4.7 Article

Investigating AGN heating in a sample of nearby clusters

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 373, Issue 3, Pages 959-971

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11080.x

Keywords

galaxies : clusters : general; cooling flows; X-rays : galaxies : clusters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We analyse those objects in the Brightest 55 sample of clusters of galaxies which have a short central cooling time and a central temperature drop. Such clusters are likely to require some form of heating. Where clear radio bubbles are observed in these clusters, their energy injection is compared to the X-ray cooling rate. Of the 20 clusters requiring heating, at least 14 have clear bubbles, implying a duty cycle for the bubbling activity of at least 70 per cent. The average distance out to which the bubbles can offset the X-ray cooling, r(heat), is given by r(heat)/r(cool) = 0.86 +/- 0.11 where r(cool) is defined as the radius as which the radiative cooling time is 3 Gyr. 10 out of 16 clusters have r(heat)/r(cool) greater than or similar to 1, but there is a large range in values. The clusters which require heating but show no clear bubbles were combined with those clusters which have a radio core to form a second subsample. Using r(heat) = 0.86r(cool) we calculate the size of an average bubble expected in these clusters. In five cases (3C129.1, A2063, A2204, A3112 and A3391) the radio morphology is bi-lobed and its extent similar to the expected bubble sizes. A comparison between the actual bubble size and the maximum expected if they were to offset the X-ray cooling exactly, R-max, shows a peak at R-bubble similar to 0.7R(max) with a tail extending to larger R-bubble/R-max. The offset from the expected value of R-bubble similar to R-max may indicate the presence of a non-thermal component in the innermost intracluster medium of most clusters, with a pressure comparable to the thermal pressure.

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