AGN FEEDBACK IN TWO INTERESTING GROUPS

1
AGN FEEDBACK IN TWO INTERESTING GROUPS
F. Gastaldello (IASF-MI, UCI) D. Buote (UCI),
P. Humphrey (UCI), W. Mathews (UCSC), F.
Brighenti (U. Bologna), P. Temi (AMES), S.
Molendi (IASF-MI), S. Ettori (INAF-Bologna)
2
OUTLINE

• AWM 4 corona in a relaxed object
• NGC 5044 cavities, filaments and cold fronts in
  the Perseus of groups

3
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
Gastaldello08, see also OSullivan05,
Giacintucci08
4
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
Its also a fossil system (Zibetti08)
Gastaldello09
5
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
Inspired by Donahue05
6
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
7
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
NCC
CC
Bauer05
CC
De Grandi Molendi 01
NCC
8
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
Sun09
Gastaldello08
9
AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK
Cavagnolo08
10
NGC 5044
Gastaldello09 (using J. Sanders binning code)
See also results from longer Chandra observation
(David09)
11
NGC 5044
Gastaldello09
12
NGC 5044
CAON ET AL. 2000
Gastaldello09
13
DUST IN NGC 5044
8-4.5 µm PAH
TEMI, BRIGHENTI MATHEWS 2007
14
NGC 5044
Gastaldello09
15
NGC 5044
Gastaldello09
16
SUMMARY

• Corona in a central BCG of a relaxed object what
  are the implications for the AGN feedback loop ?
• Why is it so different from other objects able to
  preserve the temperature gradient ? Are there
  others ?
• Cavities close to the nucleus but not filled by
  1.4 GHz emission in some groups (also NGC 4325)
  is that strange ?
• Sloshing seems to be a rather common feature, we
  are starting to see that also in groups (NGC
  5098, aka RGH 80, Randall09). What are the
  implications (see Markevitchs talk) ?
• What if dust just aids to cool X-ray emitting gas
  to form warm Ha emitting gas ?

17
THE MOST INTERESTING CLUSTER PERSEUS

• Spectral evidence for non-thermal emission from
  the long Chandra observations of Perseus
  (Sanders05,07)

18
IC IN PERSEUS

• If interpreted as IC emission important
  implications for magnetic field estimates and
  presence of non-thermal pressure

19
Setting the stage

• Molendi Gastaldello 09 with a 120ks XMM
  observations questioned the detection
• systematics dominate the error budget
• using the spread of values from diff. instr. and
  diff. models a loose range for NT flux of
  0-5x10-16 erg cm-2 s-1 arcsec-2
• Likely explanation cross-cal problem
• Hard X-ray detectors find flux in agreement w/
  (variable) nuclear source
• Nevalainenen04, Aiello09, Eckart09,
  recent Fermi observation (0904.1904)

20
Setting the stage

• pn
• M1
• M2

MG09
21
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• We compare Chandra ACIS S3 with EPIC pn
• About 3106 events for each spectrum
  extracted from annulus with bounding radii of 1'
  and 2
• Used old and new Chandra calibrations
  (CALDB 4.1.1 with hrmaD1996-12-20axeffaN0008.fits)
  
• Multi T spectral model (Molendi Gastaldello 09)

22
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• We start from the EPIC pn spectrum

23
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• We start from the EPIC pn spectrum
• Perform fit with multi T model

24
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• We start from the EPIC pn spectrum
• Perform fit with multi T model
• Fold best fitting model with ACIS response and
  compare it with ACIS spectrum

25
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• Plot residuals in the form of ratio data/model
• Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV

ACIS S3
pn
26
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• Plot residuals in the form of ratio data/model
• Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV

ACIS S3
pn
27
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• Similar result when using a different region
• Annulus with bounding radii of 2' and 3
• Showing only plot with new ACIS calibrations

ACIS S3
pn
28
ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn

• Residuals in the form of ratio data/model
• Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV

ACIS S3
pn
29
ACIS S3 vs EPIC MOS

• MOS2 appears to be more similar to ACIS in the
  0.7-1 keV band.
• MOS1 appears to be somewhere btwn. MOS2 and pn.

ACIS S3
MOS2
30
Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS

• Both figures have renorm factors 5 for the
  first 15 for the second lets take them out.

31
Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS

• Both figures have renorm factors 5 for the
  first 15 for the second lets take them out.

32
Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS

• Exactly what you would expect given the change in
  effective area

33
Perseus results w/ new cal

• With the new HRMA calibration the NT flux is
  reduced to a factor of 56 of what previously
  obtained and it is consistent (5x10-16 erg cm-2
  s-1 arcsec-2) with the (upper) range of values
  obtained by XMM
• Our analysis indicates that the flux cross
  calibration EPIC/ACIS below 2 keV will be
  shifted by about 10.

34
Summary

• The new HRMA effective area reduces ACIS S3 vs pn
  residual calibration errors to less than 5
• this is no small achievement!
• Major remaining discrepancy in 0.7-1 keV band
• The new spectral calibration modifies by about
  10 Chandra fluxes below 2 keV, ACIS vs EPIC flux
  cross calibration will be affected