...
So, how about 30-100, 100-300, 300-1000, 1000-3000, and >3000 MeV? (I'm revealing some EGRET heritage in preferring these ranges to ranges of 0.5 in log~10~(E). What about going down to 20 MeV?
(Ballet) I have nothing against splitting at 300 MeV rather than 3162 MeV.
I don't think it is useful to extend down to 20 MeV. The events measured below 30 MeV are for a large part coming from above 30 MeV (the effective area increases steeply with energy there) and they have very bad spatial resolution.
On the other hand, it may be useful to add another band above 3 GeV (split 3 to 10 GeV and > 10 GeV). This will add another piece of information for bright hard sources and will not really change anything for faint sources (most photons above 3 GeV will be in the 3 to 10 GeV band).
It is true that for many sources the only useful bands will be 300 MeV to 1 GeV and 1 to 3 GeV, but I don't see that as a problem.
5. Flux_History
(Ballet) Did anybody study what was the best energy interval (in particular the lower boundary) to look for variability? Is 100 MeV indeed the best trade-off between number of source photons and number of background photons plus contamination by other sources ?
(Digel) This has not been studied, to my knowledge. Certainly 100 MeV is not the best in terms of being able to distinguish sources. Quoting fluxes for the range >100 MeV, though, is common.
...