4.7 Article

Searching for massive outflows in Holmberg IX X-1 and NGC 1313 X-1: the iron K band

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 426, Issue 1, Pages 473-483

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21727.x

Keywords

black hole physics; X-rays: binaries

Funding

  1. STFC
  2. NASA through the Einstein Fellowship Program [PF1-120087]
  3. ESA member states
  4. USA (NASA)
  5. STFC [ST/J001538/1, ST/F00723X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F00723X/1, ST/J001538/1, ST/H00243X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have analysed all the good quality XMMNewton data publicly available for the bright ultraluminous X-ray sources Holmberg IX X-1 and NGC 1313 X-1, with the aim of searching for discrete emission or absorption features in the Fe K band that could provide observational evidence for the massive outflows predicted if these sources are accreting at substantially super-Eddington rates. We do not find statistically compelling evidence for any atomic lines, and the limits that are obtained have interesting consequences. Any features in the immediate Fe K energy band (67?keV) must have equivalent widths weaker than similar to 30?eV for Holmberg IX X-1 and weaker than similar to 50?eV for NGC 1313 X-1 (at 99?per cent confidence). In comparison to the sub-Eddington outflows observed in GRS 1915+105, which imprint iron absorption features with equivalent widths of similar to 30?eV, the limits obtained here appear quite stringent, particularly when Holmberg IX X-1 and NGC 1313 X-1 must be expelling at least 510 times as much material if they host black holes of similar masses. The difficulty in reconciling these observational limits with the presence of strong line-of-sight outflows suggests that either these sources are not launching such outflows or they must be directed away from our viewing angle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available