1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \submitted{Received 2007 February 28; accepted 2007 April 04}
6:
7: \title{Hydrodynamical simulations of the jet in the symbiotic star MWC\,560 \\
8: III. Application to X-ray jets in symbiotic stars}
9:
10: \author{Matthias Stute and Raghvendra Sahai}
11: \affil{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
12: 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA}
13:
14: \email{Matthias.Stute@jpl.nasa.gov}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: In papers I and II in this series, we presented hydrodynamical simulations
18: of jet models with parameters representative of the symbiotic system MWC\,560.
19: These were simulations of a pulsed, initially underdense jet in a high
20: density ambient medium. Since the pulsed emission of the jet creates internal
21: shocks and since the jet velocity is very high, the jet bow shock and the
22: internal shocks are heated to high temperatures and should therefore emit
23: X-ray radiation. In this paper, we investigate in detail the X-ray properties
24: of the jets in our models. We have focused our study on the total X-ray
25: luminosity and its temporal variability, the resulting spectra and the spatial
26: distribution of the emission. Temperature and density maps from our
27: hydrodynamical simulations with radiative cooling presented in the second
28: paper are used together with emissivities calculated with the atomic database
29: ATOMDB. The jets in our models show extended and variable X-ray emission
30: which can be characterized as a sum of hot and warm components with
31: temperatures that are consistent with observations of CH Cyg and R Aqr.
32: The X-ray spectra of our model jets show emission line features which
33: correspond to observed features in the spectra of CH Cyg. The innermost parts
34: of our pulsed jets show iron line emission in the 6.4 -- 6.7 keV range which
35: may explain such emission from the central source in R Aqr. We conclude that
36: MWC\,560 should be detectable with Chandra or XMM-Newton, and such X-ray
37: observations will provide crucial for understanding jets in symbiotic stars.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{circumstellar matter --- hydrodynamics --- ISM: jets and outflows --
41: binaries: symbiotic -- methods: numerical --- X-rays: ISM}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44:
45: Highly collimated fast outflows or jets are common in many astrophysical
46: objects of different sizes and masses: active galactic nuclei (AGN), X-ray
47: binaries (XRBs), young stellar objects (YSO), pre-planetary nebulae (PPN),
48: supersoft X-ray sources and symbiotic stars. In the last two objects, the jet
49: engine consists of an accreting white dwarf. In symbiotic stars, the
50: companion is a red giant undergoing strong mass loss. More than one hundred
51: symbiotic stars are known, but only about ten systems show the presence of
52: jets. The most famous systems are R Aquarii, CH Cygni, and MWC\,560.
53:
54: R Aquarii, with a distance of about 200 pc, is one of the nearest symbiotic
55: stars and a well known jet source. The jet has been extensively observed in
56: the optical and at radio wavelengths \citep[e.g.][]{SoU85,PaH94,HMK85,HLD85}.
57: It shows a rich morphology, e.g. a series of parallel features in the jet and
58: the counter-jet, extending to a few hundred AU each. This is a hint of pulsed
59: ejection of both jets. Furthermore, R Aqr is the first jet in a symbiotic
60: system, which was detected in X-rays \citep{VPF87,HSS98,KPL01}. \citet{KPL01}
61: found peaks of \ion{O}{7} at 0.57 keV in both the NE and SW jets and a peak of
62: \ion{N}{6} at 0.43 keV only in the NE jet. The spectra are consistent with a
63: soft component with $k\,T \sim$ 0.25 keV. The central source shows a supersoft
64: blackbody emission with $k\,T \sim$ 0.18 keV and a Fe K$\alpha$ line at 6.4
65: keV which suggests the presence of a hard source near the hot star. Recently,
66: \citet{KAD06} reported on five years of observations with Chandra and
67: were able to measure the proper motion of knots in the NE jet of about 600 km
68: s$^{-1}$. \citet{NDK07} investigated the X-ray emission from the inner 500 AU
69: of this system.
70:
71: In 1984/85, CH Cygni showed a strong radio outburst, during
72: which a double-sided jet with multiple components was ejected \citep{TSM86}.
73: This event allowed an accurate measurement of the jet velocity near 1500 km
74: s$^{-1}$. In HST observations \citep{EBS02}, arcs can be detected that also
75: could be produced by episodic ejection events. X-ray emission was first
76: detected by EXOSAT \citep{LeT87}, and subsequent ASCA observations
77: revealed a complex X-ray spectrum with two soft components ($k\,T =$ 0.2 and
78: 0.7 keV) associated with the jet, an absorbed hard component (7.3 keV) and a
79: Fe K$\alpha$ line \citep{EIM98}. They interpreted the hard component as thermal
80: emission by material being accreted on to the white dwarf and the soft
81: component as either coronal emission from the giant star or emissions from
82: shocks in the jets. Analysis of archival Chandra ACIS data by
83: \citet{GaS04} revealed faint extended emission to the south, aligned with the
84: optical and radio jets seen in HST and VLA observations.
85: \citet{WhK06} reanalyzed the ASCA data and interpreted the soft emission as
86: scattering of the hard component in a photo-ionized medium surrounding the
87: white dwarf. They claim that no other sources than the accreting white dwarf
88: are required to explain the spectrum. The obvious existence of the jet,
89: however, and furthermore the apparent decline of the hard X-ray component
90: observed with the US-Japanese X-ray satellite Suzaku by \citet{MIK06} together
91: with the lack of a corresponding decline in the soft component, suggest that
92: this interpretation is implausible. Recently, \citet[][hereafter KCR07]{KCR07}
93: reported the detection of multiple components, including an arc, in the
94: archival Chandra images.
95:
96: R Aqr and CH Cyg are the only two jets of symbiotic stars which are detected
97: in X-rays. While these two objects are seen at high inclinations, in MWC\,560
98: the jet axis is practically parallel to the line of sight. This special
99: orientation allows one to observe the outflowing gas as line absorption in
100: the source spectrum. With such observations the radial velocity and the column
101: density of the outflowing jet gas close to the source has been investigated in
102: great detail. In particular the acceleration and evolution of individual
103: outflow components and jet pulses has been probed with spectroscopic
104: monitoring programs, as described in \citet{SKC01}. Using this optical
105: data, sophisticated numerical models of this pulsed propagating jet have been
106: developed \citep[][hereafter Paper I and II in this series]{SCS05,Stu06}. A
107: number of hydrodynamical simulations
108: (with and without cooling) were made in which the jet
109: density and velocity during the pulses were varied. The basic model
110: absorption line profiles in MWC\,560 as well as the mean velocity and
111: velocity-width are in good agreement with the observations. The evolution of
112: the time-varying high velocity absorption line-components is also well modeled.
113: These models not only fit the MWC\,560 data, but are also able to explain
114: properties of jets in other symbiotic systems such as the observed velocity
115: and temperature of the CH Cyg jet.
116:
117: So far, MWC\,560 has not been detected in X-rays \citep{MWJ97}. We find using
118: the PIMMS tool\footnote{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html} that
119: the non-detection in the ROSAT all-sky survey sets an upper limit of the
120: absorbed X-ray flux of 0.07 counts s$^{-1}$ \citep{MWJ97} and
121: $7\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively.
122:
123: The jets in all three symbiotic stars show evidence of episodicity. Such
124: episodicity in the ejection process has been seen in numerical models of
125: the interaction of the stellar magnetosphere and the accretion disk
126: \citep[e.g.][]{GWB97,MGW02}. In the disk-wind scenario
127: \citep[e.g.][]{BlP82,ALK03} the time-dependent emission is created by time
128: variations in the accretion rate of the underlying disk.
129: Unfortunately, so far no hydrodynamical models exist for explaining the X-ray
130: emission from symbiotic stars. As a first step we have therefore used our
131: existing simulations, which fit MWC\,560, for understanding the observed X-ray
132: emission properties of MWC\,560, CH Cyg and R Aqr.
133:
134: In \S \ref{sec_model}, we briefly describe the numerical models we have used.
135: The total X-ray luminosity and its time dependence is examined in \S
136: \ref{sec_lum}. After the resulting spectra are calculated in \S
137: \ref{sec_spec}, we show emission maps in \S \ref{sec_maps} and apply our
138: main results to X-ray observations of CH Cyg, MWC\,560 and R Aqr in \S
139: \ref{sec_obs}. Finally our conclusions are given in \S \ref{sec_concl}.
140:
141: \section{The numerical models} \label{sec_model}
142:
143: \subsection{The hydrodynamical simulations}
144:
145: We solved the equations of ideal hydrodynamics with an additional cooling term
146: in the energy equation
147: \begin{eqnarray} \label{hydro}
148: \frac{\partial\,\rho}{\partial\,t} + \nabla\,(\rho\,{\bf v}) &=& 0 \nonumber \\
149: \frac{\partial\,(\rho\,{\bf v})}{\partial\,t} + \nabla\,
150: (\rho\,{\bf v}\otimes{\bf v}) &=& - \nabla\,p \nonumber - \rho\,\nabla\,\Phi\\
151: \frac{\partial\,e}{\partial\,t} + \nabla\,(e\,{\bf v}) &=& - p\,\nabla\,{\bf v}
152: - n^2\,\Lambda ( T ) \nonumber \\
153: p &=& (\gamma - 1)\,e .
154: \end{eqnarray}
155: \noindent
156: with the code {\em NIRVANA\_CP} which was written by
157: \citet{ZiY97} and modified by \citet{Thi00} to calculate radiative losses due
158: to non-equilibrium cooling by line emission. $\rho$ is the gas density, $p$
159: the pressure, $e$ the internal energy density, $\Phi$ the gravitational
160: potential, ${\bf v}$ the velocity and $\gamma$ the ratio of the specific heats
161: at constant pressure and volume which is set to $\gamma = 5/3$. The general
162: capabilities of the code have been described in detail in Paper I, for our
163: approximations and assumptions related to the cooling treatment we refer the
164: reader to Paper II. We briefly describe the geometry which we have adopted in
165: our simulations below.
166:
167: We use a cylindrical coordinate system where the jet axis corresponds to the
168: z axis and both components of the binary system are located in the plane
169: perpendicular to this axis. The hot component is located at the origin of the
170: coordinate frame; with a binary separation of 4 AU, a red giant is implemented.
171: The red giant is surrounded by a stellar wind with constant velocity of 10 km
172: s$^{-1}$ and a mass loss rate of 10$^{-6}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr $^{-1}$.
173:
174: The jet is produced within a thin jet nozzle with a radius of 1 AU. The
175: initial velocity of the steady jet is chosen to 1000 km s$^{-1}$
176: and its density is set to $8.4 \times 10^{-18}$ g cm$^{-3}$ (equal to a
177: hydrogen number density of $5 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$). These parameters
178: lead to i) a mass loss rate of $\approx 10^{-8}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr $^{-1}$ in the
179: steady jet, and ii) a density contrast between the steady jet and the ambient
180: medium $\eta$ of $5 \times 10^{-3}$ and a Mach number of $\approx 60$ in the
181: jet nozzle at the origin of the coordinate system. Repeatedly each seventh
182: day, the velocity and density values in the nozzle are changed to simulate the
183: jet pulses which are seen in the observations of MWC\,560. The duration of each
184: pulse is one day.
185:
186: Two models (iv' and i') out of our existing set of eight models were chosen
187: for computing X-ray emission properties. These models represent maximum
188: (model iv') and minimum (model i') values of the jet density in the pulses.
189: In model iv' (model i'), the jet density in the pulses is higher (lower) than
190: the jet density in the steady jet. Although model iv' provided the best fit
191: for the optical data for MWC\,560, our work in this paper shows that model i'
192: results in X-ray properties which are more appropriate for CH Cyg. For both
193: models we used an approximate treatment of radiative cooling. The model
194: properties including the velocities and densities of the jet pulses are given
195: in Table \ref{pulses}.
196:
197: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccc}
198: \tablecaption{Parameters of the jet pulses \label{pulses}}
199: \tablewidth{\textwidth}
200: \tablehead{
201: \colhead{model} &
202: \colhead{$n_{\rm{pulse}}$ [cm$^{-3}$]} &
203: \colhead{$v_{\rm{pulse}}$ [km s$^{-1}$]} &
204: \colhead{$\dot M_{\rm jp}$ [$\mbox{M}_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]} &
205: \colhead{$L_{\rm jet}$ [erg s$^{-1}$]}}
206: \startdata
207: i' & $1.25 \times 10^6$ & $2000$ &
208: $4.66 \times 10^{-9}$ & $5.88 \times 10^{33}$ \\
209: iv' & $1 \times 10^7$ & $2000$ &
210: $3.73 \times 10^{-8}$ & $4.70 \times 10^{34}$ \\
211: \enddata
212: \tablecomments{The values of the steady jet emission are $n = 5 \times 10^6$
213: cm$^{-3}$, $v = 1000$ km s$^{-1}$, $\dot M_{\rm js} = 9.33 \times 10^{-9}$
214: $\mbox{M}_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $L_{\rm jet} = 2.93 \times 10^{33}$ erg
215: s$^{-1}$, respectively. $\dot M_{\rm js}$ and $\dot M_{\rm jp}$ are the mass
216: outflow rates of the jet in the steady state and during the pulse,
217: respectively. The duration of each pulse is one day, their period is seven
218: days.}
219: \end{deluxetable*}
220:
221: \begin{figure*}
222: \plotone{f1a.ps}
223: \plotone{f1b.ps}
224: \caption{Logarithm of density (top) and temperature (bottom) for model i'
225: on day 162 (left) and for model iv' on day 115 (right), shown as contour plots
226: and slices along the jet axis (solid) and parallel to the jet axis at $r = 2$
227: AU (dashed).}
228: \label{den_temp}
229: \end{figure*}
230:
231: Maps of logarithm of density and temperature for model i' on day 162 and for
232: model iv' on day 115 are given in Fig. \ref{den_temp}. Both are the last
233: time-steps calculated.
234:
235: \subsection{Calculating the X-ray properties}
236:
237: We determined the expected X-ray flux using the density and temperature maps
238: from the hydrodynamical simulations as follows. We used
239: the atomic database ATOMDB with IDL including the Astrophysical
240: Plasma Emission Database (APED) and the spectral models output from the
241: Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code \citep[APEC,][]{SBL01} to calculate
242: the emissivity. The default abundances in ATOMDB, i.e. 14 elements (H, He, C,
243: N, O, Ne, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ar, Ca, Fe, Ni) with solar abundances of
244: \citet{AnG89}, are used. The energy range is divided into bins of 0.01 keV.
245: We compute the spectrum and the total flux in X-rays as a function of
246: evolutionary time for each of our models.
247:
248: We calculate the X-ray emission in the range between 0.15 -- 15 keV,
249: which is exactly the energy range covered by EPIC on XMM-Newton
250: and includes that of the ACIS instrument (0.2 -- 10 keV) and of HETG (0.4 --
251: 10 keV) on Chandra. The emission from gas with a temperature lower than
252: $\lesssim 10^6$ K is only marginal in this energy range.
253:
254: \section{The total X-ray luminosity and its time dependence} \label{sec_lum}
255:
256: As expected, the high temperatures, created by the interaction of the jet
257: pulses with previously ejected matter, lead to substantial X-ray emission
258: (Fig. \ref{Xray_lum}). The X-ray luminosity in model iv' is higher than in
259: model i'. This is a result of the higher density in the pulses and thus of the
260: higher kinetic luminosity $L_{\rm jet} = 1/2 \, \dot M \, v^2$ pumped into the
261: jet. Furthermore, in model i' about 5\% of the average kinetic luminosity is
262: radiated in X-rays, but in model iv' about 19\%. Since the X-rays are emitted
263: by shocked material from the fast moving pulses and since the X-ray luminosity
264: is proportional to $\rho^2$, compared to $L_{\rm jet}$ being proportional
265: to $\rho$, the ratio of the X-ray luminosity to the kinetic luminosity is
266: proportional to $\rho$. Therefore this ratio is higher in model iv' than in
267: model i'.
268:
269: \begin{figure}
270: \plotone{f2.ps}
271: \caption{X-ray luminosity as a function of the evolution time of the jet
272: in model i' (solid) and model iv' (dashed) in the energy range 0.15 -- 15 keV.
273: Most of the energy is emitted below 2 keV, i.e. the plots showing the
274: luminosity in the energy range 0.15 -- 2 keV are similar.}
275: \label{Xray_lum}
276: \end{figure}
277:
278: We find minima and maxima in the X-ray emission $L_{\rm X}$ (computed by
279: integrating over the energy range 0.15 -- 15 keV) which are connected with the
280: periodic emergence of jet pulses (Fig. \ref{flashes}). Thus
281: the period of the variations in the X-ray emission is about 7 days. The size of
282: the fluctuations is 50 \% and more of the average emission.
283:
284: \begin{figure}
285: \plotone{f3a.ps}
286: \plotone{f3b.ps}
287: \caption{X-ray luminosity as a function of time
288: for model i' (top) and model iv' (bottom); one can see
289: minima and maxima created by the emergence of each new jet pulse; the dotted
290: lines in the top plots show the different trends of the X-ray
291: luminosity decreases with time.}
292: \label{flashes}
293: \end{figure}
294:
295: While the X-ray luminosity stays constant with time for model i', it decreases
296: with time for model iv'. This difference might be related to a larger amount
297: of cooling in model iv'. The initial shock temperature is identical in both
298: models, since the velocities are the same. The higher densities in the jet
299: pulses in model iv', however, lead to higher densities in the X-ray emitting
300: material and thus to higher pressures which result in stronger adiabatic
301: expansion and hence enhanced adiabatic cooling. Radiative cooling is also
302: enhanced by the higher densities in model iv'.
303:
304: \section{The spectrum and its time dependence} \label{sec_spec}
305:
306: The spectra of both models in the energy range between 0.15 -- 15
307: keV show many different features. They show continuum emission, and
308: superimposed on the continuum, a large number of emission features (some of
309: which are blends of several emission lines). A prominent feature, which is
310: mainly due to blended iron lines, is seen between 0.7--1 keV.
311: Iron also produces a strong emission feature in the
312: 6.4 -- 6.7 keV range requiring very high temperatures ($\sim$ $10^7$ K)
313: that are reached locally in the jet.
314:
315: \begin{figure}
316: \plotone{f4a.ps}
317: \plotone{f4b.ps}
318: \caption{Spectrum in the energy range between 0.15 -- 15 keV; top: for
319: model i' on days 153 (a minimum of the total X-ray luminosity, solid) and 155
320: (close to the maximum X-ray luminosity, dashed), bottom: for model iv' on
321: days 105 (solid) and 107 (dashed). The spectrum plotted with a solid line is
322: shifted downwards by a factor of 100 for clarity in each plot. One can clearly
323: see the time dependence of the spectrum.}
324: \label{fullspectrum}
325: \end{figure}
326:
327: Like the total X-ray luminosity, the spectrum is also highly time-dependent
328: (Fig. \ref{fullspectrum}). We define two proxies for the temperature, one using
329: the low energy spectrum and one using the high energy spectrum. These proxies
330: can then be used conveniently for direct comparison with the single-temperature
331: thermal plasma models typically used to fit the observed data.
332:
333: \subsection{Defining temperature proxies}
334:
335: In order to characterize the temperature of the propagating jet from the
336: low energy spectrum, we use the fact that below energies of about 0.7 keV, both
337: spectra in Fig. \ref{fullspectrum} are almost identical, but differ
338: significantly between 0.7 and 2 keV. Therefore we define the proxy $\zeta$ for
339: relatively low temperature plasma ($10^7$ K) in the jet as
340: \begin{equation}
341: \zeta = \frac{f_{\rm (0.2-0.7)\,keV}}{f_{\rm (0.7-2)\,keV}}
342: \end{equation}
343: with $f_{\rm (0.2-0.7)\,keV}$ and $f_{\rm (0.7-2)\,keV}$ the fluxes integrated
344: over the given energy ranges (Fig. \ref{proxiesvsT}, top).
345:
346: The slope of the continuum also changes with time. To measure this behavior, we
347: define a flux ratio
348: \begin{equation}
349: \xi = \frac{f_{\rm 4\,keV}}{f_{\rm 9\,keV}}
350: \end{equation}
351: We choose regions in the spectrum where no lines are present, although photons
352: with these high energies have not been observed from the jet or might be
353: confused with photons from the central engine in observed spectra.
354:
355: \begin{figure}[htb]
356: \plotone{f5.ps}
357: \caption{Temperature proxies as a function of temperature for a
358: single-temperature thermal plasma calculated with ATOMDB: hardness ratio
359: $\zeta$ (top) and flux ratio $\xi$ (bottom) as defined in the text.}
360: \label{proxiesvsT}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: \subsection{Determining the temperature from model spectra}
364: \label{sec_temp_mod}
365:
366: In model i', the high temperature proxy, $\log (\xi)$, varies with time
367: spanning a range from 1.5 to 3. It has its highest value (i.e. the spectrum has
368: the steepest slope, hence the average temperature is at its lowest value), when
369: the X-ray luminosity shows a minimum (Fig. \ref{fluxratio1}). Comparison of
370: the model $\log (\xi)$ values with that of a single-temperature thermal
371: plasma (Fig. \ref{proxiesvsT}, bottom) gives us temperature estimates of the
372: hot component between
373: $8\times10^6$ K (0.69 keV) and $1.7\times10^7$ K (1.5 keV). The highest
374: temperatures are consistent with that of post-shock gas with a shock velocity
375: of about 1100 km s$^{-1}$. The minimum in the $\log (\xi)$ (i.e. maximum in
376: average temperature) coincides with the emergence of each new pulse; within
377: the next 2--3 day period the compressed knot cools and the emissivity
378: increases. Therefore the maximum in the X-ray luminosity is reached about 2--3
379: days later.
380:
381: The low temperature proxy, $\log (\zeta)$, varies between about 0.5 and 1.6,
382: the corresponding temperatures lie between $1.6\times10^6$ K (0.14 keV) and
383: $3\times10^6$ K (0.26 keV). The jet is therefore better described as a
384: combination of a warm and a hot component rather than as a single-temperature
385: plasma.
386:
387: \begin{figure}
388: \plotone{f6.ps}
389: \caption{X-ray luminosity of the jet as a function of time in
390: the energy range 0.15 -- 15 keV (top), flux ratio $\xi$ as a
391: function of time (middle) and hardness ratio $\zeta$ as a
392: function of time (bottom) for models i'.}
393: \label{fluxratio1}
394: \end{figure}
395: \begin{figure}
396: \plotone{f7.ps}
397: \caption{same as Fig. \ref{fluxratio1}, but for model iv'}
398: \label{fluxratio2}
399: \end{figure}
400:
401: In model iv', $\log (\xi)$ varies between 2.1 and 2.8; the corresponding
402: temperatures are $8\times10^6$ K (0.69 keV) and $1.2\times10^7$ K (1.03 keV).
403: The low temperature proxy, $\log (\zeta)$, lies between 0.1 and 0.6; the
404: corresponding temperatures are $3\times10^6$ K (0.26 keV) and $3.8\times10^6$ K
405: (0.33 keV). As in model i', the jet is better characterized as a combination of
406: a warm and a hot component.
407:
408: The range of temperatures in the hot component over one pulse cycle in model
409: iv' is smaller compared to that in model i'; this is because the higher density
410: in model iv' makes radiative cooling more efficient, such that the shock
411: heating is damped more efficiently. The different density contrasts between the
412: jet pulses and the steady jet in both models also lead to different
413: shock velocities and thus to different shock temperatures to which the plasma
414: is heated initially.
415:
416: \subsection{Emission lines in the model spectra}
417:
418: \begin{figure}
419: \plotone{f8.ps}
420: \caption{Spectrum in the energy range between 0.15 -- 15 keV for
421: model i' on days 155; several strong emission lines are present with very
422: different ionization potentials which can only be explained using two
423: components at different temperatures.}
424: \label{lines}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427: We have identified the strongest emission lines characterizing a typical jet
428: spectrum using the spectrum derived from model i' on day 155 as a template
429: (Fig. \ref{lines}). The most prominent lines are the oxygen line at 0.57 keV,
430: the Ne lines at 0.93 and 1.03 keV, the Mg lines at 1.35 and 1.47 keV, the Si
431: lines at 1.86, 2.01 and 2.18 keV, and the Fe complex at about 6.5 keV. All
432: strong lines with their identifications are given in Table \ref{linestable},
433: including their fluxes at days 153 and 155 in model i' and days 105 and 107 in
434: model iv'. Most of these lines are hydrogenic or He-like lines of heavy
435: elements, however, also lines of higher ionization states are present
436: (\ion{Fe}{22}, \ion{Fe}{23}, \ion{Fe}{25}). Thus this set of lines with very
437: different ionization potentials can also only explained with two components at
438: different temperatures.
439:
440: \begin{table*}
441: \centering
442: \caption{Prominent emission lines in the model spectra\label{linestable}}
443: \tablewidth{\textwidth}
444: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
445: \hline
446: \hline
447: ion & energy (keV) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{flux (erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$)} \\
448: & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{model i'} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{model iv'} \\
449: & & day 153 & day 155 & day 105 & day 107 \\
450: \hline
451: \ion{C}{5} & 0.31 & 8.81$\times10^{-14}$ & 7.02$\times10^{-14}$
452: & 1.36$\times10^{-13}$ & 7.03$\times10^{-14}$ \\
453: \ion{C}{6} & 0.37 & 3.09$\times10^{-14}$ & 2.49$\times10^{-14}$
454: & 1.06$\times10^{-13}$ & 4.21$\times10^{-14}$ \\
455: \ion{N}{6} & 0.42 & 6.96$\times10^{-15}$ & 6.53$\times10^{-15}$
456: & 2.58$\times10^{-14}$ & 1.08$\times10^{-14}$ \\
457: \ion{N}{6} & 0.43 & 1.00$\times10^{-14}$ & 9.20$\times10^{-15}$
458: & 4.06$\times10^{-14}$ & 1.50$\times10^{-14}$ \\
459: \ion{N}{7} & 0.50 & 2.59$\times10^{-15}$ & 3.07$\times10^{-15}$
460: & 2.31$\times10^{-14}$ & 1.68$\times10^{-14}$ \\
461: \ion{O}{7} & 0.57 & 3.80$\times10^{-14}$ & 3.67$\times10^{-14}$
462: & 2.67$\times10^{-13}$ & 1.59$\times10^{-13}$ \\
463: \ion{O}{8} & 0.65 & 5.57$\times10^{-15}$ & 9.26$\times10^{-15}$
464: & 1.11$\times10^{-13}$ & 1.37$\times10^{-13}$ \\
465: \ion{Fe}{17} & 0.73 & 5.32$\times10^{-16}$ & 3.70$\times10^{-15}$
466: & 9.17$\times10^{-14}$ & 8.93$\times10^{-14}$ \\
467: \ion{Fe}{17} & 0.83 & 5.73$\times10^{-16}$ & 4.11$\times10^{-15}$
468: & 9.34$\times10^{-14}$ & 9.39$\times10^{-14}$ \\
469: \ion{O}{8} & 0.77 & 4.19$\times10^{-16}$ & 1.65$\times10^{-15}$
470: & 2.89$\times10^{-14}$ & 3.13$\times10^{-14}$ \\
471: \ion{Fe}{18} & 0.87 & 2.17$\times10^{-17}$ & 7.42$\times10^{-16}$
472: & 2.29$\times10^{-14}$ & 2.68$\times10^{-14}$ \\
473: \ion{Ne}{9} & 0.92 & 5.90$\times10^{-16}$ & 1.99$\times10^{-15}$
474: & 3.60$\times10^{-14}$ & 5.00$\times10^{-14}$ \\
475: \ion{Fe}{22} & 0.97 & 1.30$\times10^{-17}$ & 7.52$\times10^{-16}$
476: & 1.41$\times10^{-14}$ & 2.58$\times10^{-14}$ \\
477: \ion{Ne}{10} & 1.02 & 8.72$\times10^{-17}$ & 1.70$\times10^{-15}$
478: & 3.76$\times10^{-14}$ & 4.17$\times10^{-14}$ \\
479: \ion{Mg}{11} & 1.35 & 3.34$\times10^{-17}$ & 4.00$\times10^{-16}$
480: & 9.41$\times10^{-15}$ & 1.07$\times10^{-14}$ \\
481: \ion{Mg}{12} & 1.47 & 1.71$\times10^{-18}$ & 2.72$\times10^{-16}$
482: & 4.28$\times10^{-15}$ & 7.17$\times10^{-15}$ \\
483: \ion{Si}{13} & 1.86 & 5.25$\times10^{-18}$ & 3.86$\times10^{-16}$
484: & 7.04$\times10^{-15}$ & 1.06$\times10^{-14}$ \\
485: \ion{Si}{14} & 2.01 & 3.71$\times10^{-19}$ & 2.12$\times10^{-16}$
486: & 1.37$\times10^{-15}$ & 4.30$\times10^{-15}$ \\
487: \ion{Si}{13} & 2.18 & 4.51$\times10^{-19}$ & 3.81$\times10^{-17}$
488: & 5.76$\times10^{-16}$ & 9.99$\times10^{-16}$ \\
489: \ion{S}{15} & 2.46 & 1.35$\times10^{-18}$ & 1.43$\times10^{-16}$
490: & 1.55$\times10^{-15}$ & 3.34$\times10^{-15}$ \\
491: \ion{Ar}{17} & 3.14 & 6.06$\times10^{-20}$ & 3.31$\times10^{-17}$
492: & 2.03$\times10^{-16}$ & 5.60$\times10^{-16}$ \\
493: \ion{Ca}{19} & 3.9 & 1.52$\times10^{-20}$ & 1.05$\times10^{-17}$
494: & 3.68$\times10^{-17}$ & 1.30$\times10^{-16}$ \\
495: \ion{Fe}{23} & 6.65 & 2.11$\times10^{-20}$ & 4.01$\times10^{-17}$
496: & 4.81$\times10^{-18}$ & 2.01$\times10^{-17}$ \\
497: \ion{Fe}{25} & 7.78 & 1.17$\times10^{-23}$ & 2.76$\times10^{-18}$
498: & 1.17$\times10^{-18}$ & 7.12$\times10^{-18}$ \\
499: \hline
500: \end{tabular}
501: \end{table*}
502:
503: \section{The X-ray emission maps} \label{sec_maps}
504:
505: The results in the previous section suggest the existence of two components,
506: a warm one with temperatures in the range of (1.6 -- 3.8)$\times 10^6$ K and
507: a hot one with temperatures of (8 -- 17)$\times 10^6$ K, respectively. As
508: already pointed out in Paper I and II, the jet consists of dense, cool knots
509: and tenuous, hot inter-knot gas. The knots are too cold to emit X-rays, thus
510: the low and high energy components in the X-ray spectrum probe the temperature
511: structure of the hot parts of the jet (Fig.1 and Fig. 12 in paper I). These
512: hot parts consist of shocked material in the inter-knot gas segments.
513: Temperature gradients are present within each inter-knot gas segment and also
514: between the inter-knot gas close to the jet source and those downstream near
515: the jet head. The regions with the highest temperatures and thus emission
516: above 6 keV lie in the first two inter-knot gas segments within only a few AU
517: from the central source (Fig. \ref{maps}). The inter-knot gas segments become
518: progressively cooler, as they move farther away from the jet source due to
519: adiabatic expansion and the resulting cooling of jet material.
520:
521: \begin{figure*}
522: \plotone{f9.ps}
523: \caption{Emission maps of model i' on day 155 in the 0.15 -- 1.5 keV range,
524: in the 1.5 -- 3 keV range, in the 3 -- 6 keV range and in the 6 -- 7 keV
525: range.}
526: \label{maps}
527: \end{figure*}
528:
529: \section{Comparison with observations} \label{sec_obs}
530:
531: We now compare the results of our models to X-ray observations of the three
532: objects MWC\,560 (only upper limits to the flux are available), CH Cyg and R
533: Aqr.
534:
535: \subsection{MWC\,560}
536:
537: The source fluxes in the 0.2 -- 2.4 keV range are $3 \times 10^{-13}$ erg
538: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ for model i' and $2 \times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
539: for model iv', using a distance of 2.5 kpc to MWC\,560
540: \citep[][and references therein]{SKC01}. The latter flux is reduced to an
541: absorbed flux of $1.7 \times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, using the model
542: of the visual interstellar extinction in the Galaxy by \citet{HJS97} which
543: gives an $A_{\rm v} = 0.88$ or $N_{\rm H} = 1.55 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ for
544: MWC\,560. The absorbed flux is consistent with MWC\,560's non-detection
545: in the ROSAT all-sky survey \citep[$<7 \times 10^{-13}$ erg
546: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$,][]{MWJ97}. The fluxes, however, are high enough such that
547: today's X-ray telescope as Chandra and XMM-Newton should be able to detect
548: MWC\,560\footnote{XMM-Newton observations proposed by the authors will be
549: executed in AO-6 after May 2007.}.
550:
551: \subsection{CH Cyg}
552:
553: Since the jet velocities are similar in MWC\,560 and CH Cyg, we can make a
554: detailed comparison of our models with the latter object. This comparison is
555: limited to the soft emission from the propagating jet and excludes the X-ray
556: emission above about 2 keV which is believed to be dominated by the variable
557: scattered hard X-rays from the central source.
558:
559: \citet{EIM98} resolved for the first time atomic emission lines (or their
560: blends) from elements in hydrogenic and He-like ionization states in the
561: X-ray spectra of CH Cyg. The most prominent features in the observed spectra
562: are the oxygen line at 0.57 keV, the blend of i) Ne lines at 0.93 and 1.03 keV,
563: ii) Mg lines at 1.35 and 1.47 keV, iii) Si lines at 1.86, 2.01 and 2.18 keV,
564: and the Fe line complex at about 6.5 keV. These lines are also seen in our
565: model spectra. Furthermore, they also had to introduce a two-temperature
566: thermal plasma model to explain the set of lines detected in the ASCA spectrum.
567: The temperatures of their two components (0.21 and 0.72 keV) are in the same
568: range as in our model i' (warm component: 0.14 -- 0.26 keV, hot component:
569: 0.69 -- 1.5 keV, see \S \ref{sec_temp_mod}). In model iv', the warm component
570: is too hot (0.26 -- 0.33 keV) to explain the observations.
571:
572: Recently, KCR07 reported the detection of multiple components,
573: including an arc, in the archival Chandra images. This arc has a similar
574: opening angle to many of the arcs visible in our X-ray emission maps (Fig.
575: \ref{maps}), and its presence supports our pulsed-jet model in which such
576: emission results from internal shocks generated by colliding jet ejecta.
577:
578: Considering the smaller distance of 268 pc to CH Cyg, the model X-ray
579: luminosity of $2.2\times10^{32}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for model i' and
580: $1.5\times10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for model iv' in the 0.2 -- 2 keV range
581: implies fluxes of $2.6 \times 10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $1.74
582: \times 10^{-10}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively.
583: The interstellar extinction for CH Cyg is $A_{\rm v} = 0.006$ or
584: $N_{\rm H} = 1 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, thus the absorbed flux is $2 \times
585: 10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ for model i' and $1.3 \times 10^{-10}$ erg
586: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ for model iv', respectively. The measured fluxes of the
587: soft components associated with the jet, however, lie in the range $(0.4-3.8)
588: \times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \citep{EIM98,GaS04,MIK06}. Since these
589: measured fluxes are smaller than those predicted by model i' and by far
590: smaller than those from model iv' which has a higher jet pulse density than
591: model i', we infer that the jet pulse densities in CH Cyg are smaller than
592: those in MWC\,560 and our models. If, as stated in \S \ref{sec_lum}, the
593: ratio of the X-ray luminosity to the kinetic energy pumped into the jet is
594: proportional to the jet pulse density, we can estimate that the jet pulse
595: density has to be reduced to about $10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ to model the X-ray flux
596: observed in CH Cyg. In order to resolve the difference between measured and
597: model fluxes with uncertainties in the distance to CH Cyg, the latter would
598: have to be about 700 pc, however, this large value is very unlikely, since the
599: distance was measured with HIPPARCOS with an error of 23 \%.
600:
601: KCR07 give an observational estimate of the density in the jet, 50
602: cm$^{-3}$, based on the total X-ray luminosity, assuming an emitting sphere
603: with a radius of 400 AU and a mean emissivity of $2\times10^{-23}$ erg cm$^3$
604: s$^{-1}$. However, astrophysical jets, typically, are collimated structures
605: which have significantly smaller volumes than a sphere. Since we simulated the
606: propagation of the model jets only up to a length of 65 AU, not 400 AU, we
607: scale up its volume as follows. If we assume that the cross-sectional
608: area stays constant as the jet propagates and evolves with time, the jet volume
609: is about ($\pi\,\times6^2\times400$) AU$^{3}$ (Fig. \ref{maps}) which is
610: smaller by about a factor of 6000 than that of a sphere with a radius of 400
611: AU. Alternately if we assume that the lateral expansion of the jet is
612: proportional to its axial expansion\footnote{which is seen in our models after
613: day 70 (Paper II)}, the volume is still overestimated by a factor of about 160.
614: Furthermore, within the volume of the jet, the X-rays are emitted by clumps and
615: not by the whole jet, i.e. the filling factor for the X-ray emission is,
616: $f_1<1$. In addition, KCR07 assume a temperature of $1.2\times 10^7$ K
617: (1 keV) to estimate the emissivity, however, our jet models show that such high
618: temperatures are only archieved in the innermost region of the jet; at
619: larger distances from the jet source along the axis, the X-ray emitting knots
620: are significantly cooler (Fig. \ref{den_temp}). Thus the value of the
621: emissitivity should be lower and the density should be higher than estimated
622: by KCR07 by another correction factor $f_2>1$. Hence we conclude that an
623: accurate estimate of the X-ray emitting volume and the temperature would lead
624: to a higher density by a factor of (160--6000)$f_2/f_1$ compared to the value
625: given by KCR07, of the order of $10^4$--$10^6$ cm$^{-3}$. This range
626: compares well with the densities of material emitting soft X-rays in our
627: models which are of the order of $10^5$--$10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ (Fig.
628: \ref{den_temp}).
629:
630: Other possibilities to reduce the X-ray fluxes in our models, bringing
631: them closer to the observed ones in CH Cyg, are i) a longer timescale between
632: the pulses and ii) a smaller velocity difference between the steady jet and
633: the jet pulses. In the first case, less energy is pumped into the jet and each
634: jet knot and the jet head can cool further before being hit by the next pulse.
635: In the second case, the smaller velocity difference reduces the temperature
636: to which the shocked material is heated. However, the density contrast then
637: also has to be adjusted in order to reproduce the observed proper motion of
638: the jet knots. Which of the above scenarios is the most likely one can only
639: be determined from future simulations which have been fine-tuned to fit the
640: properties of the X-ray emitting material in the jet of CH Cyg.
641:
642: In 1994 and 2006, the flux from the jet in CH Cyg was almost at the same level,
643: in the range $(2.7-3.8)\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
644: \citep{EIM98,MIK06}. In 2001, however, it was lower by a factor of ten
645: \citep{GaS04}. In the context of our models, such a drop in flux may result
646: from a large decrease in the density of the pulses which may be caused by a
647: drop in the accretion rate onto the white dwarf.
648:
649: \subsection{R Aqr}
650:
651: Since the jet velocity in R Aqr is smaller by a factor of 2 than those in our
652: models, we can only make a more limited comparison of the model results with
653: the observations. \citet{KAD06} and also \citet{KKS06} report a tangential
654: motion of an X-ray emitting knot\footnote{\citet{KKS06} give an even smaller
655: velocity of 380 km s$^{-1}$ in their Table 1, however, without explaining the
656: difference from the value given in the text.} of 600 km s$^{-1}$.
657: \citet{KKS06} estimated a density of 100 cm$^{-3}$, however, it may be possible
658: that, as in the case of CH Cyg, the X-ray emitting volume is overestimated and
659: thus the density is underestimated.
660:
661: \citet{KPL01} found in R Aqr that the NE jet is more luminous by a
662: factor of 3 than the SW jet. The spectrum the NE jet was fitted with a
663: single-temperature thermal plasma with a temperature of 1.66 keV, the spectrum
664: of the SW jet with a plasma temperature of 0.2 keV. The simplest explanation of
665: this difference is that the ambient media on both sides have different
666: densities which would lead to different compression factors and thus to
667: different shock heating temperatures. However, proper motion measurements show
668: no significant differences in the velocities of the knots in both sides of the
669: jet \citep{PaH94, MLV04}, which we would expect if different ambient densities
670: would decelerate the jet differently on both sides.
671:
672: Our modeling can provide a plausible explanation for the observed differences
673: between the two sides of the jet, if we assume that the ejection of the jet
674: pulses on both sides are out of phase with each other. \citet{HOM91}
675: derived a kinematic age of both jets of about 90 yrs; over the extent of the
676: jet we can observe 3--6 knots in the observations of e.g. \citet{PaH94} which
677: suggests several ejection events in this period of time. A period of about 17
678: years for these ejection events has been inferred from radio observations
679: \citep{KHY89}, thus they are significantly larger than in MWC\,560 and in our
680: models\footnote{The events in R Aqr are thought to be triggered by periastron
681: passage, while the variations in MWC\,560 seem to be a result of disk
682: instabilities.}. We hypothesize that the X-ray emitting blobs in the NE jet
683: were ejected later than those in the SW jet and therefore have cooled less.
684: This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the X-ray emitting component in
685: the NE jet is closer to the central core (about 8'') than the blobs in the SW
686: jet \citep[12--26'',][]{KPL01}. A new SW jet component with an offset of about
687: 1.5'' from the central source has recently been reported by \citet{NDK07}.
688: Assuming a jet velocity of about 600 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{KAD06}, i.e. about
689: 0.6'' per year, we obtain a kinematic age of about 2.5 years for this
690: component. Even if the new component had been ejected during the epoch of
691: \citet{KPL01}'s observations, its flux would have contributed to the central
692: source, but not to that of the SW jet. Hence the presence of the new component
693: does not conflict with our hypothesis. The time period between the emergence of
694: the new SW jet component and the emergence of the blob now located at 12'' is
695: about 17 years which supports the inferred period for the ejection of jet
696: pulses in R Aqr.
697:
698: In \S \ref{sec_lum}, we showed that the total X-ray luminosity decreases with
699: time, probably due to adiabatic cooling in the jet (Paper II). This
700: effect provides a plausible explanation of the decrease in X-ray flux in the
701: jet of R Aqr from a value of $5 \times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the
702: early 1990s \citep{HSS98} to $1\times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in 2000
703: \citep{KPL01}. If this explanation holds, we expect to see a further decrease
704: in flux in future observations.
705:
706: \subsection{The 6.4 -- 6.7 keV iron line complex}
707:
708: This iron line complex has been observed in both objects, CH Cyg and R Aqr.
709: Our model spectra also show the existence of this Fe line complex (\S
710: \ref{sec_spec}). \citet{EIM98} fitted the observed spectrum of CH Cyg with
711: three single-temperature components (a warm and a hot component to explain the
712: jet emission and hard component for the central engine) and an additional
713: Gaussian representing fluorescence emission in the Fe K$\alpha$ line. This
714: fluorescence occurs close to the white dwarf and the accretion disk. Since it
715: is not possible to disentangle the flux of the thermal and the fluorescence
716: components in this line complex and since our models do not include the effect
717: of fluorescence, we cannot compare our models with this part of the observed
718: spectrum of CH Cyg.
719:
720: In R Aqr, the origin of the hard X-ray emission is more ambiguous.
721: \citet{KPL01} detected 16 photons in the range between 6.4 and 6.7 keV which
722: they attribute to the central source due to the extraction regions they chose.
723: The physical origin of this emission, i.e. thermal or fluorescence, cannot be
724: decided, since there are not enough photons to model the spectrum in this
725: energy and characterize its nature. In our model, we find significant hard
726: radiation including continuum and iron emission lines, being emitted by the
727: first two internal shocks in the jet downstream from the source (i.e. at a
728: distance less than 15 AU). Since at R Aqr's distance of 200 pc, 15 AU
729: correspond to 75 milliarcseconds, which is well below the angular resolution
730: of Chandra, the X-ray emission from these shocks cannot be separated from the
731: central source. The model X-ray luminosity in the 6.4--6.7 keV range is
732: between $5.1 \times 10^{24}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $7.3 \times 10^{28}$ erg
733: s$^{-1}$ for model i' and between $2.8 \times 10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and
734: $5.1 \times 10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for model iv', respectively, depending on
735: whether the jet is in its minimum or maximum state. At a distance of 200 pc,
736: this corresponds to fluxes between $1.1 \times 10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
737: and $1.1 \times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. Since \citet{KPL01} measured
738: a flux of $4.9 \times 10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ at 6.41 keV, we
739: suggest that the measured iron line flux may be emitted by the jet itself, and
740: an additional fluorescence component is not needed, in R Aqr. However, new
741: simulations with the same jet velocity as in R Aqr are needed in order to test
742: this suggestion.
743:
744: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec_concl}
745:
746: We have used our models of pulsed, radiative jets in symbiotic stars in order
747: to investigate their X-ray properties in detail. These models show that the
748: well-studied pole-on jet in MWC\,560 should be easily detected by today's
749: X-ray telescopes such as Chandra and XMM-Newton, since our model flux and its
750: time variation for this source are of the order of $10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$
751: cm$^{-2}$.
752:
753: We find minima and maxima in the X-ray emission $L_{\rm X}$ (computed by
754: integrating over the energy range 0.15 -- 15 keV) which are connected with the
755: periodic emergence of jet pulses. The maxima of the total X-ray luminosity
756: occur 2--3 days after the emergence of new jet pulses, which are ejected every
757: 7 days. The size of the fluctuations is 50 \% and more of the average
758: emission, making such X-ray flashing jets detectable with Chandra and
759: XMM-Newton.
760:
761: The X-ray spectra of our model jets are rich in emission line features, the
762: most prominent of which correspond to observed features in the spectra of CH
763: Cyg.
764:
765: By using low and high energy temperature proxies derived from the spectra, we
766: can show that the emission can be adequately characterized with a hot and a
767: warm optically-thin plasma component. The hot component has temperature
768: values of about 0.7 keV (1.6 keV) during the minima (maxima) of the total
769: X-ray luminosity and the warm component has temperature values of about 0.14
770: keV (0.33 keV) during the minima (maxima).
771:
772: While model iv' is appropriate for MWC\,560, we have shown that model i', which
773: has a lower jet pulse density than model iv', is more appropriate for the
774: jet in CH Cyg in terms of explaining the lower X-ray flux. Other possibilities
775: to reduce the flux are a longer timescale between the pulses and a smaller
776: velocity difference between the steady jet and the jet pulses. Which of the
777: above scenarios is the most likely one has to be tested in future simulations
778: which have to be tuned to the jet in CH Cyg.
779:
780: Our models also offer a plausible explanation for the differences in
781: luminosities and temperatures in the NE and the SW jet of R Aqr. We assume
782: that the ejection of the jet pulses on both sides are out of phase with each
783: other. We hypothesize that the X-ray emitting blobs in the NE jet
784: were ejected later than those in the SW jet and therefore have cooled less.
785:
786: We find the existence of iron line emission in the 6.4 -- 6.7 keV range in our
787: models which is also observed in both, CH Cyg and R Aqr. Our models cannot be
788: directly applied to CH Cyg, because of an additional fluorescence component
789: from the central source and accretion disk in the observed spectrum and because
790: fluorescence is not included in our models. In the case of R Aqr, although
791: this emission has been associated with the central source, our modeling shows
792: that it is consistent with being produced by jet knots very close to the
793: latter, because their separation in our model is well below the angular
794: resolution of Chandra.
795:
796: Using our current models which were built to fit the optical data
797: of the jet in MWC\,560 we are able to explain some of the important
798: characteristics of X-ray emission from jets in MWC\,560 and other symbiotic
799: stars. The results of this study demonstrate the great potential of future
800: numerical simulations of pulsed jets which have been fine-tuned to specific
801: source properties for understanding the jet phenomenon in symbiotic stars.
802: Furthermore, we hope that this study will inspire new and more sensitive
803: observations of X-ray emission from jets in symbiotic stars.
804:
805: \acknowledgements
806: We acknowledge helpful and improving comments and suggestions by the referee.
807: The hydrodynamical simulations were performed at the High Performance
808: Computing Center Stuttgart, Germany. This work was partially funded by
809: NASA/CHANDRA grants GO3-4019X and GO4-5163Z, and NASA/STScI grant
810: HST-GO-10317.01-A. The research described in this publication was carried out
811: at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a
812: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
813:
814:
815: \begin{thebibliography}{}
816: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{AnG89}
817: Anders, E., Grevesse, N. 1989, GeCoA 53, 197
818: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2003)]{ALK03}
819: Anderson, J. M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., Blandford, R. D. 2003, \apj\ 590,
820: L107
821: \bibitem[Blandford \& Payne(1982)]{BlP82}
822: Blandford, R. D., Payne, D. G. 1982, \mnras\ 199, 883
823: \bibitem[Ezuka et al.(1998)]{EIM98}
824: Ezuka, H., Ishida, M., Makino, F. 1998, \apj\ 499, 388
825: \bibitem[Eyres et al.(2002)]{EBS02}
826: Eyres, S. P. S., Bode, M. F., Skopal, A., et al. 2002, \mnras\ 335, 526l
827: \bibitem[Galloway \& Sokoloski(2004)]{GaS04}
828: Galloway, D. K., Sokoloski, J. L. 2004, \apj\ 613, L61
829: \bibitem[Goodson et al.(1997)]{GWB97}
830: Goodson, A. P., Winglee, R. M., B\"ohm, K.-H. 1997, \apj\ 489,199
831: \bibitem[Hakkila et al.(1997)]{HJS97}
832: Hakkila, J., Myers, J. M., Stidham, B. J., Hartmann, D. H. 1997, \aj\ 114, 2043
833: \bibitem[Hollis et al.(1985a)]{HMK85}
834: Hollis, J.M., Michalitsianos, A. G., Kafatos, M., et al. 1985, \apj\ 289, 765
835: \bibitem[Hollis et al.(1985b)]{HLD85}
836: Hollis, J. M., Lyon, R. G., Dorband, J. E., et al. 1985, \apj\ 475, 231
837: \bibitem[Hollis et al.(1991)]{HOM91}
838: Hollis, J. M., Oliversen, R. J., Michalitsianos, A. G., et al. 1991, \apj\ 377,
839: 227
840: \bibitem[Hollis et al.(1997)]{HPL97}
841: Hollis, J. M., Pedelty, J. A., Lyon, R. G. 1997, \apj\ 482, L85
842: \bibitem[H\"unsch et al.(1998)]{HSS98}
843: H\"unsch, M., Schmitt, J. H., Schroeder, K., Zickgraf, F. 1998, \aap\ 330, 225
844: \bibitem[Kafatos et al.(1989)]{KHY89}
845: Kafatos, M., Hollis, J. M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., et al. 1989, \apj\ 346, 991
846: \bibitem[Karovska et al.(2007)]{KCR07}
847: Karovska, M., Carilli, C. L., Raymond, J. C., Mattei, J. A.
848: 2007, ApJ accepted, astro-ph/0703278
849: \bibitem[Kellogg et al.(2001)]{KPL01}
850: Kellogg, E., Pedelty, J. A., Lyon, R. G. 2001, \apj\ 563, 151
851: \bibitem[Kellogg et al.(2006)]{KAD06}
852: Kellogg, E., Anderson, C., DePasquale, J., et al. 2006, poster abstract
853: \#70.08, American Astronomical Society Meeting 207
854: \bibitem[Korreck et al.(2006)]{KKS06}
855: Korreck, K. E., Kellogg, E., Sokoloski, J. L. 2006, in: "The Multicoloured
856: Landscape of Compact Objects and their Explosive Origins", astro-ph/0611401
857: \bibitem[Leahy \& Taylor(1987)]{LeT87}
858: Leahy, D. A., Taylor, A. R. 1987, \aap\ 176, 262
859: \bibitem[M\"akinen et al.(2004)]{MLV04}
860: M\"akinen, K., Lehto, H. J., Vainio, R., Johnson, D. R. H. 2004, \aap\ 424, 157
861: \bibitem[Matt et al.(2002)]{MGW02}
862: Matt, S., Goodson, A. P., Winglee, R. M., B\"ohm, K.-H. 2002, \apj\ 574, 232
863: \bibitem[Mukai et al.(2006)]{MIK06}
864: Mukai, K., Ishida, M., Kilbourne, C., et al. 2006, \pasj\ accepted,
865: astro-ph/0609245
866: \bibitem[M\"urset et al.(1997)]{MWJ97}
867: M\"urset, U., Wolff, B., Jordan, S. 1997 , \aap\ 319, 201
868: \bibitem[Nichols et al.(2007)]{NDK07}
869: Nichols, J. S., DePasquale, J., Kellogg, E., et al. 2007, \apj\ accepted
870: \bibitem[Paresce \& Hack(1994)]{PaH94}
871: Paresce, F., Hack, W. 1994, \aap\ 287, 154
872: \bibitem[Schmid et al.(2001)]{SKC01}
873: Schmid, H. M., Kaufer, A., Camenzind, M., et al. 2001, \aap\ 377, 206
874: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2001)]{SBL01}
875: Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., Raymond, J. C. 2001, \apj\
876: 556, L91
877: \bibitem[Solf \& Ulrich(1985)]{SoU85}
878: Solf, J., Ulrich, H. 1985, \aap\ 148, 274
879: \bibitem[Stute(2006)]{Stu06}
880: Stute, M., 2006, \aap\ 450, 645 (Paper II)
881: \bibitem[Stute, Camenzind \& Schmid(2005)]{SCS05}
882: Stute, M., Camenzind, M., Schmid, H.~M. 2005, \aap\ 429, 209 (Paper I)
883: \bibitem[Sutherland \& Dopita(1993)]{SuD93}
884: Sutherland, R.~S., Dopita, M.~A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253
885: \bibitem[Taylor et al.(1986)]{TSM86}
886: Taylor, A. R., Seaquist, E. R., Mattei, J. A. 1986, Nature, 319, 38
887: \bibitem[Thiele(2000)]{Thi00}
888: Thiele, M. 2000, Numerical simulations of protostellar jets, PhD Thesis,
889: University of Heidelberg
890: \bibitem[Viotti et al.(1987)]{VPF87}
891: Viotti, R., Piro, L., Friedjung, M., Cassatella, A. 1987, \apj\ 319, L7
892: \bibitem[Wheatley \& Kallman(2006)]{WhK06}
893: Wheatley, P. J., Kallman, T. R. 2006, \mnras\ 372, 1602
894: \bibitem[Ziegler \& Yorke(1997)]{ZiY97}
895: Ziegler, U., Yorke, H. 1997, Comp. Phys. Comm. 101, 54
896: \end{thebibliography}
897:
898: \end{document}
899:
900: