1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3:
4: \shortauthors{Chang \& Cui} \shorttitle{Variable X-ray Absorption Lines in
5: Cyg X-1}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Dramatic Variability of X-ray Absorption Lines in the Black Hole
10: Candidate Cygnus X-1}
11:
12: \author{Chulhoon Chang\altaffilmark{1} and Wei Cui\altaffilmark{1}}
13: \affil{Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
14: IN 47907}
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Email: chang40@physics.purdue.edu, cui@physics.purdue.edu}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18:
19: We report results from a 30 ks observation of Cygnus X-1 with the High Energy
20: Transmission Grating Spectrometer (HETGS) on board the {\em Chandra X-ray
21: Observatory}. Numerous absorption lines were detected in the HETGS spectrum.
22: The lines are associated with highly ionized Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, and Fe,
23: some of which have been seen in earlier HETGS observations. Surprisingly,
24: however, we discovered dramatic variability of the lines over the duration
25: of the present observation. For instance, the flux of the Ne X line at
26: 12.14 \AA\ was about $5 \times 10^{-3}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the
27: early part of the observation but became subsequently undetectable, with a
28: 99\% upper limit of $0.06 \times 10^{-3}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ on the
29: flux of the
30: line. This implies that the line weakened by nearly two orders of magnitude
31: on a timescale of hours. The overall X-ray flux of the source did also vary
32: during the observation but only by 20--30\%. For Cyg X-1, the absorption
33: lines are generally attributed to the absorption of X-rays by ionized stellar
34: wind in the binary system. Therefore, they may provide valuable diagnostics
35: on the physical condition of the wind. We discuss the implications of the
36: results.
37:
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{binaries: general --- black hole physics --- stars: winds,outflows
41: --- stars: individual (Cygnus X-1) --- X-rays: binaries}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44:
45: Cygnus X-1 is the first dynamically-determined black hole system (Webster \&
46: Murdin 1972; Bolton 1972). It is in a binary system with a massive O9.7 Iab
47: supergiant, and the orbital period was determined optically to be 5.6 days.
48: Cyg~X-1 is thus intrinsically different from the majority of known black
49: hole candidates (BHCs) whose companion stars are much less massive
50: (see review by McClintock \& Remillard 2006). Curiously, those that have a
51: high-mass companion (including Cyg~X-1, LMC~X-1 and LMC~X-3) are all
52: persistent X-ray sources, while those that have a low-mass companion are
53: exclusively transient sources. Perhaps, stellar wind from the companion star
54: plays a significant role in this regard (Cui, Chen, \& Zhang 1997).
55:
56: Unlike transient BHCs, in which mass accretion is mediated by the companion
57: star overfilling its Roche-lobe, Cyg X-1 is thought to be a wind-fed system.
58: In this case, however, the wind is thought to be highly focused toward the
59: black hole, because the companion star is nearly filling its Roche lobe
60: (Gies \& Bolton 1986). The observed orbital modulation of the X-ray flux
61: (Wen et al. 1999; Brocksopp et al. 1999a) has provided tentative evidence
62: for wind accretion, because it is probably caused by varying amount of
63: absorption through the wind (Wen et al. 1999). On the other hand, it is
64: generally believed that an accretion disk is also present, based on the
65: presence of an ultra-soft component, as well as Fe K$_{\alpha}$ emission
66: line in the X-ray spectrum (e.g., Ebisawa et al. 1996; Cui et al. 1998).
67:
68: Cyg X-1 is probably still the most studied BHC. It is a fixture in the target
69: list for all major X-ray missions. Much has been learned from modeling the
70: X-ray continuum of the source, as well as from studying its X-ray variability.
71: A recent development is the availability of high-resolution X-ray data, which
72: may shed further light on the accretion process and the environment within
73: the binary system. Cyg X-1 has been observed on many occasions with the High
74: Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer (HETGS) on board the {\em Chandra
75: X-ray Observatory} and the Reflection Grating Spectrometer on board the
76: {\em XMM-Newton Observatory}. The high-resolution spectra have revealed the
77: presence of numerous absorption lines that are associated with highly ionized
78: material (Marshall et al. 2001; Schulz et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2003; Miller
79: et al. 2005).
80:
81: In this work, we report the detection of absorption lines, some of which have
82: been seen previously but are much stronger here, and, more surprisingly, the
83: discovery of dramatic variability of the lines, based on data from our
84: HETGS/Chandra observation of Cyg X-1 during its 2001 state transition. The
85: fluxes of some of the lines varied by nearly two orders of magnitude over
86: the duration of the observation, while the overall flux of the source varied
87: only mildly.
88:
89: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
90:
91: Cyg X-1 made a rare transition between the low-hard state and the high-soft
92: state, as seen by the All-Sky Monitor (ASM) on the {\em Rossi X-ray Timing
93: Explorer} (RXTE), about five years after a similar episode in 1996 (Cui et
94: al. 1997a and 1997b). Figure~1 shows the ASM light curve that covers the
95: entire period. In this case, the flux of the source stayed high for $\sim$400
96: days, about twice as long as in 1996. Otherwise, the two episodes are very
97: similar, including the flux levels of the two states, prominent X-ray flares
98: in both states, and rapid transitions.
99:
100: Triggered by the ASM alert, the source was observed from 2001 October 28
101: 16:13:52 to October 29 00:33:52 (UT) with the HETGS on {\em Chandra}
102: (ObsID \#3407). The HETGS consists of two gratings: Medium Energy Grating
103: (MEG) and High Energy Grating (HEG). After passing the gratings, the photons
104: are recorded and read out with the spectroscopic array of the Advanced CCD
105: Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS). To avoid photon pile-up in the dispersed events,
106: we chose to run the ACIS in continuous-clocking (CC) mode. We also applied
107: a spatial window
108: around the aim point to accept every $10^{th}$ event in the zeroth order,
109: to prevent telemetry saturation yet still have a handle on the position of
110: the zeroth-order image for accurate wavelength calibration.
111:
112: The {\em Chandra} data were reduced and analyzed with the standard {\it CIAO}
113: analysis package (version 3.2). Following the {\it CIAO 3.2} Science
114: Threads\footnote{See http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao3.2/threads/index.html}, we
115: prepared and filtered the data, produced the Level~2 event file from
116: the Level~1 data products, constructed the light curves, and made the spectra
117: and the corresponding response matrices and auxilliary response files
118: (ARFs). We did have to work around a problem related to the use of
119: {\em maskfile} for the CC-mode data, when we were making the ARFs. The
120: solution is now included in the {\it CIAO 3.3} Science Threads. To verify
121: wavelength calibrations, we compared the plus and minus orders and found good
122: agreement on the position of prominent lines. We did not subtract background
123: from either the light curves or the spectra, because it is not obvious how
124: to select background events from the CC-mode data. For a bright source like
125: Cyg X-1, however, we expect the effects to be entirely negligible.
126:
127: In coordination with the {\em Chandra} observation, we also observed Cyg X-1
128: with the {\em Proportional Counter Array} (PCA) and {\em High Energy X-ray
129: Timing Experiment} (HEXTE) detectors on board {\em RXTE}. The PCA and HEXTE
130: covers roughly the energy ranges of 2--60 keV and 15-250 keV, respectively.
131: In this work, we made use of the combined broad spectral coverage of the two
132: detectors to constrain the X-ray continuum more reliably. The {\em RXTE}
133: observation was carried out in six short segments, with exposure times of
134: 1--3 ks. The data were reduced with the standard {\it HEASOFT} package
135: (version 5.2), along with the associated calibration files and background
136: models. We followed the usual procedures\footnote{See http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/recipes/cook\_book.html} in preparing, filtering, and reducing
137: the data, as well as in deriving light curves and spectra from the
138: standard-mode data. While the HEXTE background was directly measured from
139: off-source observations, the PCA background was estimated based on the
140: background model appropriate for bright sources.
141:
142: \section{Analysis and Results}
143:
144: \subsection{Light Curves}
145:
146: Figure~2 shows the {\em Chandra} light curve of Cyg~X-1 that is made from the
147: MEG first-order data (with plus and minus one orders coadded). For comparison,
148: we have over-plotted the average count
149: rate of PCU \#2 for each of the {\em RXTE} exposures. The agreement is quite
150: good. Besides the rapid flares and other short-term variability that are
151: expected in Cyg X-1, the source also varies significantly on a timescale of
152: hours. The MEG count rate rises from a baseline level of roughly 170 counts
153: s$^{-1}$ to a peak of roughly 220 counts s$^{-1}$ within 3--4 hours and
154: quickly goes back down to the baseline level. We somewhat arbitrarily divided
155: the light curve into two time periods (which are labeled as Period~I and
156: Period II in Fig. 2) for subsequent analyses.
157:
158: \subsection{High-Resolution Spectroscopy}
159:
160: We analyzed and modeled the HETGS spectra in {\it ISIS} (version 1.2.9)
161: (Houck \& Denicola 2000)\footnote{See also http://space.mit.edu/CXC/ISIS/}.
162: For this work, we focused only on the first-order spectra, because of the
163: relatively poor signal-to-noise ratio of higher-order spectra. For both
164: the MEG and HEG, we first co-added the plus and minus orders to produce
165: an overall first-order spectrum, again following the appropriate
166: {\it CIAO 3.2} science threads. The resolution of the raw data is about
167: 0.01 {\AA} and 0.005 {\AA} for the MEG and HEG, respectively, which
168: represents a factor of 2 over-sampling of the instrumental resolution. We
169: applied no further binning of the data. Each spectrum was broken into
170: 3-{\AA} segments for subsequent analyses. Each segment was fitted locally
171: with a model that consists of a multi-color disk
172: component and a power law for the continuum and negative or positive
173: Gaussian functions for narrow absorption or emission features, with the
174: interstellar absorption taken into account. Such a continuum model is
175: typical of BHCs. However, the best-fit continuum differs among the segments
176: or between the MEG and HEG, presumably due to remaining calibration
177: uncertainties. Since we are only interested in using the {\em Chandra} data
178: to study lines, we think that the adopted procedure is justified. We use
179: the {\em RXTE} data to more reliably constrain the continuum.
180:
181: One thing that one notices right away is the presence of many absorption
182: lines in the high-resolution spectra. For this work, we consider a feature
183: real if it is present both in the MEG and HEG data, with a significance of
184: above 4$\sigma$. Figure 3 shows a portion of the MEG first-order spectrum
185: for Period I, to highlight the lines detected. No absorption lines were
186: found at wavelengths above 15 \AA. We should point out
187: that we also see the emission-like features at 6.74 {\AA} and 7.96 {\AA},
188: which most likely instrumental artifacts associated with calibration
189: uncertainties around the Si K and Al K edges (Miller et al. 2005 and
190: references therein). We have identified the absorption lines with highly
191: ionized species of Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, and Fe, based mostly on the atomic
192: data in Verner et al. (1996) and Behar et al. (2002), but also in
193: ATOMDB\footnote{See http://cxc.harvard.edu/atomdb}~1.3.1 for additional
194: transitions.
195:
196: The line identification
197: process involves three steps: (1) a transition is considered a candidate if
198: the theoretical wavelength is within 0.03 {\AA} of the measured value;
199: (2) in cases where multiple candidates exist based on (1), the most
200: probably one (based both on the oscillator strength of the transition and
201: the relative abundance of the element) is chosen; and (3) consistency
202: check is made to avoid the identification of a line when more probable
203: transitions of the same ion are not seen. The last step is critical. For
204: instance, we initially associated the lines at 10.051 {\AA} and 11.029 {\AA}
205: with Fe XVIII $2s^2 2p^5$--$2s^2 2p^4 6d$ and Fe XVII
206: $2s^2 2p^6$--$2s 2p^6 4p$, respectively, because, assuming solar
207: abundances, they are expected to be stronger than Na XI $1s$--$2p$ and
208: Na X $1s^2$--$1s 1p$, which were also viable candidates from Step~1. However,
209: we did not detect other more probable transitions associated with Fe XVIII
210: and Fe XVII, which made the identifications highly unlikely. We had to
211: conclude that Fe is under-abundant by a factor of 2--3, at minimum, so
212: that we could associate the lines with Na instead. If so, the line
213: at 7.480 {\AA} would more likely be associated with Mg XI $1s^2$--$1s 4p$,
214: as opposed to Fe XXIII $2s^2$--$2s 5p$, which we initially identified. The
215: problem with this is that we saw no hint of Mg XI $1s^2$--$1s 3p$, which
216: is more probable.
217: Therefore, we had to conclude similarly that Mg is also under-abundant by
218: at least a similar amount (but not by too much, as constrained by other Mg
219: lines).
220:
221: Table~1 show all of the absorption lines that we detected and identified.
222: The flux and equivalent width (EW) of each line shown were derived from
223: the best-fit Gaussian for the line, as well as the local continuum around
224: the line for the latter. Note that in a few cases our identifications are
225: different from those in the literature. They include: Fe~XXII at 8.718 {\AA}
226: and Fe~XXI at 9.476 {\AA} (cf. Marshall et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2005);
227: Fe~XX at 10.12 {\AA}, Na X at 11.0027 {\AA}, and Fe~XX at 12.82 {\AA}
228: (cf. Marshall et al. 2001); and Fe~XXI 11.975 {\AA} (cf. Miller et al. 2005).
229: Only about half of the absorption lines that we detected have been seen
230: previously in Cyg X-1 (Marshall et al. 2001; Schulz et al. 2002; Feng et
231: al. 2003; Miller et al. 2005). Many of these lines are much stronger in
232: our case. On the other hand, we detected nearly all of the reported absorption
233: lines. The exceptions include: S~XVI at 4.72 \AA\
234: (Marshall et al. 2001; Feng et al. 2003), which is detectable only at the
235: $3 \sigma$ level in our case (and is thus not included in the table),
236: Fe~XIX at 14.53 \AA\ (Miller et al. 2005), which is actually detectable at
237: about the $4\sigma$ level here (but just misses our threshold), and Fe~XIX
238: at 14.97 \AA\ and Fe~XVIII at 16.01 \AA\ (Miller et al. 2005), whose presence
239: is not apparent in our data ($< 3\sigma$). Miller et al. (2005) also
240: reported a line at 7.85 \AA\ (Mg~XI) but only at the $3\sigma$ level. The
241: line can also be seen in our data at the $4\sigma$ level (but also just
242: misses our threshold). Therefore, we already see some indication that
243: the absorption lines in Cyg X-1 may be variable from a comparison of
244: our results with those published.
245:
246: Still, it is surprising that almost all of the absorption lines become
247: undetectable
248: in Period~II. Figure~4 shows the MEG first-order spectrum for this time
249: period, which can be directly compared to results in Fig.~3. The only
250: exception is the line at 14.608 \AA, which is detected with a significance
251: of $5\sigma$ in Period~II. We derived 99\% upper limits on the flux and EW
252: of each line seen in Period I but not in Period II. The results are
253: also summarized in Table~1, for direct comparison. As an example, we examine
254: the Ne X line at 12.1339 {\AA} in the two periods.
255: The integrated flux of the line is about $5 \times 10^{-3}$ photons cm$^2$
256: s$^{-1}$ in Period I, while its 99\% upper limit for Period II is only
257: $0.06 \times 10^{-3}$ photons cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$. Therefore, the line weakened
258: by nearly two orders of magnitude in flux over a timescale of merely several
259: hours. This is the first time that such dramatic variability of the lines
260: has been observed in any BHC. While this is the most extreme case, other
261: lines also show large variability (see Table~1).
262:
263: To quantify the column density of each ion required to account for the
264: corresponding absorption line detected and its variability, we carried out
265: curve-of-growth analysis, following Kotani et al. (2000). The atomic data
266: used in the analysis were again taken from Verner et al. (1996), Behar et
267: al. (2002), and also ATOMDB 1.3.1 in some cases. The analysis assumes that
268: the width of the lines is due entirely to thermal Doppler broadening. For
269: resolved lines, we derived the characteristic temperature from the measured
270: widths. For unresolved lines, on the other hand, we adopted a temperature
271: that would lead to a line width equal to the resolution of the MEG
272: (0.023 {\AA} at FWHM). In these cases, therefore, the derived column density
273: only represents a {\em lower} limit. The results are shown in Table~1. This
274: explains why, e.g., the density of Ne~X derived from the 12.144-{\AA} line
275: (which is unresolved) is significantly lower than that from the 10.245-{\AA}
276: line. Note, however, that the latter is much lower that that from the
277: 9.727-{\AA} line. We think that the inconsistency arises from the fact that
278: the 9.727-{\AA} line is likely a mixture of the Ne line and the Fe~XIX line
279: at 9.700 {\AA}. Similar inconsistency is also apparent in a few other cases
280: (see Table~1), which may originate similarly in line blending. It is also
281: worth noting that most lines that we have analyzed fall on the linear part
282: of the curve of growth. All {\it resolved} lines at wavelengths
283: $\lambda > 11.7$ {\AA} are saturated; so is the unresolved line at
284: 14.203 {\AA}. To show the degree of variability, we also derived
285: a 99\% upper limit on the column density of each of the ions for Period II
286: (assuming the same characteristic temperatures).
287:
288: \subsection{X-ray Continuum}
289:
290: We now use the {\em RXTE} data to constrain the X-ray continuum of Cyg X-1.
291: Both the PCA and HEXTE data were used. For the PCA, we used only data from
292: the first xenon layer of each PCU, which is most accurately calibrated.
293: Consequently, the PCA spectral coverage is limited to roughly 2.5--30 keV.
294: We relied on the HEXTE data to extend spectral coverage to higher energies.
295: The PCA consists of five detector units, known as PCUs. Not all PCUs were
296: always operating. For simplicity, we used only data from PCU \#0 and PCU \#2,
297: which stayed on throughout the observation, in the subsequent modeling.
298: We chose to derive a spectrum for each PCU separately, as well as for each
299: of the two HEXTE clusters. Residual calibration errors were accounted
300: for by adding 1\% systematic uncertainty to the data. We also rebinned the
301: HEXTE spectra to a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3 in each bin. The
302: individual spectra were then jointly fitted with the same model that
303: includes a multi-color disk component, a broken
304: power-law that rolls over exponentially beyond a characteristic energy, and
305: a Gaussian, taking into account the interstellar absorption. We also multiply
306: the model by a normalization factor that is fixed at unity for PCU \#2 but is
307: allowed to vary for other detectors, in order to account for any uncalibrated
308: difference in the overall throughput among the detectors. The model fits the
309: data well for all six segments in the sense that the reduced $\chi^2$ is near
310: unity (with 169 degrees of freedom).
311:
312: The spectral shape of Cyg X-1 varied little from one observation to the other.
313: The best-fit photon indices are $\sim$2.1 and $\sim$1.7 below and above
314: $\sim$10 keV. The roll-over energy stays at 20--21 keV and the e-folding
315: energy roughly at 120--130 keV. Neither the disk component nor the absorption
316: column density is well constrained by the data, due to the lack of sensitivity
317: (and, to some extent, large calibration uncertainty) at low energies. The
318: results can be compared
319: directly with those of Cui et al. (1997a), who applied the same empirical
320: model to the {\em RXTE} spectra of Cyg X-1 during the 1996 transition. It is
321: quite apparent that the spectra here are significantly harder, implying that
322: the source was certainly not yet in the true high-soft state (see Cui et al.
323: 1997a and 1997b for discussions on the ``settling period''). From the
324: long-term ASM monitoring data, we can see that Cyg X-1 was brighter during
325: our observation than during any of the earlier {\em Chandra} observations
326: (Marshall et al. 2001; Schulz et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2005), but not as
327: bright as during a later observation (Feng et al. 2003), when the high-soft
328: state appears to have been reached.
329:
330: \subsection{Photoionization Modeling}
331:
332: To shed light on the physical properties of the absorber, we carried out a
333: photo-ionization calculation with XSTAR version 2.1 kn3\footnote{See http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/xstar/xstar.html}. The underlying assumption
334: is that the absorber is photo-ionized by the X-ray radiation from the vicinity
335: of the black hole. The input parameters include the 0.5-10 keV luminosity
336: ($L_x=3.11 \times 10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$, for a distance of 2.5 kpc),
337: power-law photon index (2.1), both of which are based on results from
338: modeling one of the {\em RXTE} spectra with an assumed $N_H$ value of
339: $5.5 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Ebisawa et al. 1996; Cui et al. 1998). We
340: should note that it is in general risky to extrapolating the assumed
341: power-law spectrum to lower energies, because it could severely over-estimate
342: the flux there. For the lines of interest here, however, only ionizing photons
343: with energies $>$ 1 keV contribute and the spectrum of those photons is
344: described fairly well by a power law, because the effective temperature of
345: the disk component is expected to very low (e.g., Ebisawa et al. 1996;
346: Cui et al. 1998).
347:
348: One of the outputs of the calculation is abundances of the ions of interest,
349: as a function of the ionization parameter, $\xi=L_x/nr^2$, where $n$ is the
350: density of the absorber and $r$ is the distance of the absorber to the
351: source of ionizing photons. Using these abundance curves, we could, in
352: principle, constrain $\xi$ to a range that is consistent with the ratio of
353: the densities of any two ions of an element. The challenge in practice is,
354: as already mentioned, that many of the lines are likely a blend of multiple
355: transitions (of comparable probabilities), which makes it difficult to
356: reliably determine the densities. Nevertheless, we made an attempt at
357: deriving such constraints with the resolved, non-mixed lines. Figure~5
358: summarizes the results. The intervals do not all overlap, which implies
359: that no single value of $\xi$ could account for all the data. This is
360: supported by the fact that we have detected all the lines that are expected
361: for ionization parameters in the range of roughly $10^{2.5}$--$10^{4.5}$.
362: If one assumes that the ``absorbers'' are thin shells along the line of
363: sight and that they all have the same density, e.g., $n=10^{11}$ $cm^{-3}$
364: (see, e.g., Wen et al. 1999), one would have $10^{11}$ $cm$ $\lesssim r
365: \lesssim $ $10^{12}$ $cm$. Compared with the estimated the distance between
366: the compact object and the companion star ($\sim 1.4\times 10^{12}$ $cm$;
367: LaSala et al. 1998), this would put the ``absorbers'' within the binary
368: system. One should, however, take the results with caution, because of, e.g.,
369: gross over-simplification regarding the geometry of the ``absorbers''.
370:
371:
372: \section{Discussion}
373:
374: The observed dramatic variability of the absorption lines might be caused
375: by a change in the degree of ionization in the wind. Since the overall X-ray
376: luminosity varied only mildly, we speculate that it probably arises from a
377: sudden change in the density of the wind. There is evidence that such a change
378: could occur during a state transition or during flares (Gies et al. 2003).
379: If the moderate decrease in the ionizing flux is accompanied by a more
380: dramatic reduction in the density of the wind from Period I to Period II,
381: the ionization parameter might increase sufficiently to cause a total
382: ionization of the wind in Period II and thus the disappearance (or significant
383: weakening) of the lines. It is worth noting that in Period I lighter elements
384: seen are all H- or He-like but Fe is in an intermediate ionization
385: state (as indicated by the absence of H- or He-like ions), suggesting a high
386: but not extreme degree of ionization in the period.
387: Conversely, a dramatic
388: increase in the wind density could achieve the same effect. Numerical
389: simulations of similar wind-accretion systems (e.g., Blondin, Stevens,
390: \& Kallman 1991) have revealed not only a significant jump in the column
391: density at late orbital phases ($\gtrsim$ 0.6) that is associated with
392: tidal streams but also large variability of the absorbing column. It is
393: conceivable that Period~II might coincide with a sudden increase in the
394: column density. Since we found no apparent absorption lines that correspond
395: to a lower degree of ionization in Period~II, however, such lines must be
396: outside the spectral range covered with our data, in order for the scenario
397: to be viable. A quantitative assessment of these scenarios is beyond the
398: scope of this work.
399:
400: Many of the absorption lines detected by Miller et al. (2005) are much
401: stronger during Period I of our observation (see Table~1). Using only the
402: lines that are detected with a significance above $5\sigma$, we looked for
403: a systematic red- or blue- shift of the lines, following up on the reported
404: redshift of the lines by Marshall et al. (2001) based on data taken in the
405: low-hard state. The results are summarized in Figure~6 (in the left panel).
406: In this case, although the lines are still systematically redshifted on
407: average, there is not an obvious single-velocity solution. Interestingly,
408: if we limit the results only to those lines that were used by Marshall et
409: al. (2001), as shown in the right panel of Figure~6, we would arrive at an
410: average velocity that is very close to what Marshall et al. reported,
411: although the scatter of data points is much larger in our case. On the
412: other hand, our observation spans binary orbital phases from 0.85 to 0.92,
413: according to the most updated ephemeris (Brocksopp et al. 1999b), while
414: Marshall et al.'s covers a phase range of 0.83--0.86. If the redshift of
415: the lines is related to the focused-wind scenario advocated by Miller et
416: al. (2005), we ought to see a larger (by about 30\%) redshift. Given the
417: large uncertainties, as well as the possibility that the wind geometry
418: might be different for different states, it is difficult to draw any
419: definitive conclusions.
420:
421: Feng et al. (2003) reported the detection of a number of absorption lines
422: of asymmetric
423: profile, when Cyg X-1 was in the high-soft state, which they interpreted as
424: evidence for inflows. The same lines are also present in our data during
425: Period~I and are, in fact, much stronger (except for S XVI, as noted in
426: \S~3.2). Figure~7 shows an expanded view of the Si and Mg lines, which are
427: the strongest in the group. As is apparent from the figure, the line profile
428: can be fitted fairly well by a Gaussian function in all cases. Therefore,
429: the lines show no apparent asymmetry here. This also seems to be the case
430: for the S and Fe lines, although the statistics of the data are not as good.
431: Taken together, our results and Feng et al.'s imply that that the phenomenon
432: is either unique to the high-soft state (in which Feng et al. made the
433: observation) or is intermittent in nature. We should also note that Feng et
434: al's observation was carried out around the superior conjunction (i.e., zero
435: orbital phase), where absorption due to the wind is expected to be the
436: strongest (e.g., Wen et al. 1999). It is not clear, however, how such
437: additonal absorption would lead to an asymmetry in the profile of lines.
438:
439: No emission lines are apparent in our data. Evidence for weak emission lines
440: has been presented (Schulz et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2005) but the
441: significance is marginal in all cases. On the other hand, several absorption
442: edges are easily detected in our data (see Figs.~3 and 4), as first reported
443: and studied in detail by Schulz et al. (2002). The edges can almost certainly
444: be attributed to the interstellar absorption.
445:
446: \acknowledgments{We thank Harvey Tananbaum for approving this DDT observation,
447: Norbert Schulz and Herman Marshall for helpful discussion on the pros and cons
448: of various observing configurations, John Houck for help with the use of
449: {\it ISIS} and Tim Kallman for help on using {\it XSTAR}, and David
450: Huenemoerder for looking
451: into issues related to the {\em Chandra} data products. We acknowledge the
452: use of the curve-of-growth analysis script that Taro Kotani has made publicly
453: available. We also thank the anonymous referee for a number of useful
454: comments that led to significant improvement of the manuscript.
455: Support for this work was provided in part by NASA through the
456: Chandra Award DD1-2011X issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which
457: is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of
458: NASA under contract NAS8-03060, and through the LTSA grant NAG5-9998. }
459:
460: \begin{references}
461:
462: \reference{}Behar,~E., \& Netzer,~H., 2002, ApJ, 570, 165
463: \reference{}Blondin,~J.~M., Stevens,~I.~R., \& Kallman,~T.~R. 1991, ApJ, 371,
464: 684
465: \reference{}Bolton,~C.~T., 1972, Nature, 235, 271
466: \reference{}Brocksopp,~C., et al. 1999a, MNRAS, 309, 1063
467: \reference{}Brocksopp,~C., Tarasov,~A.~E., Lyuty,~V.~M., \& Roche,~P., 1999b,
468: A\&A, 343, 861
469: \reference{}Cui,~W., Heindl, W. A., Rothschild, R. E., Zhang, S. N.,
470: Jahoda, K., \& Focke, W. 1997a, ApJ, 474, L57
471: \reference{}Cui,~W., Zhang, S. N., Focke, W., \& Swank,~J. 1997b, ApJ, 484, 383
472: \reference{}Cui,~W., Chen,~W., \& Zhang,~S.~N. 1997, in 1997 Pacific Rim
473: Conference on Stellar Astrophysics, eds. K.~L.~Chan, et al., PASP Conf. Ser,
474: vol 138, p. 75
475: \reference{}Cui,~W., Ebisawa,~K., Dotani,~T., \& Kubota, A. 1998, ApJ, 493, L75
476: \reference{}Ebisawa,~K., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 419
477: \reference{}Feng,~Y.~X., Tennant,~A.~F., \& Zhang,~S.~N., 2003, ApJ, 597, 1017
478: \reference{}Gies,~D.~R., \& Bolton,~C.~T., 1986, ApJ, 304, 389
479: \reference{}Gies,~D.~R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 424
480: \reference{}Houck,~J.~C., \& Denicola,~L.~A. 2000, in Astronomical Data
481: Analysis Software and Systems IX, eds. N.~Manset, C.~Veillet, and
482: D.~Crabtree, ASP Conf. Proc., Vol. 216, p.591
483: \reference{}Kotani,~T., Ebisawa,~K., Dotani,~T., Inoue,~H., Nagase,~F.,
484: Tanaka,~Y., \& Ueda,~Y., 2000, ApJ, 539, 413
485: \reference{}LaSala,~J., Charles,~P.~A., Smith,~R.~A.~D., Balucinska-Church,~M.,
486: \& Church,~M.~J. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 285
487: \reference{}Marshall,~H.~L., Schulz,~N.~S., Fang,~T,. Cui,~W.,
488: Canizares,~C.~R., Miller,~J.~M., \& Lewin,~W.~H.~G., 2001, in X-Ray Emmission
489: from Accretion onto Black Holes, eds. T.~Yaqoob, \& J.~H.~Krolik, 45 620,
490: 398
491: \reference{}McClintock, J.~E., \& Remillard,~R.~A. 2006, in Compact Stellar
492: X-ray Sources, Eds. W.~H.~G.~Lewin and M.~van der Klis (Cambridge Univ.
493: Press), p157
494: \reference{}Miller,~J.~M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 398
495: \reference{}Schulz,~N.~S., Cui,~W., Canizares,~C.~R., Marshall,~H.~L.,
496: Lee,~J.~C., Miller,~J.~M., \& Lewin,~W.~H.~G., 2002, ApJ, 565, 1141
497: \reference{}Verner,~D.~A., Verner,~E.~M. \& Ferland,~G.~J., 1996, At. Data
498: Nucl. Data Tables, 64, 1
499: \reference{}Webster,~B.~L., \& Murdin,~P., 1972, Nature, 235, 37
500: \reference{}Wen,~L., Cui,~W., Levine,~A.~M., \& Bradt,~H.~V. 1999, ApJ, 525,
501: 968
502:
503: \end{references}
504:
505:
506: %Table.1
507: \begin{table}
508: \caption{Detected Absorption Lines}
509: \tiny
510: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
511: \begin{tabular}{lllccccccc}\hline\hline
512: &Theoretical&Measured&Shift&Flux(I)&Flux(II)&EW(I)&EW(II)&$N_z$(I)&$N_z$(II)\\
513: Ion and Transition&({\AA})&({\AA})&(km s$^{-1}$)&\multicolumn{2}{c}{($10^{-3}$ph cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$)}&({m\AA})&({m\AA})&($10^{-16}$cm$^{-2}$)&($10^{-16}$cm$^{-2}$)\\\hline
514: S XV 1s$^2$-1s2p&5.039$^b$&5.041(3)&120$\pm$180&1.8(3)&$<$0.9&3.8(7)&$<$1.5&2.5(5)&$\leq$1.0\\
515: Si XIV 1s-2p&6.1822$^a$&6.189(1)&330$\pm$50&3.0(2)&$<$0.6&6.9(4)&$<$1.0&5.4(3)&$\leq$0.7\\
516: Si XIII 1s$^2$-1s2p&6.648$^b$&6.657(2)&410$\pm$90&2.6(2)&$<$1.7&6.1(5)&$<$2.9&2.4(2)&$\leq$1.1 \\
517: Mg XII 1s-3p&7.1062$^a$&7.119(3)&540$\pm$130&1.2(2)&$<$0.9&2.6(5)&$<$1.4&8(2)&$\leq$4.0\\
518: Al XIII 1s-2p&7.1727$^a$&$7.191(^{+3}_{-2})$&760$^{+130}_{-80}$&1.3(2)&$<$1.7&3.0(5)&$<$2.7&1.6(3)$^d$&$\leq$1.5 \\
519: Fe XXIII 1s$^2$2s2p-1s$^2$2s6d&7.2646$^c$&7.268(5)&140$\pm$210&1.4(3)&$<$2.0&3.1(6)&$<$3.3&29(6)&$\leq$31\\
520: Fe XXIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$-1s$^2$2s5p&7.4722$^a$&7.480$(^{+5}_{-4})$&310$^{+200}_{-160}$&0.9(2)&$<$1.4&1.9(5)&$<$2.3&5(1)&$\leq$6.5\\
521: Fe XXIV 1s$^2$2s-1s$^2$4p&7.9893$^a$&8.004(5)&550$\pm$190&2.2(3)&$<$1.3&4.7(7)&$<$2.2&9(1)&$\leq$4.0\\
522: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s$^2$5d&8.0904$^c$&8.096(3)&210$\pm$110&1.0(2)&$<$0.6&2.1(5)&$<$1.0&8(2)$^d$&$\leq$3.6\\
523: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s$^2$5d&8.1684$^c$&8.166(3)&-90$\pm$110&1.0(2)&$<$1.1&2.3(5)&$<$1.9&9(2)$^d$&$\leq$7.2\\
524: Fe XXIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$-1s$^2$2s4p&8.3029$^a$&8.319(2)&580$\pm$70&3.0(3)&$<$0.6&6.6(6)&$<$1.0&6.4(6)&$\leq$0.9\\
525: Mg XII 1s-2p&8.4210$^a$&8.428(1)&250$\pm$40&5.0(3)&$<$0.4&10.8(6)&$<$0.7&4.7(3)&$\leq$0.3\\
526: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p5d&8.573$^a$&8.577(5)&140$\pm$170&1.3(3)&$<$0.7&2.8(7)&$<$1.2&6(2)&$\leq$2.6\\
527: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s2p$_{1/2}$4p$_{3/2}$&8.718$^c$&8.735$(^{+2}_{-3})$&580$^{+70}_{-100}$&2.2(3)&$<$0.5&4.7$(^{+7}_{-6})$&$<$0.9&7(1)&$\leq$1.3 \\
528: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s2p$_{1/2}$2p$_{3/2}$4p$_{3/2}$&8.8254$^c$&8.823$(^{+3}_{-4})$&-80$^{+100}_{-140}$&1.4(3)&$<$0.9&3.0$(^{+7}_{-6})$&$<$1.4&21$(^{+5}_{-4})$&$\leq$9.4 \\
529: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s$^2$4d&8.98$^a$&8.978$(^{+1}_{-2})$&-70$^{+30}_{-70}$&1.8(3)&$<$0.9&3.9(6)&$<$1.6&4.6(8)$^d$&$\leq$1.8 \\
530: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s$^2$4d&9.07$^a$&9.083$(^{+2}_{-3})$&430$^{+70}_{-100}$&1.9$(^{+3}_{-4})$&$<$0.6&4.0$(^{+6}_{-8})$&$<$1.0&5.2$^{+0.8}_{-1.1}$&$\leq$1.2 \\
531: Mg XI 1s$^2$-1s2p&9.170$^b$&9.192$(^{+2}_{-1})$&720$^{+70}_{-30}$&6.2(4)&$-$&13.5(9)&$-$&2.9(2)&$-$ \\
532: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p4d&9.356$^a$&9.378(5)&700$\pm$160&1.9(4)&$<$2.8&4.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$&$<$4.8&9(2)&$\leq$10 \\
533: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p4d&9.476$^a$&9.478(1)&60$\pm$30&3.8(3)&$<$0.8&8.6$(^{+8}_{-7})$&$<$1.5&6.6$(^{+7}_{-6})$$^d$&$\leq$1.0 \\
534: Fe XIX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$($^2$D)5d&9.68$^a$&9.700(4)&620$\pm$120&4.4$(^{+5}_{-6})$&$<$1.8&9(1)&$<$3.1&30(3)&$\leq$9.8\\
535: Ne X 1s-4p&9.7082$^a$&9.727$(^{+2}_{-3})$&580$^{+60}_{-90}$&2.4$(^{+3}_{-4})$&$<$0.7&5.3$(^{+8}_{-9})$&$<$1.2&24(4)&$\leq$5.0 \\
536: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$($^3$P)4d&9.991$^a$&10.000(1)&270$\pm$30&3.7(4)&$<$0.7&8.3(8)&$<$1.3&5.6(6)$^d$&$\leq$0.8 \\
537: Na XI 1s-2p&10.0250$^a$&10.051(2)&780$\pm$60&5.6$(^{+5}_{-6})$&$<$2.0&13(1)&$<$3.5&4.0(3)&$\leq$1.0 \\
538: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$($^3$P)4d&10.12$^a$&10.127(3)&210$\pm$90&1.7(4)&$<$0.3&3.8(9)&$<$0.6&2.3(6)$^d$&$\leq$0.4 \\
539: Ne X 1s-3p&10.2389$^a$&10.245$(^{+3}_{-2})$&180$^{+90}_{-60}$&2.7$(^{+4}_{-5})$&$<$0.5&6(1)&$<$0.9&9(2)&$\leq$1.2 \\
540: Fe XXIV 1s$^2$2s-1s$^2$3p&10.619$^a$&10.631$(^{+2}_{-1})$&340$^{+60}_{-30}$&9.1(6)&$<$4.6&22(2)&$<$8.9&10(1)&$\leq$3.7 \\
541: Fe XXIV 1s$^2$2s-1s$^2$3p&10.663$^a$&10.674(3)&310$\pm$80&5.6(6)&$<$3.2&14(2)&$<$6.2&12(2)&$\leq$5.0 \\
542: Fe XIX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$($^4$S)4d&10.816$^c$&10.818(5)&60$\pm$140&7.0(9)&$<$3.0&18(2)&$<$6.0&14(2)&$\leq$4.3 \\
543: Fe XXIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$-1s$^2$2s3p&10.981$^a$&10.990(1)&230$\pm$30&5.5(5)&$<$2.7&14(1)&$<$5.6&2.4(2)$^d$&$\leq$0.8 \\
544: Na X 1s$^2$-1s2p&11.0027$^a$&11.029(2)&720$\pm$50&6.3$(^{+6}_{-7})$&$<$4.4&17(2)&$<$9.2&2.7(4)&$\leq$1.3 \\
545: Fe XVIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^5$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$($^1$D)4d&11.326$^c$&11.33(1)&100$\pm$260&8(1)&$<$5.1&23$(^{+4}_{-3})$&$<$11&24$(^{+4}_{-3})$&$\leq$11 \\
546: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s2p($^3$P$^0$)3p&11.44$^a$&11.431(1)&-240$\pm$30&7.3(6)&$<$2.5&21(2)&$<$5.7&8(1)$^d$&$\leq$1.6\\
547: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s2p($^3$P$^0$)3p&11.51$^a$&11.500(3)&-260$\pm$80&4.3$(^{+8}_{-7})$&$<$0.6&12(2)&$<$1.4&22($^{+5}_{-4}$)&$\leq$2.3\\
548: Fe XXII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p-1s$^2$2s$^2$3d&11.77$^a$&11.781$(^{+3}_{-1})$&280$^{+80}_{-30}$&12.6(9)&$<$3.8&39(3)&$<$9.3&7.5$^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$&$\leq$1.2\\
549: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s2p$^2$3p&11.975$^c$&11.982(2)&180$\pm$50&9.1(9)&$-$&29(3)&$-$&17($^{+3}_{-2})$&$-$ \\
550: Ne X 1s-2p&12.1339$^a$&12.144($^{+2}_{-1}$)&250$^{+50}_{-20}$&4.7(7)&$<$0.06&16(2)&$<$0.2&3.9$(^{+7}_{-6})$$^d$&$\leq$0.04 \\
551: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p3d&12.259$^a$&12.247($^{+3}_{-2}$)&-290$^{+70}_{-50}$&4.2($^{+8}_{-9}$)&$<$5.4&14(3)&$<$14&10(3)$^d$&$\leq$10 \\
552: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p3d&12.285$^a$&12.304(2)&460$\pm$50&22(1)&$<$6.8&75(5)&$<$18&12(2)&$\leq$1.6 \\
553: Fe XXI 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p3d&12.422$^c$&12.438(2)&390$\pm$50&3.9(8)&$<$2.9&14(3)&$<$8.1&3.0($^{+9}_{-8})$$^d$&$\leq$1.6 \\
554: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s2p$^3$3p&12.576$^c$&12.583($^{+2}_{-3}$)&170$^{+50}_{-70}$&7(1)&$<$3.6&26(4)&$<$10&19($^{+6}_{-4}$)&$\leq$5.2 \\
555: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^2$($^3$P)3d&12.82$^a$&12.844(2)&560$\pm$50&26(2)&$<$6.5&100(6)&$<$20&34$^{+16}_{-10}$&$\leq$1.0\\
556: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$_{1/2}$2p$_{3/2}$3d&12.912$^c$&12.914(3)&50$\pm$70&12(2)&$<$4.7&47(6)&$<$14&33$^{+11}_{-7}$&$\leq$5.9 \\
557: Fe XX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$_{1/2}$2p$_{3/2}$3d&12.965$^c$&12.953($^{+3}_{-2}$)&-280$^{+70}_{-50}$&12(1)&$-$&48(6)&$-$&56$^{+25}_{-14}$&$-$ \\
558: Ne IX 1s$^2$-1s2p&13.448$^b$&13.448($^{+6}_{-5}$)&0$^{+130}_{-110}$&9(2)&$<$8.5&38(9)&$<$30&6($^{+3}_{-2}$)&$\leq$4.1 \\
559: Fe XIX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$_{1/2}$2p$^2_{3/2}$3d&13.479$^c$&13.482(3)&70$\pm$70&5(1)&$<$3.3&20($^{+6}_{-5}$)&$<$12&1.0($^{+4}_{-3}$)$^d$&$\leq$0.5 \\
560: Fe XIX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$($^2$D)3d&13.518$^c$&13.523(3)&110$\pm$70&16(2)&$-$&70($^{+8}_{-9}$)&$-$&24$^{+16}_{-9}$&$-$ \\
561: Fe XVIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^5$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$($^1$D)3d&14.203$^a$&14.220(3)&360$\pm$40&6(1)&$<$4.0&32(7)&$<$18&4($^{+3}_{-2}$)$^d$&$\leq$1.5\\
562: Fe XIX 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^3$($^2$P)3s&14.60$^a$&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{14.608(5)$^e$}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{100$\pm$100}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{19(3)}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{20(4)}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{81$\pm$13}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{73$\pm$14}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{200$^{+160}_{-90}$}&\raisebox{-1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{170$^{+120}_{-60}$}\\
563: Fe XVIII 1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^5$-1s$^2$2s$^2$2p$^4$($^3$P)3d&14.610$^a$&&&&&&&\\
564: \hline
565: \end{tabular}
566: Notes. --- Results for Periods I and II are both shown for comparison. The
567: errors in parentheses indicate uncertainty in the last digit of the
568: measurement; 1$\sigma$ errors are shown. Negative flux or EW upper limits
569: (indicating emission) are not shown. \\
570: a Verner et al. (1996); b Behar et al. (2002); c ATOMDB 1.3.3; d Unresolved;
571: e The two transitions are equally probable. The average wavelength was used
572: to derive the Doppler-shift of the line.
573: \end{table}
574:
575: \newpage
576: %Fig.1
577: \begin{figure}
578: \psfig{figure=f1.eps,width=5.5in}
579: \caption{Daily-averaged ASM Light Curve of Cyg X-1 during the 2001 state
580: transition. The vertical line indicates the time of the {\em Chandra}
581: observation. }
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: %Fig.2
585: \begin{figure}
586: \psfig{figure=f2.eps,width=4in,angle=-90}
587: \caption{X-ray Light Curves of Cyg X-1. The solid curve shows data from the
588: MEG first order, while the horizontal bars show the average count rates from
589: PCU \#2. The error bars are negligible in both cases. The dashed line defines
590: the two time periods for subsequent analyses (see text). }
591: \end{figure}
592:
593: %Fig.3
594: \begin{figure}
595: \psfig{figure=f3.eps,width=5.5in}
596: \caption{MEG first-order spectrum of Cyg X-1 for Period I. No binning was
597: applied. The presence of absorption lines are apparent. The identifications
598: of the lines are shown. Note that the emission-like features at 6.74 {\AA}
599: and 7.96 {\AA} are likely instrumental (see text). The solid line shows
600: the best-fit to the (local) continuum. }
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: %Fig.4
604: \begin{figure}
605: \psfig{figure=f4.eps,width=5.5in}
606: \caption{As in Fig.~3, but for for Period II. Note the absence of nearly all
607: the absorption lines seen in Fig.~3. }
608: \end{figure}
609:
610: %Fig.5
611: \begin{figure}
612: \psfig{figure=f5.eps,width=4.5in,angle=-90}
613: \caption{Allowed ranges of the ionization parameter, each of which is inferred
614: from the ratio of the average densities of two ions of the same element. }
615: \vspace{0.2in}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: %Fig.6
619: \begin{figure}
620: \psfig{figure=f6_left.eps,width=2.9in} \hspace{0.1in}
621: \psfig{figure=f6_right.eps,width=2.9in}
622: \caption{Inferred Doppler shift of the selected absorption lines, ({\it left})
623: all the lines with a significance above $5\sigma$ and ({\it right}) only the
624: lines that were used by Marshall et al. (2001). The dotted line shows the
625: average Doppler velocity in both cases. }
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: %Fig.7
629: \begin{figure}
630: \psfig{figure=f7.eps,width=5.5in}
631: \caption{Profiles of the selected absorption lines. In each case, the
632: dot-dashed histogram shows a fit to the profile with a Gaussian function. }
633: \end{figure}
634:
635: \end{document}
636:
637: