ASCA Observations of NLS 1 s BH Mass
ASCA Observations of NLS 1 s BH Mass from X-ray Variability and X-ray Spectrum K. Hayashida, K. Mori (Osaka University)
Narrow Line Seyfert 1 (NLS 1) n Seyfert Type 1 whose Broad Emission Line Width is Narrow. (? ? ? )
Statistical Properties Narrow Hb Width Steep Soft X-ray Spectrum Rapid / Large Ampl. X-ray Variability
BH Mass Estimation of NLS 1 n X-ray Variability n n Application of the Method developed in Hayashida et al. , 1998, Ap. J 500, p. 642. Black Body Fit to Soft Component n Classical Method in (X-ray) Astronomy Preliminary Results were appeared in Hayashida, 1998(IAU Sympo 188), and Hayashida, 1999 (Adv. in Space Res. ).
Mass Estimation from Variability AGNs n n Ix(t)/<I> Assumptions Light Curve Ix(t)/<I> n SBHC(Cyg. X-1) X-ray Variability of BHs (from SBHC to AGNs) 1. 0 is Similar to Each Other. 0. 0 Variability Time Scale is Proportional to Time System Size, i. e. , BH Mass. Cyg X-1 BH = 10 NPSD Mo * Frequency Use Power Spectrum Log(f. Normalized * P(f)) (NPSD) Log Frequency (Hz) Power per Density Log Frequency
NLS 1 ASCA Sample n 14 NLS 1 n n Zw 1, Ton S 180, PHL 1092, PKS 0558 -504, 1 H 0707495, RE 1034+39, NGC 4051, PG 1211+143, Mrk 766, PG 1244+226, IRAS 13224 -3809, PG 1404+226, Mrk 478, Ark 564. 9 BLS 1 s for Comparison n n MCG-6 -30 -15, NGC 5548, Mrk 841, Mkn 509, 3 C 120, NGC 3227) from ASCA MCG-6 -30 -15, NGC 4151, NGC 5506, ESOG 103, NGC 5548 from Ginga
ASCA Light Curves of NLS 1
NPSDs of NLS 1 s
f P(f) Plot : NLS 1 (ASCA)
Lx vs Mvar (NLS 1)
Hb FWHM vs Mvar BLS 1: 107 -108 Mo NLS 1: 105 -107 Mo
Calibration : Mass from BL width vs Mvar Mrev and Mph from Wandel, A. et al. , 1999 (astro-ph/9905224) *)Mrev for NGC 4051 is preliminary (ct=6. 5 days). 2021/3/11
Summary-1 n n n We estimated BH masses of NLS 1 s from X-ray Variabiliy. BH Masses in NLS 1 s from X-ray variability distribute from 105 to 107 Mo, while those in BLS 1 range 107 -108 Mo. Calibration to Mrev were Shown.
X-ray Spectrum of NLS 1 s
k. TBB vs Soft Excess Ratio
BB Fit ->Area->BH Size
MBBfit vs Mvar
MBBfit(0. 5 Rs) vs Mvar
Can we reconcile the Contradiction ? n For MBBfit < Mvar n Inclination Effect n n cos Factor … MBBfit gives under-estimate Tc > Te Effect n MBBfit gives under-estimate, too. 2021/3/11
Extreme NLS 1 Class/State ? Ix(t)/<I> Extreme NLS 1 Class/State ? Cyg X-1 n For M >Mvar (IRAS 13, H 0707, etc) BBfit n X-ray Variability of Light Curve Extremely Enhanced 1. 0 Components => Soft Variability Amplitude is 0. 0 Also Enhanced ? Time n Mvar underestimation NPSD * Frequency f * P(f) Frequency (Hz)
0. 5 Rs <-> Kerr BH <-> Slim Disk Solution ADAF (Slim Disk) Standard Disk ADAF From Mineshige et al. , 1999 see also Abramowicz 1995. 2021/3/11
Summary-2 n n Soft Component of NLS 1 s was fitted with a BB model with k. T of 0. 1 -0. 2 ke. V. BH mass estimated about 105 Mo (r=3 Rs) or 105 -106 Mo (r=0. 5 Rs). Lbb exceeds LEdd for r=3 Rs, but not for r=0. 5 Rs. MBBfit was compared with Mvar; Contradiction of 2 order of magnitudes was found. Possible reconciliation was discussed.
NLS 1 s : Personal View n n n NLS 1 s have smaller BH of 105 -107 Mo. In some of NLS 1 s, high mass flow rate makes near or super Eddington accretion. In the extreme high accretion rate n n Variability Amplitude is enhanced. Hard X-ray emission is suppressed. Mass flow rate changes with time scales of years, reflecting the smallness of system. NLS 1=Evolving Stage of Seyferts to BLS 1.
- Slides: 23