114+1051 32.81 10.86 BLL 0.200 LP 0.922 7.51 × 10–6 2.02 0.042 196.3 6.47
    J0222.6+4302 3C 66A 35.67 43.04 BLL 0.444 LP 1.246 8.40 × 10–6 1.89 0.046 264.2 17.9
    J0319.8+4130 NGC 1275 49.96 41.51 RDG 0.018 LP 0.918 4.36 × 10–5 2.05 0.069 271.9 54.6
    J0521.7+2112 TXS 0518+211 80.44 21.21 bll 0.108 LP 1.541 4.64 × 10–6 1.86 0.045 271.0 50.2
    J0620.7+2643 RX J0620.6+2644 95.18 26.73 bll 0.134 PL 17.415 1.22 × 10–9 1.55 — 290.3 5.1
    J0648.7+1516 RX J0648.7+1516 102.19 15.28 bll 0.179 LP 3.248 1.22 × 10–7 1.60 0.056 234.3 10.9
    J0650.7+2503 1ES 0647+250 102.7 25.05 bll 0.203 LP 2.067 8.44 × 10–7 1.65 0.041 286.0 32.9
    J0738.1+1742 PKS 0735+17 114.54 17.71 bll 0.424 LP 1.623 2.25 × 10–6 1.97 0.067 251.3 5.2
    J0809.8+5218 1ES 0806+524 122.46 52.31 BLL 0.138 LP 1.342 1.91 × 10–6 1.83 0.023 193.9 15.1
    J0915.9+2933 Ton 0396 138.99 29.55 bll 0.190 LP 1.390 9.28 × 10–7 1.74 0.081 294.7 7.4
    J1015.0+4926 1H 1013+498 153.77 49.43 bll 0.212 LP 1.044 6.00 × 10–6 1.75 0.044 220.0 27.9
    J1058.6+5627 TXS 1055+567 164.67 56.46 BLL 0.143 LP 1.102 2.38 × 10–6 1.86 0.050 149.4 6.1
    J1104.4+3812 Mkn 421 166.12 38.21 BLL 0.030 PLEC 1.258 1.79 × 10–5 1.74 — 284.9 519.6
    J1117.0+2013 RBS 0958 169.27 20.23 bll 0.139 PL 1.964 3.12 × 10–7 1.95 — 266.1 5.0
    J1120.8+4212 RBS 0970 170.20 42.20 bll 0.124 LP 2.416 2.11 × 10–7 1.55 0.046 268.6 23.9
    J1150.6+4154 RBS 1040 177.66 41.91 bll 0.320 LP 1.949 4.71 × 10–7 1.55 0.135 270.0 7.2
    J1217.9+3007 B2 1215+30 184.48 30.12 BLL 0.130 LP 1.248 5.77 × 10–6 1.87 0.043 295.1 37.7
    J1221.3+3010 PG 1218+304 185.34 30.17 bll 0.184 LP 2.590 5.27 × 10–7 1.65 0.029 295.2 37.4
    J1221.5+2814 W Comae 185.38 28.24 bll 0.102 LP 0.781 6.00 × 10–6 2.11 0.024 293.1 5.5
    J1230.2+2517 ON 246 187.56 25.30 bll 0.135 LP 0.800 6.66 × 10–6 2.02 0.056 286.7 5.8
    J1230.8+1223 M 87 187.71 12.39 rdg 0.004 LP 1.124 1.30 × 10–6 2.00 0.036 210.5 5.3
    J1417.9+2543 1E 1415.6+2557 214.49 25.72 bll 0.237 LP 8.155 6.13 × 10–9 1.28 0.138 287.9 5.1
    J1427.0+2348 PKS 1424+240 216.76 23.80 BLL 0.604 LP 1.254 5.70 × 10–6 1.71 0.057 281.8 21.7
    J1428.5+4240 H 1426+428 217.13 42.68 bll 0.129 PL 5.135 2.69 × 10–8 1.65 — 266.1 10.3
    J1449.5+2746 B2 1447+27 222.40 27.77 rdg 0.031 PL 14.614 5.37 × 10–10 1.46 — 292.4 6.8
    J1555.7+1111 PG 1553+113 238.93 11.19 BLL 0.360 LP 3.802 1.16 × 10–6 1.57 0.095 199.5 56.4
    J1653.8+3945 Mkn 501 253.47 39.76 BLL 0.033 LP 1.508 3.78 × 10–6 1.75 0.018 279.5 125.1
    J1725.0+1152 1H 1720+117 261.27 11.87 bll 0.180 LP 2.216 7.55 × 10–7 1.76 0.056 205.9 14.5
    J1728.3+5013 I Zw 187 262.08 50.23 bll 0.055 PL 2.983 1.82 × 10–7 1.79 — 213.2 21.1
    J1838.8+4802 GB6J1838+4802 279.71 48.04 bll 0.300 LP 1.631 8.39 × 10–7 1.78 0.040 231.3 6.7
    J1904.1+3627 MG2J190411+3627 286.03 36.45 bll 0.078 PL 5.074 2.01 × 10–8 1.80 — 289.7 5.8
    J2116.2+3339 B2 2114+33 319.06 33.66 bll 0.350 LP 1.653 1.10 × 10–6 1.75 0.095 294.4 7.1
    J2202.7+4216 BL Lac 330.69 42.28 BLL 0.069 LP 0.871 4.07 × 10–5 2.12 0.059 268.2 27.4
    J2232.6+1143 CTA 102 338.15 11.73 FSRQ 1.037 PLEC 1.082 4.34 × 10–5 2.27 — 204.5 5.9
    J2250.0+3825 B3 2247+381 342.51 38.42 bll 0.119 PL 5.338 2.55 × 10–8 1.74 — 284.2 7.9
    J2253.9+1609 3C 454.3 343.50 16.15 FSRQ 0.859 PLEC 0.892 1.32 × 10–4 2.38 — 240.7 10.9
    J2323.8+4210 1ES 2321+419 350.97 42.18 bll 0.059 LP 1.857 5.31 × 10–7 1.80 0.068 268.7 11.0
    J2347.0+5141 1ES 2344+514 356.77 51.70 bll 0.044 LP 1.911 7.15 × 10–7 1.74 0.039 199.8 29.2
    DownLoad: CSV

    表 5  HADAR视场内Fermi-LAT河内源的能谱参数及观测信息, 谱的参数从4FGL-DR3导出. 表中从左到右分别为: 4FGL源名称, 源对应体, 赤经, 赤纬, SED分类, 拟合模型, 该谱模型下的能量参考值, 对应在能量$ E_0 $处的微分流强, 谱指数Γ, 曲率参数β, 有效观测时间, 观测显著性

    Table 5.  Property parameters for galactic sources in HADAR FOV, where the spectral model parameters are derived from 4FGL-DR3. Columns from left to right are as follows: 4FGL source name, counterpart, right ascension, declination, class, model, $ E_0 $, differential flux at $ E_0 $ with the fit model, spectral index Γ, curvature parameter β, live time and significance

    4FGL Name Counterpart R.A. Dec. Type Model $ E_0 $/GeV F0/(TeV–1·cm–2·s–1) Γ β Time/h S/σ
    J0030.4+0451PSR J0030+04517.614.86MSPPLEC1.3607.36 × 10–62.08—130.140.6
    J0102.8+4839PSR J0102+483915.7148.66MSPPLEC1.3781.42 × 10–62.18—226.46.0
    J0106.4+4855PSR J0106+485516.6148.93PSRPLEC1.5781.66 × 10–62.11—224.214.2
    J0218.1+4232PSR J0218+423234.5342.55MSPPLEC0.8201.20 × 10–52.35—266.86.2
    J0220.1+1155—35.0411.92—PL16.6223.98 × 10–101.57—206.25.6
    J0340.3+4130PSR J0340+413055.1041.51MSPPLEC1.6591.38 × 10–62.03—271.924.6
    J0357.8+3204PSR J0357+320559.4632.08PSRPLEC1.1041.26 × 10–52.30—295.519.3
    J0425.6+5522eSNR G150.3+04.566.4255.37SNRLP7.2401.19 × 10–71.640.047161.8123.6
    J0534.5+2201iCrab Nebula83.6322.02PWNLP10.0005.50 × 10–71.750.080274.7639.6
    J0540.3+2756eSim 14785.1027.94SNRLP1.1925.50 × 10–62.070.081292.711.1
    J0554.1+3107PSR J0554+310788.5531.12PSRPLEC1.0664.06 × 10–62.34—295.55.1
    J0605.1+3757PSR J0605+375791.2837.96MSPPLEC1.5077.88 × 10–72.18—285.75.3
    J0617.2+2234eIC 44394.3122.58SNRLP4.5512.58 × 10–62.280.123277.137.6
    J0620.9+2201—95.2322.02—PL20.9136.45 × 10–101.61—274.75.7
    J0631.5+1036PSR J0631+103697.8810.60PSRPLEC1.5402.52 × 10–62.20—193.811.1
    J0631.8+0645PSR J0631+064697.966.76PSRPLEC2.2587.60 × 10–72.22—152.95.9
    J0633.7+0632PSR J0633+063298.446.54PSRPLEC1.5278.13 × 10–62.22—150.426.3
    J0633.9+1746PSR J0633+174698.4817.77PSRPLEC1.6703.19 × 10–42.10—251.7575.7
    J0650.6+2055NVSS J065035+205556102.6620.93unkLP3.6434.42 × 10–81.630.096269.69.5
    J0751.2+1808PSR J0751+1807117.8018.14MSPPLEC1.6439.45 × 10–72.06—254.113.1
    J1312.7+0050PSR J1312+0051198.190.84MSPPLEC1.3012.01 × 10–62.15—76.35.7
    J1554.2+2008—238.5520.15—PL4.6191.14 × 10–81.82—265.65.0
    J1816.5+4510PSR J1816+4510274.1545.17MSPPLEC1.1711.48 × 10–62.14—251.66.1
    J1836.2+5925PSR J1836+5925279.0659.43PSRPLEC1.4286.64 × 10–52.07—112.6388.8
    J1846.3+0919PSR J1846+0919281.609.33PSRPLEC1.4583.78 × 10–62.19—181.014.9
    J1854.5+2050—283.6420.84—PL103.2332.68 × 10–111.01—269.234.8
    J1857.7+0246eHESS J1857+026284.452.77PWNPL6.0632.25 × 10–72.13—103.119.5
    J1907.9+0602PSR J1907+0602286.986.04PSRPLEC1.8981.39 × 10–52.37—144.431.3
    J1910.8+2856NVSS J191052+285621287.7228.94unkPL7.2436.08 × 10–91.80—294.17.1
    J1911.0+0905W 49B287.769.09snrLP4.5527.74 × 10–72.280.112178.68.5
    J1918.0+0331NVSS J191803+033032289.513.52unkPL12.6472.39 × 10–91.72—113.06.2
    J1923.2+1408eW 51C290.8214.14SNRLP2.7685.08 × 10–62.210.109225.425.9
    J1924.3+1628—291.1016.48—PL22.8937.99 × 10–101.76—243.17.7
    J1952.9+3252PSR J1952+3252298.2532.88PSRPLEC1.6189.92 × 10–62.29—295.139.3
    J1954.3+2836PSR J1954+2836298.5928.60PSRPLEC1.5198.08 × 10–62.32—293.723.1
    J1958.7+2846PSR J1958+2846299.6828.77PSRPLEC1.3561.13 × 10–52.35—293.921.1
    J2017.4+0602PSR J2017+0603304.356.05MSPPLEC1.8002.20 × 10–61.98—144.643.2
    J2017.9+3625PSR J2017+3625304.4936.43PSRPLEC1.4676.99 × 10–62.53—289.85.7
    J2021.0+4031egamma Cygni305.2740.52SNRLP7.7582.07 × 10–71.880.060276.495.9
    J2021.1+3651PSR J2021+3651305.2836.86PSRPLEC1.8422.62 × 10–52.32—288.8114.0
    J2028.3+3331PSR J2028+3332307.0833.53PSRPLEC1.4676.57 × 10–62.32—294.617.5
    J2028.6+4110eCygnus X307.1741.17SFRLP2.0362.90 × 10–52.040.033273.5368.3
    J2030.0+3641PSR J2030+3641307.5136.69PSRPLEC1.6503.92 × 10–62.33—289.212.6
    J2030.9+4416PSR J2030+4415307.7344.27PSRPLEC1.2846.77 × 10–62.47—257.25.4
    J2032.2+4127PSR J2032+4127308.0641.46PSRPLEC2.9183.31 × 10–62.26—272.247.2
    J2035.0+3632PSR J2034+3632308.7636.54MSPPLEC2.4565.99 × 10–72.17—289.511.3
    J2043.3+1711PSR J2043+1711310.8417.19MSPPLEC1.2223.47 × 10–62.10—247.920.9
    J2055.8+2540PSR J2055+2539313.9625.67PSRPLEC1.2798.39 × 10–62.18—287.726.6
    J2111.4+4606PSR J2111+4606317.8646.10PSRPLEC1.3054.84 × 10–62.26—245.411.9
    J2214.6+3000PSR J2214+3000333.6730.01MSPPLEC1.0905.97 × 10–62.06—295.128.8
    J2301.9+5855eCTB 109345.4958.92SNRLP3.4611.57 × 10–71.910.054119.26.8
    J2302.7+4443PSR J2302+4442345.6944.72MSPPLEC2.0492.04 × 10–62.02—254.555.8
    J2304.0+5406e—346.0154.11—LP14.0341.58 × 10–81.760.127175.618.0
    J2323.4+5849Cas A350.8658.82snrLP2.2321.38 × 10–61.870.076120.520.9
    DownLoad: CSV
  • [1]

    Hinton J A 2004 New Astron. Rev. 48 331Google Scholar

    [2]

    Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2008 Astrophys. J. 674 1037Google Scholar

    [3]

    Holder J, Acciari V, Aliu E 2008 4th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany, July 7–11, p657
    [4]

    CTA Consortium 2018 Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (Singapore: World Scientific) pp11–26
    [5]

    Ellison D C, Drury L O’C, Meyer J P 1997 Astrophys. J. 487 197Google Scholar

    [6]

    Gaensler B M, Slane P O 2006 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 44 17Google Scholar

    [7]

    Abdalla H, Abramowski A, Aharonian F 2018 Astron. Astrophys. 612 A1Google Scholar

    [8]

    Abeysekara A U, Archer A, Aune T 2018 Astrophys. J. 861 134Google Scholar

    [9]

    Albert A, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2020 Astrophys. J. 905 76Google Scholar

    [10]

    Antonucci R 1993 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 31 473Google Scholar

    [11]

    Urry C M, Padovani P 1995 Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 107 803Google Scholar

    [12]

    Sikora M, Begelman M C, Rees M J 1994 Astrophys. J. 421 153Google Scholar

    [13]

    Aharonian F 2000 New. Astron. 5 377Google Scholar

    [14]

    Mücke A, Protheroe R J, Engel R, Rachen J P, Stanev T 2003 Astropart. Phys. 18 593Google Scholar

    [15]

    Mannheim K, Biermann P L 1989 Astron. Astrophys. 221 211
    [16]

    Mannheim K 1998 Science 279 684Google Scholar

    [17]

    Böttcher M, Reimer A, Sweeney K, Prakash A 2013 Astrophys. J. 768 54Google Scholar

    [18]

    Urry C M 1999 Astropart. Phys. 11 159Google Scholar

    [19]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Agudo I 2010 Astrophys. J. 716 30Google Scholar

    [20]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2010 Astrophys. J. 715 429Google Scholar

    [21]

    Xin G G, Yao Y H, Qian X L 2021 Astrophys. J. 923 112Google Scholar

    [22]

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2022 Front. Phys.-Beijing 17 64602Google Scholar

    [23]

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2023 Acta Phys. Sin. 72 049501 [钱祥利, 孙惠英, 陈天禄 2023 物理学报 72 049501Google Scholar

    Qian X L, Sun H Y, Chen T L 2023 Acta Phys. Sin. 72 049501Google Scholar

    [24]

    Ajello M, Atwood W B, Baldini L 2017 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 232 18Google Scholar

    [25]

    Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 76Google Scholar

    [26]

    Bartoli B, Bernardini P, Bi X J 2013 Astrophys. J. 779 27Google Scholar

    [27]

    Abeysekara A U, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2013 Astropart. Phys. 50 26
    [28]

    Amenomori M, Bi X J, Chen D 2009 Astrophys. J. 692 61Google Scholar

    [29]

    Ma X H, Bi Y J, Cao Z 2022 Chin. Phys. C 46 030001Google Scholar

    [30]

    Cai H, Zhang Y, Liu C 2017 J. Instrum. 12 09023
    [31]

    Chen T L, Liu C, Gao Q 2019 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 927 46Google Scholar

    [32]

    Atwood W B, Abdo A A, Ackermann M 2009 Astrophys. J. 697 1071Google Scholar

    [33]

    Abdollahi S, Acero F, Baldini L 2022 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 260 53Google Scholar

    [34]

    Ajello M, Baldini L, Ballet J 2022 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 263 24Google Scholar

    [35]

    Abdollahi S, Acero F, Ackermann M 2020 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 247 33Google Scholar

    [36]

    Ajello M, Angioni R, Axelsson M 2020 Astrophys. J. 892 105Google Scholar

    [37]

    Gilmore R C, Somerville R S, Primack J R, Domínguez A 2012 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422 3189Google Scholar

    [38]

    Domínguez A, Primack J R, Rosario D J 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2556Google Scholar

    [39]

    Patel S, Maier G, Kaaret P 2021 arXiv: 210806424 [astro-ph.HE
    [40]

    Ghisellini G, Righi C, Costamante L, Tavecchio F 2017 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469 255Google Scholar

    [41]

    Abdalla H, Abe H, Acero F 2021 J. Cosmol. Astropart. P. 2021 048Google Scholar

    [42]

    Amenomori M, Ayabe S, Chen D 2005 Astrophys. J. 633 1005Google Scholar

    [43]

    Aliu E, Archambault S, Arlen T 2012 Astrophys. J. 750 94Google Scholar

    [44]

    Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2012 Astron. Astrophys. 538 A103Google Scholar

    [45]

    Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2013 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434 1889Google Scholar

    [46]

    Aleksić J, Antonelli L A, Antoranz P 2011 Astrophys. J. Lett. 730 L8Google Scholar

    [47]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, Bazer-Bachi A R 2007 Astron. Astrophys. 470 475Google Scholar

    [48]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, de Almeida U B 2007 Astron. Astrophys. 475 L9Google Scholar

    [49]

    Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2014 Science 346 1080Google Scholar

    [50]

    H.E.S.S. Collaboration 2020 Nature 582 356Google Scholar

    [51]

    VERITAS Collaboration, VLBA 43 GHz M87 Monitoring Team, H.E.S.S. Collaboration, MAGIC Collaboration 2009 Science 325 444Google Scholar

    [52]

    Acero F, Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G 2009 Science 326 1080Google Scholar

    [53]

    Abdalla H, Aharonian F, Benkhali F A 2018 Astron. Astrophys. 617 A73Google Scholar

    [54]

    Acciari V A, Aliu E, Arlen T 2009 Nature 462 770Google Scholar

    [55]

    Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2010 Astrophys. J. Lett. 709 L152Google Scholar

  • [1] Qian Xiang-Li, Sun Hui-Ying, Chen Tian-Lu, Danzengluobu, Feng You-Liang, Gao Qi, Gou Quan-Bu, Guo Yi-Qing, Hu Hong-Bo, Kang Ming-Ming, Li Hai-Jin, Liu Cheng, Liu Mao-Yuan, Liu Wei, Qiao Bing-Qiang, Wang Xu, Wang Zhen, Xin Guang-Guang, Yao Yu-Hua, Yuan Qiang, Zhang Yi. Prospective study on observations of gamma-ray emission from active galactic nuclei using the HADAR experiment. Acta Physica Sinica, 2023, 72(4): 049501. doi: 10.7498/aps.72.20221976
    [2] Xiong Jun, An Hong-Hai, Wang Chen, Zhang Zhen-Chi, Jiao Jin-Long, Lei An-Le, Wang Rui-Rong, Hu Guang-Yue, Wang Wei, Sun Jin-Ren. Gamma-ray generation optimized by long and short pulses jointly driving double-layer target. Acta Physica Sinica, 2022, 71(21): 215201. doi: 10.7498/aps.71.20212042
    [3] Ren Jie, Ruan Xi-Chao, Chen Yong-Hao, Jiang Wei, Bao Jie, Luan Guang-Yuan, Zhang Qi-Wei, Huang Han-Xiong, Wang Zhao-Hui, An Qi, Bai Huai-Yong, Bao Yu, Cao Ping, Chen Hao-Lei, Chen Qi-Ping, Chen Yu-Kai, Chen Zhen, Cui Zeng-Qi, Fan Rui-Rui, Feng Chang-Qing, Gao Ke-Qing, Gu Min-Hao, Han Chang-Cai, Han Zi-Jie, He Guo-Zhu, He Yong-Cheng, Hong Yang, Huang Wei-Ling, Huang Xi-Ru, Ji Xiao-Lu, Ji Xu-Yang, Jiang Hao-Yu, Jiang Zhi-Jie, Jing Han-Tao, Kang Ling, Kang Ming-Tao, Li Bo, Li Chao, Li Jia-Wen, Li Lun, Li Qiang, Li Xiao, Li Yang, Liu Rong, Liu Shu-Bin, Liu Xing-Yan, Mu Qi-Li, Ning Chang-Jun, Qi Bin-Bin, Ren Zhi-Zhou, Song Ying-Peng, Song Zhao-Hui, Sun Hong, Sun Kang, Sun Xiao-Yang, Sun Zhi-Jia, Tan Zhi-Xin, Tang Hong-Qing, Tang Jing-Yu, Tang Xin-Yi, Tian Bin-Bin, Wang Li-Jiao, Wang Peng-Cheng, Wang Qi, Wang Tao-Feng, Wen Jie, Wen Zhong-Wei, Wu Qing-Biao, Wu Xiao-Guang, Wu Xuan, Xie Li-Kun, Yang Yi-Wei, Yi Han, Yu Li, Yu Tao, Yu Yong-Ji, Zhang Guo-Hui, Zhang Lin-Hao, Zhang Xian-Peng, Zhang Yu-Liang, Zhang Zhi-Yong, Zhao Yu-Bin, Zhou Lu-Ping, Zhou Zu-Ying, Zhu Dan-Yang, Zhu Ke-Jun, Zhu Peng. In-beam γ-rays of back-streaming white neutron source at China Spallation Neutron Source. Acta Physica Sinica, 2020, 69(17): 172901. doi: 10.7498/aps.69.20200718
    [4] Qiang Peng-Fei, Sheng Li-Zhi, Li Lin-Sen, Yan Yong-Qing, Liu Zhe, Zhou Xiao-Hong. Optical design of X-ray focusing telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2019, 68(16): 160702. doi: 10.7498/aps.68.20190709
    [5] Wang Rui-Rong,  An Hong-Hai,  Xiong Jun,  Xie Zhi-Yong,  Wang Wei. X-ray source with quasi-monochromatic parallel beam. Acta Physica Sinica, 2018, 67(24): 240701. doi: 10.7498/aps.67.20180861
    [6] Wang Yan, Liu Xin, Huang Wan-Xia, Yi Ming-Hao, Guo Jin-Chuan, Zhu Pei-Ping. . Acta Physica Sinica, 2017, 66(8): 089901. doi: 10.7498/aps.66.089901
    [7] Zhu-Yue, Zhang Zi-Liang, Yang Yan-Ji, Xue Rong-Feng, Cui Wei-Wei, Lu Bo, Wang Juan, Chen Tian-Xiang, Wang Yu-Sa, Li Wei, Han Da-Wei, Huo Jia, Hu Wei, Li Mao-Shun, Zhang Yi, Zhu Yu-Xuan, Liu Miao, Zhao Xiao-Fan, Chen Yong. Quantum efficiency calibration for low energy detector in hard X-ray modulation telescope satellite. Acta Physica Sinica, 2017, 66(11): 112901. doi: 10.7498/aps.66.112901
    [8] Mou Huan, Li Bao-Quan, Cao Yang. Transmission-type miniature micro-beam modulated X-ray source based on space application. Acta Physica Sinica, 2016, 65(14): 140703. doi: 10.7498/aps.65.140703
    [9] Yan Zhao-Jun, Chen Xin-Yang, Zheng Li-Xin, Ding Yuan-Yuan, Zhu Neng-Hong. Zero co-phasing reference calibration method based on dispersed interferogram for segmented mirror telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2016, 65(19): 199501. doi: 10.7498/aps.65.199501
    [10] Liu Xin, Yi Ming-Hao, Guo Jin-Chuan. Line focal X-ray source imaging. Acta Physica Sinica, 2016, 65(21): 219501. doi: 10.7498/aps.65.219501
    [11] Yu Shu-Hai, Dong Lei, Liu Xin-Yue, Ling Jian-Yong. Analysis on reconstruction of virtual images of Fourier telescopy. Acta Physica Sinica, 2015, 64(18): 184205. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.184205
    [12] Yan Zhao-Jun, Chen Xin-Yang, Yang Peng-Qian, Zhou Dan, Zheng Li-Xin, Zhu Neng-Hong. Co-phasing detecting method based on grating dispersed fringe for Fizeau optical interferometric telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2015, 64(14): 149501. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.149501
    [13] Liao Hong-Yu, Ma Xiao-Yu, Guo You-Ming, Rao Chang-Hui, Wei Kai. Analysis of tracking error of telescope based on AR-search-iteration algorithm. Acta Physica Sinica, 2014, 63(17): 179501. doi: 10.7498/aps.63.179501
    [14] Ou Jian-Wen, Zhang Hao-Jing, Zheng Yong-Gang, Zhang Xiong. Chaotic characteristics of blazar object S5 0716+714. Acta Physica Sinica, 2014, 63(4): 049801. doi: 10.7498/aps.63.049801
    [15] Huang Kai, Yan Wen-Chao, Li Ming-Hua, Tao Meng-Ze, Chen Yan-Ping, Chen Jie, Yuan Xiao-Hui, Zhao Jia-Rui, Ma Yong, Li Da-Zhang, Gao Jie, Chen Li-Ming, Zhang Jie. X-ray source produced by laser solid target interaction at kHz repetition rate. Acta Physica Sinica, 2013, 62(20): 205204. doi: 10.7498/aps.62.205204
    [16] Wang Jian, Zhao Zong-Qing, Cai Da-Feng, Huang Wen-Zhong, He Ying-Ling, Gu Yu-Qiu. Penumbral imaging of Kα radiation source. Acta Physica Sinica, 2009, 58(10): 7074-7078. doi: 10.7498/aps.58.7074
    [17] Xu Guang, Qian Lie-Jia, Wang Tao, Zhu He-Yuan, Fan Dian-Yuan. Time telescope for the expanding of ultrashort pulses. Acta Physica Sinica, 2004, 53(1): 93-98. doi: 10.7498/aps.53.93
    [18] SUN KE-XU, YI RONG-QING, YANG JIA-MIN, WANG HONG-BIN, MA HONG-LIANG, CHEN ZHENG-LIN, HUANG TIAN-XUAN, CUI YAN-LI, ZHENG ZHI-JIAN, TANG DAO-YUAN, DING YONG-KUN, WEN SHU-HUAI, JIANG WEN-MIAN, ZHAO YONG-KUAN, CUI MING-QI, LI GANG, CUI CONG-WU, TANG E-SHENG. CALIBRASION OF THE ENERGY RESPONSE FOR THE SOFT X-RAY DETECTIONS ELEMENTS WITH THE BEIJING- SYNCHROTRON RADIATION FACILITY. Acta Physica Sinica, 1997, 46(4): 650-655. doi: 10.7498/aps.46.650
    [19] WU CHENG-WEI, GUO XING-LIN. ELECTRICAL PROPERTY AND SHEAR STRENGTH OF A SINGLE CHAIN IN ELECTRORHEOLOGY UNDER DC ELECTRICAL FIELD. Acta Physica Sinica, 1997, 46(8): 1500-1507. doi: 10.7498/aps.46.1500
    [20] ZHANG YI-BO. STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPONTANEOUS RADIATION AND STIMULATED RADIATION IN CERENKOV FREE ELECTRON LASERS. Acta Physica Sinica, 1987, 36(10): 1344-1348. doi: 10.7498/aps.36.1344
Catalog
Metrics
  • Abstract views:  2056
  • PDF Downloads:  41
  • Cited By: 0
Publishing process
  • Received Date:  13 June 2023
  • Accepted Date:  28 July 2023
  • Available Online:  02 August 2023
  • Published Online:  05 October 2023

/

返回文章
返回

Authors

Referees

About Journal

About

Copyright ©Acta Physica Sinica All Rights Reserved. 京ICP备05002789号-1

Address： PostCode：100190

Phone：010-82649829，82649241,82649863 Email：apsoffice@iphy.ac.cn   百度统计