4.1 Article

Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of a group of galaxies, HCG 62

Journal

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN
Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages 719-742

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pasj/58.4.719

Keywords

galaxies : clusters : individual (HCG 62); galaxies : abundances; galaxies : ISM; X-rays : galaxies; X-rays : ISM, cavity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present results from Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of a bright group of galaxies, HCG 62. There are two cavities at about 30 northeast and 20 southwest of the central galaxy in the Chandra image. The energy spectrum shows no significant change in the cavity compared with that in the surrounding region. The radial X-ray profile is described by the sum of the 3-beta components with core radii of about 2, 10, and 160 kpc. We studied the radial distributions of the temperature and the metal abundance with a joint spectral fit for both data; two temperatures were required in the inner r < 2' (36 kpc) region. A sharp drop of the temperature at r similar to 5' implies a gravitational mass density even lower than the gas density, suggesting that the gas may not be in hydrostatic equilibrium. The Fe and Si abundances are 1-2 solar at the center, and drop to about 0.1 solar at r similar to 10'. The O abundance is less than 0.5 solar, and shows a flatter profile. The observed metal distribution supports the view that iron and silicon are produced by type la supernova (SN Ia) in the central galaxy, while galactic winds by SN II have caused a wide distribution of oxygen. The supporting mechanism of the cavity is discussed. The pressure for the sum of electrons and the magnetic field is too low to displace the hot group gas, and the required pressure due to high-energy protons is nearly 700-times higher than the electron pressure. This leaves the origin of the cavities a puzzle; we also discuss other possible origins of the cavities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available