1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass{aastex}

3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: 

5: \shorttitle{The nature of 3C~382}

6: \shortauthors{Gliozzi et al.}

7: 

8:   \def\3c{3C~382}

9:   \def\oiii{[{\sc O\, iii}]}

10:   \def\oii{[{\sc O\, ii}]}

11:   \def\mgii{[{\sc Mg\, ii}]}

12:   \def\feka{Fe K$\alpha$}

13:   \def\chandra{{\it Chandra}} 

14:   \def\xmm{{\it XMM-Newton}} 

15:   \def\suzaku{{\it Suzaku}}

16:   \def\asca{{\it ASCA}} 

17:   \def\hst{{\it HST}} 

18:   \def\rxte{{\it RXTE}} 

19:   \def\sax{{\it BeppoSAX}} 

20:   \def\ginga{{\it Ginga}} 

21:   \def\rosat{{\it ROSAT}} 

22:   \def\ein{{\it Einstein}} 

23:   \def\integral{{\it Integral}} 

24:   \def\merlin{{\it MERLIN}} 

25:   \def\lum{erg s$^{-1}$}

26:   \def\flux{erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}

27:   \def\nh{cm$^{-2}$}

28:   \def\kms{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s^{-1}}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}

29: 

30: %%

31: %% The definitions below were commmented out by Mike. There are standard aastex

32: %% definitions that do the same thing: \arcdeg and \arcsec

33: %%

34: %  \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}

35: %  \def\deg{$^{\circ}$}

36: %

37: \def\lsim{\ifmmode{\;\mathop{}^{<}_{\sim}\;}\else{$\;\mathop{}^{<}_{\sim}\;$}\fi}

38: \def\gsim{\ifmmode{\;\mathop{}^{>}_{\sim}\;}\else{$\;\mathop{}^{>}_{\sim}\;$}\fi}

39: %%

40: %% The definitions below were replaced by Mike with the ones above. We now have a 

41: %% single definition for each symbol, which is more compact and robust and it works

42: %% both in text mode and in math mode.

43: %%

44: %  \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}

45: %  \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}} % < over ~

46: %  \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}

47: %  \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}} % > over ~

48: 

49: \begin{document}

50: \title{The nature of a broad line radio galaxy: Simultaneous RXTE and Chandra HETG observations of 3C~382}

51: 

52: \author{M. Gliozzi}

53: \affil{George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030}

54: 

55: \author{R. M. Sambruna}

56: \affil{NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 661, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

57: 

58: \author{M. Eracleous\altaffilmark{1,2}}

59: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Northwestern

60: University 2131 Tech Drive, Evanston, IL 60208}

61: 

62: \altaffiltext{1}{Permanent Address: The Pennsylvania State University,

63: Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 525 Davey Lab, University

64: Park, PA 16802}

65: 

66: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, the

67: Pennsylvania State University, University

68: Park, PA 16803}

69: 

70: \author{T. Yaqoob}

71: \affil{Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}

72: \affil{NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 661, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

73: 

74: \begin{abstract}

75: We present the results from simultaneous \chandra\ and \rxte\ observations

76: of the X-ray bright Broad-Line Radio Galaxy (BLRG) 3C 382. The long

77: (120 ks) exposure with \chandra\ HETG allows a detailed study of the

78: soft X-ray continuum and of the narrow component of the Fe K$\alpha$

79: line. The \rxte\ PCA data are used to  put an upper limit on the broad line

80: component and constrain the hard X-ray continuum.  A strong soft excess

81: below 1 keV is observed in the time-averaged HETG spectrum, which can

82: be parameterized with a steep power law or a thermal model. The flux

83: variability at low energies indicates that the origin of the soft

84: excess cannot be entirely ascribed to the circumnuclear diffuse emission,

85: detected by \chandra\ on scales of 20--30\arcsec\ (22--33 kpc).  A

86: narrow ($\sigma<$ 90 eV) Fe K$\alpha$ line (with EW$<$ 100 eV) is 

87: observed by the \chandra\ HEG. Similar values for the

88: line parameters are measured by the \rxte\ PCA, suggesting that the

89: contribution from a broad line component is negligible.  The fact that

90: the exposure is split into two observations taken three days apart

91: allows us to investigate the spectral and temporal evolution of the

92: source on different timescales.  Significant flux variability

93: associated with spectral changes is observed on timescales of hours

94: and days. The spectral variability is similar to that observed in

95: radio-quiet AGN ruling out a jet-dominated origin of the X-rays.  

96: \end{abstract}

97: 

98: \keywords{Galaxies: active -- 

99:           Galaxies: jets --

100:           Galaxies: nuclei -- 

101:           X-rays: galaxies 

102:           }

103: 

104: \section{Introduction}

105: Our understanding of Active Galactic Nuclei

106: (AGN) is based primarily on radio-quiet (RQ) sources, both at high and

107: low luminosities. Multi-wavelength observations of Seyfert galaxies

108: provided us with the

109: widely accepted view that these sources are powered by accretion of

110: gas onto a supermassive central black hole, where the emitted light

111: (optical through X-ray) is produced by an accretion disk and a hot

112: corona overlaying it (e.g., Haardt \& Maraschi 1991).

113: 

114: On the other hand, not much is known about the central engines of

115: radio-loud (RL) AGN, due to their relatively low number density (i.e.,

116: fewer bright examples). X-ray and multi-wavelength studies of broad

117: line radio galaxies (BLRGs), with $L_{\rm 2-10\;keV}\sim

118: 10^{43}-10^{44}$~\lum, established that these sources exhibit subtle

119: but significant differences compared to Seyfert 1s.  While their

120: optical and UV continuum and line emission are similar to those of 

121: Seyfert 1

122: galaxies, BLRGs differ from Seyfert galaxies in their X-ray spectral

123: properties. Specifically, previous \asca, \rxte\, and \sax\

124: observations of BLRGs showed weaker \feka\ lines and weak or absent

125: Compton reflection humps at energies $\gsim 10$~keV, a hallmark of

126: Seyfert 1 galaxies (e.g., Wo\'zniak et al. 1998; Sambruna et al. 1999;

127: Eracleous et al. 2000; Zdziarski \& Grandi 2001; Hasenkopf, Sambruna,

128: \& Eracleous 2002; Grandi et al. 2006). These observations, however,

129: were plagued by limited sensitivity, spectral resolution, and/or the

130: fact that observations in contiguous bands were not simultaneous 

131: and were

132: subject to flux and spectral variability.

133: 

134: The weakness of the \feka\ line and of the Compton reflection are very

135: important observational clues, since they represent a major difference

136: between RL and RQ AGN. The origin of this difference, however, is

137: still debated. The simplest interpretation is that the cold

138: reprocessor in RL objects subtends a smaller solid angle to the

139: central X-ray source. This would be the case if the inner accretion

140: disk was vertically extended as in the ion torus/advection dominated

141: flow models (Rees et al. 1982; Narayan et al. 1998). In such a

142: scenario, the RL/RQ dichotomy is caused by different inner accretion

143: disk structures. Alternatively, the weak

144: reprocessing features in RL objects might be explained by dilution

145: effects caused by beamed emission from an unresolved jet.

146: Another possibility is that the putative hot corona has a

147: mildly relativistic motion directed away from the disk reducing the

148: strength of the reflection (Beloborodov 1999; Malzac et al. 2001).

149: Finally, BLRGs might have more highly ionized

150: accretion disks than Seyfert 1 galaxies, as a result of higher

151: accretion rates (e.g., Nayakshin \& Kallman 2001; Ballantyne et

152: al. 2002). Detailed studies of ionized accretion disk models

153: (e.g., Matt et al. 1993, 1996; Ross \& Fabian 2005) have demonstrated that

154: a progressive increase of the ionization parameter, 

155: $\xi=4\pi F_{\rm x}/n$ (where $F_{\rm x}$ is the X-ray flux and $n$ the 

156: electron number density), produces several emission lines (e.g., OVII, 

157: OVIII, and Fe L lines) in the soft energy band as well as a shift

158: of the energy centroid of the Fe K$\alpha$ line from 6.4 keV to

159: 6.7--6.9 keV. However, when the disk is very strongly ionized

160: with $\xi>5000 {~\rm erg~cm~s^{-1}}$ , the resulting X-ray spectrum becomes 

161: virtually featureless, because all the electrons have been stripped off the

162: atoms. 

163: In the framework of ionized accretion 

164: disk models, the weakness of Fe K line can also be explained by

165: lower values of the ionization parameter ($\xi\sim1000 {~\rm erg~cm~s^{-1}}$) 

166: provided that

167: strong relativistic blurring effects are included (e.g., Crummy et al. 2006).

168: Interestingly, the latter model is also able to self-consistently account for 

169: the presence of a strong soft excess.  

170: 

171: 

172: Unfortunately, time-averaged spectra alone are unable to break this

173: degeneracy, even using broad-band X-ray data with the highest

174: signal-to-noise (S/N) currently available.  This is illustrated by

175: recent \xmm\ observations of 3C~120 (Ballantyne et al. 2004; Ogle et

176: al. 2005) and 3C~111 (Lewis et al. 2005). In the EPIC spectra the

177: inferred shape of the \feka\ line profile depends sensitively on the

178: adopted shape of the underlying 0.5--10 keV continuum. The continuum

179: can be described equally well by very different models, e.g., a simple

180: power law (yielding broad lines) and a dual absorber (yielding narrow

181: lines).

182: 

183: Here we discuss in detail simultaneous \rxte\ and \chandra\ HETG

184: observations of \3c, and our attempt to exploit the complementary

185: capabilities of these two satellites.  The long (120ks) exposure with

186: \chandra\ HETG allows a detailed study of the soft X-ray continuum and

187: of the narrow component of the Fe K$\alpha$ line. The \rxte\ PCA data,

188: on the other hand, are used to constrain the broad line component as

189: well as the hard X-ray continuum.

190:  The fact that the exposure is split into two observations taken three

191: days apart allows one to investigate the spectral and temporal

192: evolution of the source on different timescales. Finally, we take

193: advantage of the unprecedented spatial resolution of \chandra\ to

194: study the physical conditions of the circum-nuclear region.

195: 

196: 3C~382 is a nearby ($z=0.058$), well-studied BLRG with strong and

197: variable, broad optical lines (FWHM$\sim 11,800~\kms$ for H$\alpha$;

198: Eracleous \& Halpern 1994). It exhibits a classical Fanaroff-Riley II

199: radio morphology, with a 1.68\arcmin--long jet extending NE of the

200: core and two radio lobes, with total extension of 3\arcmin\ (Black et

201: al. 1992). The inferred inclination angle of the jet of 3C~382 is $i >

202: 15$\arcdeg\ (Eracleous \& Halpern 1998).  The nucleus of 3C~382 is a

203: bright X-ray source (F$_{\rm 2-10~keV} \sim 3 \times 10^{-11}$

204: \flux). The 2--10 keV X-ray spectrum is well fitted with a single

205: power law; when the fit to the hard X-ray spectrum is extrapolated to

206: lower energies, a strong soft excess is observed (Prieto 2000; Grandi

207: et al. 2001). \rosat\ observations with the High Resolution Imager

208: (HRI) revealed extended X-ray emission around \3c (Prieto 2000).

209: Previous \asca, \sax, and \rxte\ observations showed the presence of a

210: relatively strong \feka\ line, with $F_{\rm line}\gsim 10^{-5}~{\rm

211: ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$ (Wo\'zniak et al. 1998; Sambruna et al. 1999;

212: Eracleous et al. 2000; Grandi et al. 2001), similar to the Seyfert 1

213: NGC 5548 studied with the HETG (Yaqoob et al. 2001). The line

214: equivalent width in 3C~382 ranges from EW=100 eV to EW=700 eV,

215: depending on the modeling of the underlying continuum.  The limited

216: sensitivity and resolution of previous X-ray missions prevented

217: unambiguous modeling of the line and different profiles were derived

218: by different investigators (as discussed in Wo\'zniak et al. 1998;

219: Sambruna et al. 1999; and Zdziarski \& Grandi 2001).

220: 

221: The outline of the paper is as follows. In $\S~2$ we describe the

222: observations and data reduction. The extended circum-nuclear region is

223: studied in $\S~3$.  The main characteristics of the temporal analysis

224: are described in $\S~4$. In $\S~5$ we investigate the spectral

225: properties of the continuum and Fe K$\alpha$ line in \3c.  In $\S~6$

226: we summarize the main results from the temporal, spectral, and spatial

227: analyses and discuss their implications.

228: 

229: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

230: \3c\ was observed simultaneously with \rxte\ and \chandra\ in October

231: 2004. Both observations were split in two parts: \rxte\ observed \3c\

232: between October 27 UT 07:16:41 and 28 UT 09:55:15 (net exposure 32.0

233: ks), and again between October 30 UT 04:28:16 and 31 UT 06:09:15

234: (exposure 37.8 ks). Similarly, the \chandra\ observations were

235: performed on October 27 UT 16:50:39 and 28 UT 08:43:45 (exposure 54.2

236: ks), and between October 30 UT 07:05:20 and 31 UT 01:37:57 (exposure

237: 63.9 ks).

238: 

239: The \rxte\ observations were carried out with the Proportional Counter

240: Array (PCA; Jahoda et al. 1996), and the High-Energy X-Ray Timing

241: Experiment (HEXTE; Rotschild et al. 1998) on \rxte. Here we will

242: consider only PCA data, because the signal-to-noise of the HEXTE data

243: is too low for a meaningful analysis.  The PCA data were screened

244: according to the following acceptance criteria: the satellite was out

245: of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) for at least 30 minutes, the Earth

246: elevation angle was $\geq 10^{\circ}$, the offset from the nominal

247: optical position was $\leq 0^{\circ}\!\!.02$, and the parameter

248: ELECTRON-2 was $\leq 0.1$. The last criterion excludes data with high

249: particle background rates in the Proportional Counter Units

250: (PCUs). The PCA background spectra and light curves were determined

251: using the ${\rm L}7-240$ model developed at the \rxte\ Guest Observer

252: Facility (GOF) This model is implemented by the program {\tt

253: pcabackest} v.2.1b and is applicable to ``faint'' sources, i.e., those

254: with count rates $< 40 {\rm s^{-1}~PCU^{-1}}$. All the above tasks

255: were carried out with the help of the \verb+REX+ script provided by

256: the \rxte\ GOF, which calls the relevant programs from the {\tt

257: FTOOLS} v.5.3.1 software package and also produces response matrices

258: and effective area curves for the specific time of the

259: observation. Data were initially extracted with 16~s time resolution

260: and then re-binned to different bin widths for different applications.

261: The current temporal analysis is restricted to PCA, STANDARD-2 mode,

262: 2--20 keV, Layer 1 data, because that is where the PCA is best

263: calibrated and most sensitive. PCUs 0 and 2 were turned on throughout

264: the monitoring campaign.  However, since the propane layer on PCU0 was

265: damaged in May 2000, causing a systematic increase of the background,

266: we conservatively use only PCU2 for our analysis. All quoted count

267: rates are therefore for one PCU.  We used PCA response matrices and 

268: effective area curves created

269: specifically for the individual observations by the program {\tt

270: pcarsp}, taking into account the evolution of the detector properties.

271: All the spectra were re-binned so that each bin contained enough

272: counts for the $\chi^2$ statistic to be valid. Fits were performed in

273: the energy range 3--15 keV, where the signal-to-noise ratio is the

274: highest.

275: 

276: The \chandra\ observation was performed with the High Energy

277: Transmission Grating Spectrometer (HETGS; Markert et al. 1994) in the

278: focal plane of the High Resolution Mirror Assembly. HETGS consists of

279: two grating assemblies: a High Energy Grating (HEG; 0.7--10 keV) and a

280: Medium Energy Grating (MEG; 0.4--10 keV).  The HEG offers the best

281: spectral resolution in the $\sim 6-7$~keV Fe-K band currently

282: available ($\sim 39$~eV, or $1860 \rm \ km \ s^{-1}$ FWHM at 6.4 keV).

283: The MEG spectral resolution is only half that of the HEG. The HEG also

284: has higher effective area in the Fe-K band.  The HEG and MEG energy

285: bands are $\sim 0.9-10$~keV and $\sim 0.4-8$~keV respectively, but the

286: effective area falls off rapidly with energy near both ends of each

287: bandpass.  The \chandra\ data were reprocessed with version {\tt CIAO}

288: \footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao} version 3.2.1.  and {\tt CALDB} version

289: 3.0.1.  Spectral redistribution matrices ({\tt rmf} files) were made

290: with the {\tt CIAO} tool {\tt mkgrmf} for each arm ($-1$ and $+1$) for

291: the first order data of each of the gratings, HEG and MEG.  Telescope

292: effective area files were made with the {\tt CIAO} script {\tt

293: fullgarf} which drives the {\tt CIAO} tool {\tt mkgarf}.  Again,

294: separate files were made for each arm for each grating for the first

295: order. The effective areas were corrected for the time-dependent

296: low-energy degradation of the ACIS CCDs using the option available in

297: the {\tt mkgarf} tool in the stated version of the {\tt CIAO} and {\tt

298: CALDB} distribution. Events were extracted from the $-1$ and $+1$ arms

299: of the HEG and MEG using strips of width $\pm 3.6$~arcseconds in the

300: cross-dispersion direction.  Light curves and spectra were made from

301: these events and the spectral fitting described later was performed on

302: first-order spectra that were either combined from the $-1$ and $+1$

303: orders (using response files combined with appropriate weighting), or

304: on first-order spectra from the individual $-1$ or $+1$ orders using

305: the appropriate response files.  The background was not subtracted as

306: it is negligible in the energy ranges of interest. Examination of the

307: image of the entire detector and cross-dispersion profiles confirmed

308: that there were no nearby sources contaminating the data.

309: 

310: The spectral analysis was performed using the {\tt XSPEC v.12.3} 

311: software package (Arnaud 1996).

312: The uncertainties on spectral parameters  correspond to the 90\% confidence level

313: for one parameter of interest ($\Delta\chi^2$ or $\Delta C=2.71$), and

314: the corresponding luminosities are calculated assuming

315: $H_0=71{\rm~km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$ and

316: $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27$ (Bennet et al. 2003). With this choice the luminosity

317: distance of \3c\ is 256 Mpc.

318: 

319: 

320: \section{Extended circum-nuclear region}

321: 

322: Previous observations of \3c with the \rosat\ HRI (with spatial

323: resolution $\sim 4$\arcsec) revealed the presence of extended X-ray

324: (0.2--2.4 keV) emission around the source, suggesting that the soft

325: excess of \3c\ is thermal emission of the extended host gas (Prieto

326: 2000). This interpretation was questioned by Grandi et al.  (2001) on

327: the basis of \sax\ spectral results that are characterized by higher

328: S/N but encompass a region of 4\arcmin.  Here we use the high spatial

329: resolution of \chandra\ ACIS-S coupled with its good sensitivity to

330: clarify this issue.

331: 

332: Inspection of the 0.3--8 keV image of \3c\ (see

333: Fig.~\ref{figure:fig1}) confirms the presence of faint diffuse

334: emission around the core, without any indication for a jet-like

335: structure.  To investigate the properties of the extended region in a

336: quantitative way, we extracted a surface-brightness profile from a

337: series of concentric annuli centered on the position of the central

338: source. Then, the radial profile was fitted with a model including the

339: instrument Point Spread Function (PSF). The PSF was created using the

340: \chandra\ Ray Tracer (\verb+ChaRT+) simulator which takes into account

341: the spectrum of the source and its location on the CCD (in our case,

342: we used the best-fitting X-ray continuum summarized in Table~1 and

343: discussed in {\S}5).

344: 

345: The observed radial profile of \3c\ in the total energy band 0.3--8

346: keV is shown in Figure~\ref{figure:fig2}. The PSF model was normalized

347: to the second point of the radial profile ($\sim 1${\farcs}5) because

348: the inner region is affected by photon pile-up and thus the radial

349: profile is distorted.  Comparing the observed data with the

350: instrumental PSF (dashed line) plus background (dotted line), excess

351: X-ray flux over the model is apparent between 6 and 20--30\arcsec\

352: (see Fig.~\ref{figure:fig2} bottom panel), indicating the presence of

353: diffuse emission around the core. To model this component, we used a

354: $\beta$ model, described by the following formula (e.g., Cavaliere \&

355: Fusco-Femiano 1976):

356: 

357: \begin{equation}     

358: S(r)=S_0\left(1+{r^2\over r_c^2}\right)^{-3\beta+1/2},      

359: \end{equation}     

360: 

361: \noindent where $r_c$ is the core radius. The radial profile was then fitted

362: with a model including the PSF, the background and a

363: $\beta$-model. The $\beta$-model is required at P$_F \gg$ 99.9\% confidence

364: according to an $F$-test.  The fitted parameters are: $S_0=

365: (7.3\pm3.4)\times10^{-5}{\rm ~ct~s^{-1}~arcsec^{-2}}$, $\beta=0.48 \pm

366: 0.05$, $r_c=(6.5 \pm 3.1)$\arcsec, or $\sim$7.2 kpc.  The best-fit

367: $\beta$ model is plotted in Figure~\ref{figure:fig2} (dot-dashed

368: line). The middle panel show the data-to-model ratio when a

369: $\beta$-model is included in the the fit.

370: 

371: We extracted the 0.5--8~keV spectrum of the diffuse emission from an

372: annular region of inner and outer radii of 3\arcsec\ and 20\arcsec,

373: respectively.  This spectrum was fitted with a model comprising either

374: an optically thick or optically thin thermal component (\verb+bbody+

375: or \verb+bremss+ in \verb+xspec+) and a power-law component, with

376: Galactic absorption affecting both components. The resulting photon

377: index of the power-law component is quite low: $\Gamma=0.9\pm0.1$; the

378: temperature is $kT=0.17\pm0.02$ for the blackbody model, or

379: $kT=0.45\pm0.10$ if a Bremsstrahlung model is used.  If the soft

380: component is fitted with a collisionally-ionized plasma model

381: (\verb+apec+ in \verb+xspec+), at least two components at different

382: temperatures are required ($kT_1=0.26_{-0.08}^{+0.15}$ keV and

383: $kT_2=1.2_{-0.3}^{+1.6}$ keV) and the abundances are implausibly low

384: ($Z \ll 0.1\; Z_{\odot}$).  Assuming a thermal Bremsstrahlung model, the

385: observed flux of the thermal component is $F_{\rm 0.3-2~keV}=4.2

386: \times 10^{-13}$ \flux\ and the corresponding intrinsic luminosity

387: $L_{\rm 0.3-2~keV}=6.6 \times 10^{42}$ \lum.  Slightly lower values

388: are obtained using a black body model for this spectral component.

389: The power-law component accounts for $\sim 30$\% of the total X-ray

390: emission in the 0.3--2 keV range. 

391: 

392: The derived luminosity, associated with the extended component in \3c,

393: is slightly higher than that found in normal elliptical galaxies

394: (Canizares, Fabbiano, \& Trinchieri 1987), and broadly consistent with

395: the values found in low-power radio galaxies (Worrall \& Birkinshaw 1994).

396: The luminosity associated with the power-law component, $L_{\rm 0.3-8~keV}

397: \sim 1.4\times 10^{43}$\lum, is quite large and  cannot be ascribed

398: to the integrated luminosities of X-ray binaries in the host galaxies

399: (see, e.g., Flohic et al. 2006 and references therein). 

400: Instead, the power-law component might 

401: be related to the emission from the large-scale jet that is unresolved 

402: in the X-ray image or to a non-thermal halo already observed in 

403: in nearby group of galaxies (Fukazawa et al. 2001) and in the X-ray bright 

404: radio galaxy NGC~6251 (Sambruna et al. 2004).

405: 

406: 

407: \section{Temporal Analysis}

408: 

409: The fact that \rxte\ and \chandra\ observations were split into two

410: parts taken 3 days apart allows us investigation of the temporal and

411: spectral variability on timescales ranging from few ks to few days.

412: Between the first and the second exposure, the \rxte\ PCA count rate

413: decreased from $5.70 \pm 0.02~{\rm s}^{-1}$ to $5.13\pm 0.02~{\rm

414: s}^{-1}$ in the 2--15 keV energy band. Similarly, the \chandra\ HEG

415: (1--8 keV) count rate decreased from $0.205\pm 0.002~{\rm s}^{-1}$ to

416: $0.174\pm 0.001~{\rm s}^{-1}$, and the MEG count rate (0.4--5 keV)

417: from $0.468\pm 0.002~{\rm s}^{-1}$ to $0.393\pm 0.002~{\rm s}^{-1}$.

418: In order to check whether the variability shown by  MEG data

419: is associated with the softest part of the spectrum, we have restricted

420: the energy band to 0.4--1 keV, which has no overlapping with the 

421: HEG range. The results ($0.0588\pm 0.0009~{\rm s}^{-1}$ during

422: the first observation and  $0.0487\pm 0.0007~{\rm s}^{-1}$ during the

423: second one) indicate that the amplitude of variability is even more

424: pronounced in the softer energy band. 

425: 

426: This corresponds to a decrease in the average count rate of \3c\ by

427: factors of 10\%, 15\%, and 17\% in the hard (2--15 keV), medium (1--8

428: keV), and soft band (0.4--1 keV), respectively, over a time interval of

429: 2~days.

430: 

431: \subsection{The X-ray light curve}

432: 

433: Figure~\ref{figure:fig3} shows the \rxte\ PCA light curve in the 2--15

434: keV energy band (top panel) and the \chandra\ HETGS light curve in the

435: 0.8--7 keV range (bottom panel). Time bins are 5760 s ($\sim$ 1 \rxte\

436: orbit) for \rxte\ and 2560 s for the HETGS light curve.

437: 

438: A visual inspection of Fig.~\ref{figure:fig3} indicates that the \rxte\

439: and \chandra\ light curves are broadly consistent with each other on

440: long timescales, which are characterized by an overall decrease of the

441: count rate. This variability is formally confirmed by a $\chi^2$ test:

442: $\chi^2=683.9$ for 26 degrees of freedom (hereafter dof) in the case

443: of \rxte\ and $\chi^2=1019.3$ (45 dof) for the \chandra\ data. Also on

444: shorter timescales (i.e., within individual exposures), the \rxte\

445: light curves show significant variability: during the first exposure,

446: the \rxte\ light curve shows a steady increase of the count rate by a

447: factor $\sim$10\% ($\chi^2=44.4$, 12 dof), whereas in the second

448: exposure the \rxte\ count rate steadily decreases by $\sim$10\%

449: ($\chi^2=33.9$, 13 dof). The time elapsed during the first \chandra\

450: exposure is too short to detect any significant variability. However,

451: the second \chandra\ observation does show significant short-term

452: variability: the probability that the count rate is constant 

453: according to a $\chi^2$ test

454: is $P_{\chi^2}\sim2\%$ using time bins of 2560 s ($P_{\chi^2}< 1\%$

455: for $t_{\rm bin}=5760$ s).

456: 

457: Short-term variability may play a significant role in discriminating

458: between competing spectral models for \3c (see discussion below).

459: However, the observed variability amplitude is not very large, thus it

460: is important to verify carefully whether the flux variations are

461: indeed genuine. In particular, it is necessary to demonstrate that the

462: variability observed in \3c\ cannot be ascribed to uncertainties in

463: the \rxte\ background.  To this end, we have performed the following

464: test: We have compared the background-subtracted light curves obtained

465: using PCU2 layer 1 and PCU2 layer 3. Since the genuine signal in layer

466: 3 is quite small, its light curve can be used as a proxy to check how

467: well the background model works. If the latter light curve is

468: significantly variable with a pattern similar to the one produced

469: using layer 1, then the variability is simply due to un-modeled

470: variations of the background. Conversely, if the PCU2 layer 3 light

471: curve does not show any pronounced variability or if the flux changes

472: are uncorrelated with those observed in the layer 1 light curve, we

473: can safely conclude that the short-term variability detected in \3c\

474: is real.  The two light curves in the 2--10 keV range (where the

475: background PCA model is better parameterized; see Jahoda et al. 2006

476: for more details) are shown in Figure~\ref{figure:fig4}, revealing

477: that the layer 3 time series is consistent with a constant model (both

478: on long and short timescales) and hence that the variations shown by

479: layer 1 are genuine.

480: 

481: 

482: 

483: \subsection{Spectral variability}

484: 

485: In order to investigate whether the flux variability of \3c\ is

486: associated with spectral variations, we have extracted light curves in

487: two energy-selected bands and defined the hardness ratio as

488: $HR=hard/soft$.  For \rxte\ the soft and hard bands are 2--6 keV and

489: 7--15 keV, whereas 0.4--1 keV and 1--8 keV have been chosen for

490: \chandra.  A $\chi^2$ test of $HR$ versus time indicates that there is

491: significant spectral variability for \rxte\ ($\chi^2=124.7$, 27 dof)

492: but not for \chandra\ data ($\chi^2=57.2$, 90 dof).  

493: 

494: A useful method for investigating the nature of spectral variability

495: revealed by the hardness ratio  curve is based on the hardness

496: ratio plotted versus the count rate.  Figure~\ref{figure:fig5}a

497: shows the hard/soft X-ray color plotted versus the count rate

498: for \rxte. The gray (blue in color) filled circles correspond to

499: time-bins of 5760 s. The black filled circles are binned points

500: obtained taking the weighted mean of the original points with fixed

501: bins of 0.1~s$^{-1}$.  A visual inspection of Figure~\ref{figure:fig5}a

502: indicates the presence of a negative trend with the source hardening

503: when the count rate decreases.  The dashed line represents the

504: best-fit model to the binned data point, obtained from a least-squares

505: method: $HR=(2.3\pm0.2) - (0.26\pm0.03)\; r$ (where $r$ is the count

506: rate).  A similar analysis carried out on \chandra\ data

507: (Fig.~\ref{figure:fig5}b), suggests the presence of a

508: similar trend at softer energies, $HR=(4.1\pm0.5) - (1.40\pm0.96)\; r$,

509: although at a lower significance level.

510:  

511: The apparent difference between the \rxte\ and \chandra\ results can 

512: be mostly ascribed to the larger statistical errors associated with the 

513: \chandra\ data, a problem which is exacerbated when dealing with the hardness 

514: ratio. The  different energy bands probed by the two satellites may also play

515: a role. Indeed, the constant radiation produced by the

516: extended circum-nuclear component peaks around  0.4--1 keV,

517: the soft band probed by \chandra. However, the fact that the largest drop

518: in count rate between observation A and B is measured in the soft band 

519: (17\% in the 0.4--1 keV range, compared with

520: 15\% in 1--8 keV, and 10\% in 2--15 keV) seems to argue against this 

521: hypothesis.

522: 

523: The observed spectral trend --the softening of the spectrum that accompanies a

524: flux increase-- is generally observed in Seyfert-like objects 

525: (e.g., Papadakis et al. 2002; Markowitz et al. 2003, and references therein) 

526: and can be explained by two alternative models: 1) a two-component model, 

527: with two power laws

528: of fixed photon indices and variable normalization for the softer component

529: (e.g., Shih et al. 2002), or 2) a single power law with variable photon index

530: (the ``pivoting model''; Zdziarski et al. 2003). Unfortunately, the shortness 

531: of the observation and the limited variation of the source's count rate 

532: hampers 

533: a more detailed analysis and the possibility of discriminating between the

534: two competing models. Nevertheless, given the similarity between the spectral

535: trend shown by \3c\ and the one observed in 3C~120 (a BLRG whose behavior 

536: has been

537: interpreted in the framework of the pivoting model; Zdziarski \& Grandi 2001), 

538: it may be instructive to compute the pivot energy, $E_{\rm p}$, for \3c. 

539: Following Zdziarski et al. (2003), we obtain $E_{\rm p}\simeq32$ keV.

540: 

541: 

542: Another simple way to quantify the variability properties of \3c,

543: without considering the time ordering of the values in the light

544: curves, is based on the fractional variability parameter $F_{\rm var}$

545: (e.g. Rodriguez-Pascual et al. 1997; Vaughan et al. 2003).  This is a

546: common measure of the intrinsic variability amplitude relative to the

547: mean count rate, corrected for the effect of random errors, i.e.,

548: 

549: \begin{equation}

550: F_{\rm var}={(\sigma^2-\Delta^2)^{1/2}\over\langle r\rangle}

551: \end{equation}

552: 

553: \noindent where $\sigma^2$ is the variance, $\langle r\rangle$ the

554: unweighted mean count rate, and $\Delta^2$ the mean square value of

555: the uncertainties associated with each individual count rate.  We

556: computed $F_{\rm var}$ on selected energy bands that were chosen to

557: have similar (and sufficiently high) mean count rates in each band.

558: (in the end the count rates range between $\sim$0.35 and $\sim$0.70

559: s$^{-1}$). The plot of $F_{\rm var}$ versus the energy, obtained from

560: \rxte\ PCA data, is shown in Figure~\ref{figure:fig6}. It indicates

561: that the amplitude of variability decreases with increasing energy

562: band, with a minimum around 5.5--6 keV (in the observer frame, where

563: the Fe K$\alpha$ line is located) and then shows a small bump around

564: 8-9 keV. 

565: Using \chandra\ MEG data, we have checked the fractional variability

566: below 1 keV; the value obtained $F_{\rm var,soft}=(6.9\pm1.6) \times

567: 10^{-2}$ is in broad agreement with \rxte\ results in the softer

568: energy bands.

569: 

570: Since $F_{\rm var}$ is the square root of the excess variance $\sigma^2_{\rm XS}$,

571: introduced by Nandra et al. (1997) and computed for several Seyfert-like objects, 

572: we can compare the location of \3c\ in the $\sigma^2_{\rm XS} -  L_{\rm 2-10~keV}$ 

573: plane. With $\sigma^2_{\rm XS}\sim 3\times10^{-3}$ and 

574: $L_{\rm 2-10~keV}\sim4.5\times10^{44}$ \lum,  \3c\ would be located in the lower right 

575: corner of Figure 4 of Nandra et al. (1997), following the same anti-correlation trend

576: observed in Seyfert galaxies.

577: 

578: The model-independent information provided by $F_{\rm var}$ spectra 

579: has been frequently used to complement the time-averaged spectral analysis.

580: For example, Markowitz et al. (2003) carried out a systematic analysis of

581: the spectral variability properties of Seyfert 1 galaxies observed with

582: \rxte. Their sample includes objects with both 

583: broad (e.g., MCG--6--30--15) and narrow (e.g., NGC~4151 and NGC~5548)

584: Fe K$\alpha$ line profiles. Despite the clear 

585: difference of the Fe K profiles in the energy spectra,

586: all objects show  similar trends in the $F_{\rm var} - E$

587: plane: $F_{\rm var}$ generally decreases with $E$ reaching a minimum around 

588: 6.4 keV and showing a small bump around 8--10 keV. This trend is fully consistent

589: with the one shown by \3c (see Fig.~\ref{figure:fig6}) and argues in favor of

590: an accretion-related origin for the bulk of the X-rays. This conclusion is supported

591: by the results from a similar analysis carried out on \rxte\ observations of 

592: the blazar Mrk~501. Indeed, this jet-dominated source shows the opposite trend with 

593: $F_{\rm var}$ monotonically increasing with $E$ (Gliozzi et al. 2006).

594: 

595: Although $F_{\rm var} - E$ plots provide us with a useful tool for distinguishing

596: between accretion-related and jet-related X-ray emission for AGN, they do not 

597: help us distinguish between competing theoretical models proposed

598: to explain the X-ray energy spectra for AGN, such as reflection-dominated

599: and absorption models (e.g., Gierlinski \& Done

600: 2004, 2006). It must be remarked though that using higher-quality

601: \xmm\ data for MCG--6--30--15, Ponti et al. (2004) were able to demonstrate that

602: the relativistically broadened Fe K$\alpha$ line is revealed in the 

603: $F_{\rm var} - E$ plot by a very

604: prominent peak in the $\sim$4.5--6 keV energy band, whereas the narrow line 

605: component,

606: presumably produced far away from the inner disk, appears as a narrow dip

607: around 6.4 keV.

608: 

609: 

610: In summary, \3c\ shows significant flux variability in all the energy

611: bands probed on timescales of days and hours. This temporal

612: variability is associated with spectral variability, with the source

613: hardening when the count rate decreases. All the variability properties

614: are consistent with the behavior observed in Seyfert-like objects.

615: 

616: \section{Spectral analysis}

617: 

618: Previous X-ray studies have shown the spectrum of \3c\ to be fairly

619: complex and provided remarkably different interpretations of its

620: physical origin. Here, we first investigate the shape of the

621: continuum, combining data from \chandra\ MEG and HEG, but fitting

622: separately the \rxte\ PCA data, since the much higher count rate of

623: the latter would dominate and hence bias the fits.  Then we focus on

624: the \feka\ line, exploiting the high spectral resolution of the

625: \chandra\ HETGS and the large collecting area of the \rxte\ PCA.

626: 

627: 

628: 

629: \subsection{RXTE PCA Continuum}

630: 

631: In the previous section, we found evidence that \3c\ shows spectral

632: variability between the two exposures. To confirm this finding, we

633: fitted separately the 3--15~keV PCA spectra from the two observations

634: with a simple power-law model, modified by Galactic interstellar

635: absorption.  The results, $\Gamma_{\rm A}$= 1.78$\pm$0.02 during the

636: first observation (hereafter observation A) and $\Gamma_{\rm

637: B}$=1.72$\pm$0.02 during the second one (observation B) support the

638: suggestion that the spectrum hardens as the source's count rate

639: decreases. 

640: 

641: A simple power-law model (with a Gaussian model parameterizing the

642: \feka\ line) is a good representation of the \rxte\ spectrum during

643: observation A,  

644: but not during observation

645: B, when the spectrum is best fitted by a broken power law with

646: $E_{\rm break}\sim$ 8 keV. The results of the spectral fitting of

647: the PCA data are summarized in Table 1.

648: During observation A, the observed hard

649: X-ray flux and the corresponding luminosity are $F_{\rm 2-10

650: keV}=6.1\times10^{-11}$\flux\ and $L_{\rm 2-10

651: keV}=4.7\times10^{44}{\rm~erg~s^{-1}}$. A decrease of $\sim$10\%

652: in the flux and luminosity values is observed during observation B.

653: 

654: Since the presence of an energy  break close to 10 keV accompanied by 

655: a spectral hardening at higher energies is a classic signature

656: of Compton reflection, we have substituted the power law with a 

657: \verb+pexrav+ model 

658: (which describes the reflection from a neutral disk; see Magdziarz \& 

659: Zdziarski 1995) in \verb+xspec+, in order to quantify the contribution from

660: the putative reflection component in \3c.

661: Due to the short exposure and the limited energy range,

662: all the pexrav parameters, except the photon index $\Gamma$, the

663: reflection fraction $R$, and

664: the normalization, were kept fixed at reasonable values (we adopted the values 

665: given by Eracleous et al. 2000). 

666: The spectral fitting suggests that the reflection fraction

667: is more pronounced during observation B ($R \sim$ 0.6) than during the

668: first observation ($R \sim$ 0.2). However, the large uncertainties prevent any

669: firm conclusion; for example, the value of $R$ derived during observation A is

670: consistent with zero at the 90\% confidence level. 

671: Statistically, these fits are as good as of those

672: obtained using power-law or broken power-law models.

673: 

674: We have also tried to substitute \verb+pexrav+ with the \verb+pexriv+ 

675: model,

676: which describes the reflection from an ionized disk (Magdziarz \& 

677: Zdziarski 1995). The resulting  value of the ionization parameter $\xi$ is 

678: consistent with zero, although completely unconstrained during observation A.

679: No statistical improvement is obtained with this model.

680: However, the poor spectral resolution of the PCA coupled with

681: the limited energy range non-background-dominated (3--15 keV) hampers

682: the spectral analysis and makes it impossible to constrain the spectral

683: parameters.

684: 

685: 

686: 

687: 

688: \subsection{Chandra HETG Continuum}

689: The \rxte\ PCA spectra are characterized by a high S/N and low

690: spectral resolution, while the opposite is true for the \chandra\

691: HETGS spectra. Therefore, in order to study the continuum in the

692: \chandra\ spectrum we combine the positive and negative grating orders

693: and bin the spectra heavily. The MEG spectra are binned at 0.08~\AA,

694: whereas the HEG data are binned at 0.04~\AA. \footnote{For reference,

695: we note that the width of a spectral bin in energy space is related to

696: its width in wavelength space via $\Delta E = 26\;(\Delta

697: \lambda/0.08\;{\rm\AA})\;(E/2\;{\rm keV})^2$~eV.} All the spectra are

698: grouped to contain at least 15 counts per bin for the $\chi^2$

699: statistic to be valid. Before combining $+1$ and $-1$ orders, we have

700: checked the spectra from individual arms: Spectra of order $-1$ are

701: consistently steeper that those obtained with order $+1$, however, the

702: differences are well within the statistical and systematic errors.

703: 

704: The 2--8 keV HEG spectra confirm the hardening of the source

705: between the two observations: $\Gamma_{\rm

706: A}$=1.70$\pm$0.05 and $\Gamma_{\rm B}$=1.63$\pm$0.05. As already

707: noticed in past studies based on \rxte\ and \chandra\ simultaneous

708: observations (e.g., Yaqoob et al. 2003), the HEG photon indices appear 

709: to be flatter by $\lsim 0.1$ compared to those obtained with the PCA;

710: in any case, the spectral results are consistent within the systematic errors.

711: 

712: 

713: If the best-fit power-law model is extrapolated to softer energies

714: combining MEG and HEG data, a strong soft excess below 1 keV is

715: clearly visible (see Fig.~\ref{figure:fig7}).  A very similar result

716: is obtained if the same procedure is applied to observation B.  This

717: clearly indicates that more complex spectral models are necessary to

718: fit also the soft X-ray spectrum of \3c.

719: 

720: We fitted the 0.5--8 keV combined MEG and HEG spectra with several

721: phenomenological models, such as a power law describing the hard

722: energy spectrum combined with an additional component (steep power law

723: or thermal component) parameterizing the soft excess.  The results of

724: the spectral fitting, summarized in Table 2, indicate that all models

725: are able to fit the broad-band continuum of \3c fairly well. This is

726: confirmed by Figure~\ref{figure:fig8}, where the MEG 

727: and  HEG data from 0.5--8 keV  are

728: shown with the double power-law model superimposed.  

729: The observed soft

730: X-ray flux and the corresponding luminosity are very similar for all

731: models. During observation A, using the double power-law model we 

732: obtain: $F_{\rm 0.4-2 keV}=3.2\times10^{-11}$\flux\ and $L_{\rm 0.4-2

733: keV}=3.6\times10^{44}{\rm~erg~s^{-1}}$. The values of the flux and 

734: luminosity in the 0.4--2 keV band decrease by a factor \gsim 15\%

735: during observation B.

736: 

737: Despite the formally acceptable fit (see Table 2),

738: the plot of the soft spectrum with the best-fit model superimposed 

739: (Fig.~\ref{figure:fig8}) suggests the presence of several line-like features

740: in the 0.7--1 keV range (in the observer's frame). In order to investigate

741: further this issue, after restricting the fitting range to 0.5--1.5 keV,

742: we have tried to add several Gaussians to the underlying continuum. We

743: find that the fit is improved at the 90\% confidence level (i.e., $\chi^2$

744: decreases by more than 6.25 for each Gaussian added) by adding two narrow lines.

745: The energy centroids $E_1=0.89\pm0.01$ keV and $E_2=1.04\pm0.01$ keV (in the

746: source rest frame) are consistent with transition from Ne IX and Ne X,

747: respectively. Detailed photoionization modeling may give more insight into

748: the identification of these lines but there is insufficient

749: statistically significant information in the spectrum to warrant

750: more sophisticated modeling.

751: 

752: Similarly to the procedure applied to the PCA data, we used 

753: the \verb+pexrav+ model

754: instead of the power law to account for the presence of reflection.  Fixing

755: $R$ at the best-fit values obtained from the PCA data, the resulting

756: spectral fits are as good as those obtained using the phenomenological models

757: reported in Table 2. If $R$ is left free to vary, the spectral fits yield $R=0$

758: with 90\% upper limits of 0.3 and 0.6 for observation A and B, respectively.

759: Using the \verb+pexriv+ model with HETG spectra leaves the ionization

760: parameter totally unconstrained.

761: 

762: As an alternative to the phenomenological models described above, we have also 

763: tried to fit the HETG spectra with a more physically-motivated model such as

764: \verb+reflion+  (which describes the reflection from an optically-thick 

765: atmosphere of constant density; see Ross \& Fabian, 2005)

766: in \verb+xspec+. However, the low S/N of the data

767: in the soft part of the spectrum combined with the limited energy band

768: hampers the analysis and does not allow to constrain the parameters

769: properly.  The

770: resulting fit is poor (the soft excess is still present) and the best

771: fit parameters indicate that the fraction of the reflected radiation

772: is quite small($F_{\rm refl}/F_{\rm tot}\sim 10\%$)

773: and also that the ionization parameter is low

774: ($\xi \sim 350-400~{\rm erg~cm~s^{-1}}$).  A

775: significant formal improvement in the fit is obtained by convolving

776: the reflection disk model with \verb+kdblur+ to account for the

777: relativistic blurring close to the black hole (see Crummy et al. 2006

778: for a detailed description of \verb+kdblur+).

779: In this case the

780: reduced $\chi^2$ is comparable to the one obtained with the

781: phenomenological models, but the number of free parameters is

782: significantly larger. However, the fitting procedure becomes extremely

783: slow and the parameters of \verb+kdblur+ (specifically, $r_{\rm in}$,

784: the disk emissivity index, and the inclination angle) remain totally

785: unconstrained. 

786: If this model with  parameters fixed at their best-fit values is

787: applied to the PCA spectra, the resulting fits are significantly worse

788: than those obtained with power law or pexrav models. 

789: 

790: Finally, if the

791: \rxte\ data are fitted simultaneously with the HETG spectra, an adequate

792: fit of the data 

793: ($\chi^2_{\rm red}=1.09/536$ for observation A and 

794: $\chi^2_{\rm red}=1.08/538$ for observation) 

795: is obtained using a power law to parameterize the soft excess

796: and a pexrav model to describe the spectrum at higher energies. The

797: resulting deconvolved $E~F_{\rm E}$ spectra are shown in Figure~\ref{figure:fig10}.

798: 

799: 

800: In summary, \3c\ shows a strong soft excess below 1 keV, when the hard

801: (2--10 keV) photon index is extrapolated at softer energies. The

802: broad-band spectrum is fitted reasonably well by a power law plus a

803: thermal component (or a steep power law).  The limited quality of the

804: data hampers the use of more complex spectral models such as ionized disk

805: reflection models.  No intrinsic absorption in addition to the

806: Galactic column density is required.

807: 

808: \subsection{Fe K$\alpha$ line}

809: 

810: We use the complementary characteristics of the \chandra\ HEG and the

811: \rxte\ PCA to study the profile origin of the \feka\ line and

812: investigate its origin. Because of its high spectral resolution, the

813: HEG probes the narrow component of the line profile (likely to

814: originate in matter that is not part of the inner accretion disk).  In

815: contrast, the PCA is sensitive to the entire \feka\ profile, which may

816: consist of both the narrow and the broad component (the broad

817: component is thought to be produced in the inner part of the accretion

818: disk).

819: 

820: Since we want to test whether the narrow line is resolved by the HEG

821: (the resolution element is 0.012~\AA), we use spectra binned at

822: 0.01~\AA. To analyze the HEG spectrum, we restrict our fits to the

823: energy range to 3--8 keV and use a power-law model for the local

824: continuum. To judge the goodness of the fit, we use the $C$-statistic.

825: We fit the PCA spectrum in the 3--15 keV range adopting a broken

826: power-law model for the continuum and using the $\chi^2$ statistic as

827: an indicator of the goodness of the fit. The profile of the \feka\

828: line is described by a Gaussian model in all cases.

829: 

830: 

831: The results of this analysis are reported in Table 3. The values of the

832: spectral parameters remain basically unchanged when we use higher 

833: resolution spectra binned at 0.005~\AA.

834:  We fitted

835: spectra from different dispersion arms separately and checked the

836: results for consistency. When we use the HEG spectrum of order

837: $+1$ only, the significance of the \feka\ line detection is much

838: higher, therefore, we report both the results obtained after combining

839: the $+1$ and $-1$ orders and those from order $+1$.  Using the

840: combined spectrum from both arms, a weak (EW$\sim 20-50$ eV),

841: unresolved line with energy consistent with Fe  K$\alpha$ at 6.40

842: keV is detected at a high confidence level during observation B, but

843: it is only marginally significant during observation A. As expected,

844: the spectral parameters are better determined during observation B,

845: when the continuum level is lower, although there is a substantial

846: agreement between the line parameters during the two observations.  It

847: is worth noting that using spectra from dispersion arm +1, the line

848: significance and strength are substantially increased in both

849: observations, and that during observation B the line appears to be

850: resolved ($\sigma=81_{-25}^{+35}$ eV, corresponding to a FWHM of

851: 8900~\kms) at the HEG resolution.

852: 

853: 

854: The \rxte\ PCA spectrum, fitted separately, requires a line at $\sim$

855: 6.4 keV (in the source rest frame) in both observations. Importantly,

856: when fitted with a Gaussian model, the spectral parameters are fully

857: consistent with those obtained with the HEG (see Table 3). In

858: particular, taking into account the systematic error in the \rxte\

859: flux (known to be around 10--20\% higher than \chandra; see Jahoda et

860: al. 2006), the line intensities measured by the \rxte\ PCA are in

861: fairly good agreement with those measured by the HEG (see also

862: Fig.~\ref{figure:fig10}). This suggests that the \feka\ line in \3c\ is

863: dominated by a narrow component and that a broad component is not

864: detected. In order to quantitatively constrain the broad line component,

865: we added to the best-fitting continuum a \verb+diskline+ (which describes 

866: the profile of a line emitted

867: from a relativistic accretion disk; the parameters were fixed at the

868: following values $r_i=6~r_{\rm g}$, $r_o=400~r_{\rm g}$, 

869: $q=2.5$, $i=30\arcdeg$, and $E=6.4$ keV; where $r_{\rm g}\equiv GM_{BH}/c^2$).

870: The model also includes a narrow Gaussian line. The addition of a broad line

871: component does not improve the fit at all, but it allows the determination 

872: of the 90\% upper limits on the line equivalent width, wich are 40 eV during

873: observation A and 90 eV during observation B. Similar upper limits are obtained

874: if we use the \verb+laor+ model, which describes the line emission in the

875: hypothesis that the black hole is nearly maximally rotating.

876: 

877: It is instructive to compare the measured \feka\ equivalent widths with the

878: values expected on the basis of the reflection fraction $R=\Omega/2\pi$ obtained 

879: by fitting the contimuum with a \verb+pexrav+ model. According to the calculations

880: from George \& Fabian (1991), the relation between these two quantities can be

881: expressed as $EW=160(\Omega/2\pi)$ eV, which yields $EW\sim$ 40 eV and 

882: $EW\sim$ 100 eV, for observation A and observation B, respectively. These values, 

883: which are in general agreement with the measured values of $EW$ (see Table 3), 

884: suggest a common physical origin for the  \feka\ line and the Compton reflection 

885: component.

886: 

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: \section{Summary of Results and Discussion} 

891: 

892: By taking advantage of the complementary capabilities of the \rxte\

893: PCA and the \chandra\ HETGS we have obtained several 

894: %new and important

895: results on the BLRG \3c, which can be summarized as follows:

896: 

897: \begin{itemize}

898: 

899: \item 

900: A model-independent timing analysis has revealed the existence of

901: significant flux variability on short (few ks) and medium (days)

902: timescales. This temporal variability is accompanied by spectral

903: variability such that the source spectrum hardens as the count rate

904: decreases. The variability amplitude decreases with increasing

905: energy. A potentially important clue is that the soft band shows 

906: significant flux

907: variability, coordinated with the hard band, with a similar

908: amplitude. This suggests a close connection between the two energy

909: bands.

910: 

911: \item

912: An analysis of the time-averaged spectrum shows the presence of a

913: strong soft excess below 1 keV, when the hard (2--10 keV) power law is

914: extrapolated to lower energies. The broad band spectrum is adequately

915: fitted by a power law plus a thermal model (or a steep power law)

916: describing the soft excess. The spectra are fitted equally well 

917: with a neutral reflection model (pexrav). The reflection fraction is

918: poorly constrained during observation A ($R\sim0.2$ but consistent with zero at

919: the 90\% confidence level) and is of the order of 0.6 during observation B,

920: when the continuum flux is lower.

921: 

922: 

923: \item

924: 

925: A weak, narrow iron line with energy centroid consistent with neutral

926: Fe K$\alpha$ is detected by the PCA and the HEG at high confidence

927: level. There is no indication of a relativistically broadened Fe line.

928: The good agreement between the line parameters obtained with the PCA

929: and those yielded by the HEG suggests that the \feka\ line in \3c\ is

930: dominated by a ``narrow'' component, probably not originating in the

931: inner accretion disk.  The FWHM of the \feka\ line of 

932: $8900\pm3500$~\kms\  (as measured by HEG+1 during observation B) is

933: comparable to the FWHM of the optical hydrogen Balmer lines of

934: 11,800~\kms, suggesting a possible common origin of these lines. The

935: double-peaked optical lines have been attributed to the outer

936: accretion disk (Eracleous \& Halpern 1994, 2003), which is also a

937: plausible site for the production of the \feka\ line. 

938: %However, alternative

939: %solutions, such as an origin from the putative torus, cannot be

940: %ruled out based on the present data.

941: 

942: 

943: \item

944: A spatial analysis based on the radial surface brightness profile

945: confirms the presence of diffuse emission around \3c\ on scales of the

946: order of 20--30\arcsec\ corresponding to $\sim 22$--33 kpc. The soft

947: spectrum of the diffuse emission is well described by a thermal model

948: (black body or Bremsstrahlung) with temperatures significantly higher

949: than those describing the soft excess in the AGN spectrum. This

950: result, combined with the variability observed in the soft band, rules

951: out the hypothesis that the soft excess in the AGN spectrum can be

952: explained entirely by the extended emission.

953: 

954: \end{itemize}

955: 

956: If we compare our spectral results with the most recent X-ray studies

957: of \3c\ in the literature, i.e.  with \sax\ analysis of Grandi et

958: al. (2001) and the \rxte\ investigation from Eracleous et al. (2000),

959: we find a general agreement on the weakness of the iron line:

960: equivalent widths of 50 and 90 eV were measured by \sax\ and \rxte,

961: respectively, which are fully consistent with the results reported in

962: Table 3.  Also the weak reflection component measured in the continuum, 

963: although poorly constrained, is in broad agreement

964: with the results reported in the literature ($\Omega/2\pi\sim 0.5$ by Eracleous 

965: et al. 2000; $\Omega/2\pi\sim 0.3$ by Grandi et al. 2001).

966: 

967: Our analysis of the time-averaged spectrum alone has  not led to definitive

968: conclusions about the nature of X-ray source in \3c. However, the

969: combination of the information from the temporal, spectral, and

970: spatial analyses, can put tighter constraints on \3c\ with

971: implications for all BLRGs.

972: 

973: Previous studies of time-averaged spectra have shown that several

974: competing scenarios can explain the weak reprocessing features

975: observed in the X-ray spectra BLRGs equally well.  In summary, these

976: peculiar X-ray properties can be explained by: 1) an accretion disk

977: truncated at small radii with a radiatively inefficient accretion flow

978: in the central region (RIAF; Eracleous et al. 2000); 2) a highly

979: ionized accretion disk (Ballantyne et al. 2004); 3) a mildly relativistic

980: outflowing corona (Beloborodov 1999); and 4) dilution from jet

981: emission (e.g., Sguera et al. 2005).

982: 

983: 

984: To evaluate the above hypotheses we use the black hole mass in \3c,

985: obtained from the B-band luminosity of the host galaxy,

986: $M_{BH}=1.1\times10^9{\rm~M_\odot}$ (with an uncertainty of

987: approximately 40\%; Marchesini et al. 2004). We also estimate the

988: bolometric luminosity \footnote{We obtain the bolometric luminosity

989: from the observed 1--2~keV and 1--10~keV luminosities of \3c\ using

990: the relations $L_{\rm bol}=10\;L_{\rm 1-10\; keV}=80\;L_{\rm 1-2\;

991: keV}$. The scale factors were found from the spectral energy

992: distributions of seven radio loud quasars with comparable X-ray

993: luminosities to \3c, reported by Elvis et al. (1994), namely, 3C~48,

994: PKS~0312--77, 3C~206, 3C~249.1, 3C~323.1, 3C~351, and 4C~34.47. We

995: estimate the uncertainty to be about a factor of 2.}  to be $L_{\rm

996: bol}=9\times 10^{45}~{\rm erg~s}^{-1}$. Thus we obtain an Eddington

997: ratio of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}=0.02$--0.2 (including our best

998: estimate of the uncertainties) and a light crossing time of the inner

999: accretion disk of $\tau_{\ell} \equiv 100\; r_{\rm g}/c = 2$--5~days. 

1000: With the above estimates in

1001: mind, our results can constrain the proposed scenarios as follows:

1002: 

1003: \begin{itemize}

1004: 

1005: \item 

1006: 

1007: If the inner accretion disk is a radiatively inefficient accretion flow 

1008: (RIAF), then its size (i.e., $r_{\rm

1009: tr}$, the transition radius from the thin disk to the hot, vertically

1010: extended flow) is constrained by the observed variability time

1011: scale. The dramatic drop in the observed X-ray flux over a timescale

1012: of approximately two days, sets a stringent upper limit to the

1013: light-crossing time of the RIAF ($r_{\rm tr} < 100 r_{\rm g}$). Such a

1014: small transition radius is not unprecedented (see, for example the

1015: application to NGC~4258 by Gammie, Narayan, \& Blandford 1999).  There

1016: are also short-term fluctuations with an amplitude of about 5\%

1017: superposed on the secular flux changes during our observations, which

1018: may result from inhomogeneities in the flow. The inferred Eddington ratio is

1019: uncertain enough that its lower limit ($L/L_{\rm Edd}\approx 0.02$) is

1020: compatible with  presence of a RIAF.  For higher values of $L/L_{\rm Edd}$,

1021: an inner radiatively inefficient flow might still be a viable solution

1022: in the form of the luminous hot accretion flow proposed by Yuan et al. (2007).

1023: 

1024: 

1025: \item

1026: 

1027: The scenario in which the X-rays are dominated by reflection from a

1028: highly ionized accretion disk cannot be firmly ruled out or confirmed

1029: by the present data.

1030: The time-averaged spectral analysis reveals no clear evidence

1031: for a high ionization state. However, if the ionization is very high

1032: or if relativistic blurring effects are very strong, no prominent

1033: spectral signatures are expected and  in any case the current data 

1034: would not be able to detect them unambiguously. 

1035: In principle, useful information about this scenario 

1036: can also be obtained from the estimated accretion rate

1037: and from the measured variability. Specifically, all ionized accretion

1038: disk models require very high values of $\dot m$ to produce high ionization

1039: states. However, the uncertainties on the black hole mass and hence on

1040: the Eddington ratio estimated for \3c\ do not allow one to derive firm 

1041: conclusions from this argument.  

1042: Finally, the ionized-reflection-dominated scenario, at least in the framework

1043: of the photon bending model (see Miniutti \& Fabian 2004 and

1044: references therein), predicts that the primary (in our case the 2--10 keV

1045: component) and the reflection-dominated components (the soft

1046: excess) should not vary in concert, when the source is in a  bright state.

1047: Therefore, the simultaneous flux drop observed for \3c\ between observation A 

1048: and B

1049: in all the energy bands, seems to argue against the light bending scenario.

1050: 

1051: 

1052: \item

1053: 

1054: The scenario involving a mildly relativistic outflowing corona seems

1055: to be consistent with our results. Indeed, a moderately outflowing corona 

1056: ($\beta=c/v=0.3$) can naturally

1057: explain the relatively flat photon index observed in \3c\ (Malzac et al. 

1058: 2001). 

1059: However, this can only be considered as circumstantial evidence in favor of 

1060: outflowing corona models, since X-ray slopes flatter than 1.9 can  also be

1061: produced in the framework of static corona models by 

1062: assuming patchy configurations (Haardt et al. 1994).

1063: 

1064: 

1065: \item

1066: 

1067: The jet-dominated scenario does not seem viable, as shown by previous

1068: studies of of the time-averaged X-ray spectra of BLRGs (e.g.,

1069: Wo\'zniak et al. 1998). Our model-independent variability results

1070: along with the relatively large viewing angle of the jet in \3c\

1071: (obtained from radio properties; Rudnick et al. 1986, Eracleous \&

1072: Halpern 1998) reinforce this conclusion.  First, the fast variability

1073: we have observed cannot be ascribed to jet emission because of the

1074: large viewing angles (i.e., the emission is not beamed). Second, the

1075: spectral variability (the spectral hardening when the flux decreases

1076: and the anti-correlation of $F_{\rm var}$ with energy) is typical of

1077: radio-quiet AGN and at odds with the spectral variability observed in

1078: jet-dominated sources (Gliozzi et al. 2006).  Nevertheless, we cannot

1079: exclude that an appreciable contribution from the jet component may emerge

1080: at higher energies, as suggested by recent \suzaku\ results for the BLRG

1081: 3C~120 (Kataoka et al. 2007).

1082: 

1083: \end{itemize}

1084: 

1085: More stringent tests of the above scenarios (especially the first two)

1086: will be afforded by more precise measurements of the black hole mass

1087: and the bolometric luminosity (hence the Eddington ratio) of \3c. A

1088: better mass measurement can be made using the stellar velocity

1089: dispersion of bulge of the host galaxy (e.g., Ferrarese \& Meritt

1090: 2000; Gebhardt et~al. 2000; Tremaine et al. 2002), a technique which

1091: leads to a small systematic error. For a better measurement of the

1092: bolometric luminosity, the spectral energy distribution needs to be

1093: sampled more densely, especially in the infra-red and ultra-violet

1094: bands. Additionally, future observations with {\it Suzaku}

1095: covering the entire X-ray range from 0.2 keV to several hundreds of

1096: keV will be crucial for breaking the current spectral degeneracy.

1097: 

1098: 

1099: Before concluding, we can speculate on the origin of the

1100: radio-loud/radio-quiet dichotomy by putting into perspective the

1101: results of \3c. First, our study suggests that jet production may not

1102: necessarily be related to a very low value of the accretion rate $\dot

1103: m$ (if the Eddington ratio is indeed in the range 0.02--0.2).

1104: This is in agreement with findings from other BLRGs (e.g., 3C~120;

1105: Ballantyne \& Fabian 2005, Ogle et al. 2005), radio-loud quasars

1106: (Punsly \& Tingay 2005), and Galactic black holes (GBHs). In fact,

1107: Galactic black holes display relativistic jets not only in the

1108: ``low-hard" state but also in the ``very-high" spectral state that is

1109: characterized by a high accretion rate (e.g., Fender et al. 2004).

1110: Second, a maximally rotating black hole is not a sufficient

1111: condition for jet production (although it may be necessary).  We are

1112: led to this conclusion by the fact that there isn't any radio jet in

1113: MCG--6--30--15, the well known Seyfert~1 galaxy that shows the most

1114: convincing evidence for a spinning black hole based on its

1115: relativistically broadened \feka\ line (this galaxy harbors only a

1116: weak, unresolved radio source; see Ulvestad \& Wilson 1984). This is

1117: also consistent with the fact that highly relativistic jets have been

1118: observed in neutron star binaries (e.g., Fomalont et al. 2001;

1119: Migliari et al. 2006).  Having excluded the low $\dot m$ and the

1120: presence of a spinning black hole, we can speculate that jet

1121: production might be related to another parameter, such as a specific

1122: topology of the magnetic field in the inner region of the accretion

1123: flow. Following Livio et al. (2003),

1124: we can hypothesize that jet production is related to formation of a

1125: poloidal magnetic field that is triggered by an increase of the

1126: fraction of the energy dissipated in the accretion-disk corona. This

1127: change might cause the outflow of the corona that, in turn, can

1128: explain the observed X-ray properties in BLRGs.

1129: 

1130: In conclusion, our study of \3c\ shows the potential 

1131: benefits of exploiting the

1132: complementary capabilities of \rxte\ and \chandra\, and combining

1133: model-independent information from spectral variability with the

1134: analysis of time-averaged X-ray spectra and morphologies. Extending

1135: this approach to a large sample of BLRGs with higher quality data 

1136: may help reduce the current

1137: spectral degeneracy and shed some light in the radio-loud -quiet

1138: dichotomy.

1139: 

1140: \begin{acknowledgements} 

1141: We thank the anonymous referee for  constructive comments

1142: that improved the paper.

1143: We also thank Craig Markwardt and Keith Jahoda for their help with the issues

1144: concerning the \rxte\ background, and Valentina Braito for enlightening

1145: discussions. 

1146: ME acknowledges partial support from

1147: the Theoretical Astrophysics Visitors' Fund at Northwestern University

1148: and thanks the members of the theoretical astrophysics group for their

1149: warm hospitality.

1150: \end{acknowledgements}

1151: 

1152: 

1153: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1154: 

1155: \bibitem[Arnaud 1996]{arn96} Arnaud, K. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 101, Astronomical

1156: Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. Jacoby \& J. Barnes (San

1157: Francisco: ASP), 17

1158: 

1159: \bibitem[Ballantyne et al. 2002]{ballan02} Ballatyne, D.R., Ross, R.R., \& Fabian, A.C. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 45

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[Ballantyne et al. 2004]{ballan04} Ballatyne, D.R., Fabian, A.C., \& Iwasawa, K. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 839

1162: 

1163: \bibitem[Ballantyne \& Fabian 2005]{ballan05} Ballatyne,D.R. \& Fabian, A.C., 2005, ApJ, 622, 97

1164: 

1165: \bibitem[Beloborodov 1999]{belo99} Beloborodov, A.M. 1999, ApJ, 510, L123

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Bennet et al. 2003]{ben03} Bennet, C.L. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1

1168: 

1169: \bibitem[Black et al. 1992]{black92} Black, A.R.S., Baum, S.A., Leahy, J.P. et al. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 186

1170: 

1171: \bibitem[Canizares et al. 1987]{cani87} Canizares, C.R., Fabbiano, G., \& Trinchieri G. 1987, ApJ,

1172: 312, 503

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[Crummy et al. 2006]{crum06} Crummy, J., Fabian, A.C., Gallo, L.,\& Ross, R.R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[Eracleous \& Halpern 1994]{eracl94} Eracleous, M. \& Halpern, J.P. 1994, ApJS, 90, 1

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[Eracleous \& Halpern 1998]{eracl98} Eracleous, M. \& Halpern, J.P. 1998, ApJ, 505, 577

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Eracleous \& Halpern 2003]{eracl03} Eracleous, M. \& Halpern, J.P. 2003, ApJ, 599 886

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[Eracleous et al. 2000]{eracl00} Eracleous, M., Sambruna, R.M., \& Mushotzky, R.F. 2000, ApJ, 537, 654

1183: 

1184: 

1185: \bibitem[Fender et al. 2004]{fend04} Fender R.P., Belloni, T.M., \& Gallo, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 

1186: 110

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000]{fm00} {Ferrarese}, L.,  \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9

1189: 

1190: \bibitem[Flohic et al. 2006]{fend06} Flohic, E.M.L.G., Eracleous, M., Chartas, G., Shields, J.C.,

1191: Moran, E.C. 2006, ApJ, 647, 140

1192: 

1193: \bibitem[Fomalont et al. 2001]{fom01} Fomalont, E., Geldzahler, B., \& Bradshaw, C. 2001, ApJ, 553, L27

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[Fukazawa et al. 2001]{fuka01} Fukazawa, Y., Nakazawa, K., Isobe, N., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, L87 

1196: 

1197: \bibitem[Gammie et al. 1999]{gammie99} Gammie, C. F., Narayan, R., \& Balndford, R. S. 1999, \apj, 516, 177

1198: 

1199: \bibitem[Gebhardt et~al. 2000]{g00} {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 2000, \apjl, 539, L13

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[George \& Fabian 1991]{geo91}  George, I.M. \& Fabian, A.C. 1991

1202: MNRAS, 249, 352

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[Gierlinski \& Done 2004]{gierl04} Gierli\'nski, M. \& Done, C. 2004,

1205: MNRAS, 349, L7

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[Gierlinski \& Done 2006]{gierl06} Gierli\'nski, M. \& Done, C. 2006,

1208: MNRAS, 371, 16

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[Gliozzi et al. 2006]{glio06} Gliozzi, M., Sambruna, R.M., Jung, I., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 61

1211: 

1212: \bibitem[Grandi et al. 2006]{grand05} Grandi, P., Malaguti, G., \& Fiocchi, M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 113

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[Haardt \& Maraschi 1991]{haardt91} Haardt, F. \& Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, 51

1215: 

1216: \bibitem[Haardt et al. 1994]{haardt94} Haardt, F., Maraschi, L., \& Ghisellini,

1217: G. 1994, ApJ, 432, L95

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[Hasenkopf, Sambruna, \& Eracleous 2002]{has02} Hasenkopf,

1220: C. A., Sambruna, R. M., \& Eracleous, M. 2002, ApJ, 575, 127

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Jahoda et al. 1996]{jah96} Jahoda, K., Swank, J., Giles,

1223: A.B., et al. 1996, Proc.SPIE, 2808, 59

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[Jahoda et al. 2006]{jah06} Jahoda, K., Markwardt, C.B, Radeva, Y., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 401

1226: 

1227: \bibitem[Kataoka et al. 2007]{kata07} Kataoka, J., et al., 2007, PASJ in

1228: press (astro-ph/0612754)

1229: 

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[Lewis et al. 2005]{lew05} Lewis, K.T., Eracleous, M., Gliozzi, M., Sambruna, R.M., \& Mushotzky, 

1232: R.F. 2005, ApJ, 622, 816

1233: 

1234: \bibitem[Livio et al. 2003]{liv03} Livio, M., Pringle, J, \& King, A. 2003, ApJ, 593, 184

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[Magdziarz \& Zdziarski]{magd95} Magdziarz, P.\& Zdziarski, A.A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

1237: 

1238: \bibitem[Malzac et al. 2001]{malz01} Malzac, J., Beloborodov, A.M., \& Poutanen, J. 2001,

1239: MNRAS, 326, 417 

1240: 

1241: 

1242: \bibitem[Marchesini et al. 2004]{marq04} Marchesini, D., Celotti, A., \& Ferrarese, L. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 733

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[Markowitz et al. 2003]{mark03} Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., \& Vaughan, S. 2003, ApJ, 598,

1245: 935

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[Matt et al. 1993]{matt93} Matt, G., Fabian, A.C., \& Ross, R.R. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 179

1248: 

1249: \bibitem[Matt et al. 1993]{matt96} Matt, G., Fabian, A.C., \& Ross, R.R. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 823

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[Migliari et al. 2006]{migl06} Migliari, S., Tomsick, J.A., Maccarone, T.J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 41

1252: 

1253: \bibitem[Miniutti \& Fabian 2004]{mini04} Miniutti, G. \& Fabian, A.C. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1435

1254: 

1255: \bibitem[Nandra et al. 1997]{nand97} Nandra, K., George, I.M., Mushotzky, R.F., Turner, T.J.,

1256: Yaqoob, T. 1997, ApJ, 476, 70

1257: 

1258: \bibitem[Narayan et al. 1998]{nara98} Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., Quataert, E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole

1259: Accretion Disks, ed. M.A. Abramowicz, G. Bjornsson, \& J.E. Pringle (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 148

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[Nayakshin \& Kallman 2001]{naya01} Nayakshin, S. \& Kallman, T.R. 2001, ApJ, 546, 406

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[Ogle et al. 2005]{ogle05} Ogle, P.M., Davis, S.W., Antonucci, R.R.J. et al., 2005, ApJ, 618, 139

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[Papadakis et al. 2002]{papa02} Papadakis, I.E., et al. 2002, ApJ,

1266: 573, 92

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[Ponti et al. 2004]{pont04} Ponti, G., Cappi, M., Dadina, M., \& 

1269: Malaguti, G. 2004, A\&A, 417, 451

1270: 

1271: 

1272: \bibitem[Prieto 2000]{prie00} Prieto, M.A. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 442

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[Punsly \& Tingay 2005]{pun05}  Punsly, B. \& Tingay, S.J.  2005, ApJ, 633, 89   

1275: 

1276: \bibitem[Rees et al. 1982]{rees82} Rees, M.J., Phinney, E.S., Begelman, M.C., \& Blandford, R.D. 1982,

1277: Nature, 295, 17 

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[Rodriguez-Pascual et al. 1997]{rodr97} Rodriguez-Pascual, P.M., Alloin, D., Clavel, J., et

1280: al. 1997, ApJS, 110, 9

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[Ross \& Fabian 2005]{ros05} Ross, R.R. \& Fabian, A.C. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 211

1283: 

1284: \bibitem[Rotschild et al. 1998]{rot98} Rotschild, R.E., Blanco, P.R., Gruber, D.E., et

1285: al. 1998, ApJ, 496, 538

1286: 

1287: \bibitem[Rudnick et al. 1986]{rud86} Rudnick, L., Jones, T.W., \& Fiedler, R. 1986, AJ, 91, 1011

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[Sambruna et al. 1999]{samb99} Sambruna, R.M., Eracleous, M., \& Mushotzky, R. 1999, 

1290: ApJ, 526, 60

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[Sambruna et al. 2004]{samb04} Sambruna, R.M., Gliozzi, M., Donato, D. et al. 2004, A\&A,

1293: 414, 885

1294: 

1295: \bibitem[Sguera et al. 2005]{sgue05} Sguera et al. 2005, A\&A, 430, 107

1296: 

1297: \bibitem[Shih et al. 2002]{shih02} Shih, D.C., Iwasawa, K., \& Fabian, A.C.

1298: 2002, MNRAS, 333, 687

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[Tremaine et~al. 2002]{trem02} Tremaine, S., et~al. 2002, \apj, 574, 740

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[Ulvestad \& Wilson 1984]{ulvestad84} Ulvestad, J. S. \&

1303: Wilson, A. S. 1984, \apj, 285, 439

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[Vaughan et al. 2003]{vaugh03} Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R.S.,

1306: \& Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[Yaqoob et al. 2001]{yaq01} Yaqoob, T., George, I.M., Nandra, K. et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 759

1309: 

1310: \bibitem[Yaqoob et al. 2003]{yaq03} Yaqoob, T., George, I.M., Kallman, T.R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 

1311: 596, 85

1312: 

1313: %\bibitem[White et al. 1988]{whit88} White, T.R., Lightman, A.P., \& Zdziarski, A.A. 1988, ApJ,

1314: %331, 939

1315: 

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[Worrall \& Birkinshaw 1994]{worr94} Worrall, D. \& Birkinshaw, M. 1994, ApJ,, 427, 134

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[Wo\'zniak et al. 1998]{woz98} Wo\'zniak, P.R., Zdziarski, A.A., Smith, D., Madejski, G.M., \& 

1320: Johnson, W.N., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 449

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[Yuan et al. 2007]{yuan07} Yuan, F., Zdziarski, A.A., Xue, Y., \& 

1323: Wu,X-B.. 2007, ApJ, 659, 541 

1324: 

1325: 

1326: \bibitem[Zdziarski \& Grandi 2001]{zdz01} Zdziarski, A.A. \& Grandi, P. 2001, ApJ, 551, 186

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al. 2003]{zdz03} Zdziarski, A.A., Lubi\'nski, P., 

1329: Gilfanov, M., \& Revnivtsev, M. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 355

1330: 

1331: \end{thebibliography}

1332: %\bibitem[]{}

1333: 

1334: %%--------------FIG1-------X-ray image of 3C 382-------------------------     

1335: \begin{figure}     

1336:  \includegraphics[bb=-45 140 650 650,clip=,angle=0,width=12.cm]{f1.eps}    

1337: \caption{ACIS-S/HETGS zeroth order image of \3c\ in the 0.3--8~keV band.

1338: The image was smoothed using the sub-package {\it fadapt} of     

1339: {\it FTOOLS} with a circular top hat filter of adaptive size, adjusted so as to

1340: include a minimum number of 10 counts under the filter; each final     

1341: pixel is 0{\farcs}1. }  

1342: \label{figure:fig1}   

1343: \end{figure}     

1344: 

1345: %%--------------FIG2-------radial profile of 3C 382-------------------------     

1346: \begin{figure}     

1347:  \includegraphics[bb=70 35 400 515,clip=,angle=0,width=9.cm]{f2.eps}    

1348: \caption{X-ray surface brightness profile of \3c. 

1349: The solid line represents the best-fit model, which comprises     

1350: the PSF model (dashed line), $\beta$--model (dot-dashed line), and     

1351: the background level (dotted line).     

1352: The lower panels show the data-to-model ratios in the cases where a $\beta$-model

1353: is included or not in the fit. The inner region ($r<2${\farcs}5) has been excluded from the fit

1354: because the core is highly piled-up.}   

1355: \label{figure:fig2}      

1356: \end{figure} 

1357: 

1358: %%--------------FIG3-------RXTE & Chandra light curves-------------------------

1359: \begin{figure}

1360: \begin{center}

1361: \includegraphics[bb=60 10 440 510,clip=,angle=0,width=10cm]{f3.eps}

1362: \end{center}

1363: \caption{Top panel: \rxte\ PCA light curve in the 2--15 keV energy band.

1364: Bottom panel: \chandra\ HETG light curve in the 0.8--7 keV

1365: range. 

1366: The dashed lines represent the respective average count rate.

1367: Time bins are 5760 s ($\sim$ 1 \rxte\ orbit) for \rxte\ and 2560 s for the HETGS light curve.

1368: The time is measured relative to 2004 October 27 UT 07:16:41.}

1369: \label{figure:fig3}

1370: \end{figure}

1371: 

1372: 

1373: %%--------------FIG4-------RXTE layer1 vs layer3-------------------------

1374: \begin{figure}

1375: \begin{center}

1376: \includegraphics[bb=55 50 400 600,clip=,angle=0,width=9cm]{f4.eps}

1377: \end{center}

1378: \caption{Top panel: \rxte\ PCA light curve in the 2--10 keV energy

1379: band, using PCU2 layer 1. Bottom panel: PCU2 layer 3 light curve.

1380: Time bins are 5760 s.  The dashed lines are the average count rate

1381: level. The signal from the source is expected to be very weak in the

1382: layer 3 light curve, thus its variations reflect fluctuations in the

1383: background count rate, Note the difference in scale of the y-axes in

1384: the two plots. The time is measured relative to 2004 October 27 UT

1385: 07:16:41.}

1386: \label{figure:fig4}

1387: \end{figure}

1388: 

1389: 

1390: %%--------------FIG5-------HR-ct RXTE & Chandra-------------------------

1391: \begin{figure}

1392: \begin{center}

1393: \includegraphics[bb=45 30 440 510,clip=,angle=0,width=9.cm]{f5a.eps}\includegraphics[bb=45 30 440 510,clip=,angle=0,width=9.cm]{f5b.eps}

1394: \caption{(a): Hardness ratio (7--15 keV/2--6 keV) plotted versus the count 

1395: rate for \rxte. The gray (blue in color) filled circles correspond to time-bins

1396: of 5760 s. The black filled circles are binned points obtained taking the 

1397: weighted mean of the original points with fixed bins of 0.1~s$^{-1}$. The 

1398: dashed line represent the best-fit model obtained from a least-squares method.

1399: (b): HR=(1--8 keV/0.4--1 keV) plotted versus the count rate for \chandra\ 

1400: data. Here, the time-bins are 1280 s (gray 

1401: filled circles) and the black circles are the weighted means with fixed bins 

1402: of 0.04~s$^{-1}$.} 

1403: \label{figure:fig5}

1404: \end{center}

1405: \end{figure}

1406: 

1407: %%--------------FIG6-------fractional variability vs Energy PCU2------------

1408: \begin{figure}

1409: \centering

1410: \includegraphics[bb=40 30 365 300,clip=,angle=0,width=8.cm]{f6.eps}

1411: \caption{Fractional variability parameter plotted versus the

1412: energy for using \rxte\ PCA data. The error-bars along the x axis simply represent

1413: the energy band width. The error-bars along the y axis are computed following

1414: Vaughan et al. 2003. The energy is in the observer rest frame.

1415: } 

1416: \label{figure:fig6}

1417: \end{figure}

1418: 

1419: %%--------------FIG7-------soft excess obsA-------------------------

1420: \begin{figure}

1421: \includegraphics[bb=60 30 580 720,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f7.eps}

1422: \caption{Data/model ratio to a simple power-law model modified by

1423: photoelectric absorption in the Milky Way. The data are from the MEG

1424: and HEG during the first observation. A strong soft excess in present

1425: below 1 keV.}

1426: \label{figure:fig7}

1427: \end{figure}

1428: 

1429: %%--------------FIG8-------spectra MEG & HEG -------------------------

1430: \begin{figure}

1431: \includegraphics[bb=40 1 580 720,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f8.eps}

1432: \caption{The MEG and HEG spectra in the 0.5--8 keV energy range,

1433: obtained combining orders $+1$ and $-1$ during observation A when the

1434: mean count rate was higher (a very similar soft spectrum is obtained

1435: during observation B). The bin size are 0.08~\AA\ and 0.04~\AA\ for the

1436: MEG and HEG, respectively. The

1437: continuous line represents a double power-law model absorbed by

1438: Galactic $N_{\rm H}$. The bottom panel shows the data/model ratio.

1439: }

1440: \label{figure:fig8}

1441: \end{figure}

1442: 

1443: 

1444: %%--------------FIG9-------spectra MEG, HEG, PCA -------------------------

1445: \begin{figure}

1446: \includegraphics[bb=60 20 585 720,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f9a.eps}

1447: \includegraphics[bb=60 20 585 720,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f9b.eps}

1448: \caption{Deconvolved MEG, HEG, and PCA spectra in the 0.5--15 keV energy range,

1449: fitted with a power-law plus a neutral reflection model (pexrav) plus

1450: a Gaussian line at $\sim$ 6.4 keV in the source's rest frame. All models are

1451: absorbed by

1452: Galactic $N_{\rm H}$. Figures (a) and (b) represent observation A and B, 

1453: respectively.

1454: }

1455: \label{figure:fig9}

1456: \end{figure}

1457: 

1458: 

1459: %%--------------FIG10-------contour iron line-------------------------

1460: \begin{figure}

1461: \includegraphics[bb=118 100 525 645,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f10a.eps}

1462: \includegraphics[bb=118 100 525 645,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f10b.eps}

1463: 

1464: \includegraphics[bb=118 100 525 645,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f10c.eps}

1465: \includegraphics[bb=118 100 525 645,clip=,angle=-90,width=9.cm]{f10d.eps}

1466: 

1467: \caption{Confidence contours in the line intensity--line width

1468: plane. The confidence levels correspond to 68\%, 90\%, and 99\%. Panel

1469: (a) at the top left refers to observation A (HEG$+1$); panel (b) at

1470: the top right refers to observation B (HEG$+1$). The bottom panels on

1471: the left (c) and right (d) show the confidence contours derived from

1472: the PCA spectra during observations A and B, respectively. }

1473: \label{figure:fig10}

1474: \end{figure}

1475:     

1476: \clearpage

1477: 

1478: \input{tab1}

1479: \input{tab2}

1480: \input{tab3}

1481: \end{document}

1482: 

1483: 

1484: 

1485: 

1486: 

1487: