4.7 Article

VARIABILITY OF THE HIGH-VELOCITY OUTFLOW IN THE QUASAR PDS 456

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 780, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/45

关键词

black hole physics; quasars: individual (PDS 456); X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. STFC
  2. Chandra grant [GO1-12143X]
  3. NASA [NNX11AJ57G]
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [1227522, ST/H001972/1, ST/I001573/1, ST/J000035/1, PP/F000057/1, ST/G002355/1, ST/H002456/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/J001384/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. STFC [ST/H002456/1, PP/F000057/1, ST/J000035/1, ST/G002355/1, ST/H001972/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/J001384/1, ST/I001573/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a comparison of two Suzaku X-ray observations of the nearby (z=0.184), luminous (L-bol similar to 10(47) erg s(-1)) type I quasar, PDS 456. A new 125 ks Suzaku observation in 2011 caught the quasar during a period of low X-ray flux and with a hard X-ray spectrum, in contrast with a previous 190 ks Suzaku observation in 2007 when the quasar appeared brighter and had a steep (Gamma > 2) X-ray spectrum. The 2011 X-ray spectrum contains a pronounced trough near 9 keV in the quasar rest frame, which can be modeled with blueshifted iron K-shell absorption, most likely from the He- and H-like transitions of iron. The absorption trough is observed at a similar rest-frame energy as in the earlier 2007 observation, which appears to confirm the existence of a persistent high-velocity wind in PDS 456, at an outflow velocity of 0.25-0.30c. The spectral variability between 2007 and 2011 can be accounted for by variations in a partial covering absorber, increasing in covering fraction from the brighter 2007 observation to the hard and faint 2011 observation. Overall, the low-flux 2011 observation can be explained if PDS 456 is observed at relatively low inclination angles through a Compton-thick wind, originating from the accretion disk, which significantly attenuates the X-ray flux from the quasar.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据