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

2: %%%%\documentstyle[11pt,flushrt,aaspp4]{article}

3:                                                                                

4: \usepackage{emulateapj5} %%% comment this out and re-latex before re-submitting!

5: %%%% \usepackage{color}

6: \newcommand{\et}{et al.}

7: \newcommand{\lum}{{\rm luminosity}}

8: \newcommand{\fv}{F_{\rm var}}

9: \newcommand{\fvar}{F_{\rm var}}

10: \newcommand{\Fvar}{F_{\rm var}}

11: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

12: \newcommand{\Tb}{T_{\rm b}}

13: \newcommand{\fracfvar}{\frac{F_{var,soft}}{F_{var,hard}}}

14: \newcommand{\Dtsamp}{{\Delta}T_{{\rm samp}}}

15: \newcommand{\Dtsm}{{\Delta}T_{{\rm sim}}}

16: \newcommand{\rxte}{{\it RXTE}}

17: \newcommand{\xte}{{\it RXTE}}

18: \newcommand{\exosat}{{\it EXOSAT}}

19: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM-Newton}}

20: \newcommand{\nh}{N_{\rm H}} 

21: \newcommand{\Msun}{\hbox{$\rm\thinspace M_{\odot}$}}

22: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.cm}

23: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.cm}

24: %\setlength{\textwidth}{16.6cm}

25: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0.cm}

26: %\setlength{\textheight}{20.7cm}

27: %

28: \def\lineindex#1{{\thinspace\small#1}}

29: \def\I{\lineindex I} \def\II{\lineindex{II}} \def\III{\lineindex{III}}

30: %

31: \slugcomment{}

32: \shorttitle{Suzaku Cen A observation}

33: \shortauthors{Markowitz et al.}

34: \begin{document}

35: \title{The Suzaku Observation of the Nucleus of the 

36: Radio-Loud Active Galaxy Centaurus A: Constraints 

37: on Abundances of the Accreting Material}

38: 

39: \author{A. Markowitz\altaffilmark{1,2},       

40: T. Takahashi\altaffilmark{3},

41: S. Watanabe\altaffilmark{3},

42: K. Nakazawa\altaffilmark{3},

43: Y. Fukazawa\altaffilmark{4},

44: M. Kokubun\altaffilmark{5},       

45: K. Makishima\altaffilmark{5,6},   

46: H. Awaki\altaffilmark{7},         

47: A. Bamba\altaffilmark{6},         

48: N. Isobe\altaffilmark{6},         

49: J. Kataoka\altaffilmark{8},       

50: G. Madejski\altaffilmark{9,10},     

51: R. Mushotzky\altaffilmark{1},    

52: T. Okajima\altaffilmark{1}, 

53: A. Ptak\altaffilmark{11}           

54: J.N. Reeves\altaffilmark{1,11},    

55: Y. Ueda\altaffilmark{12},  

56: T. Yamasaki\altaffilmark{4},

57: T. Yaqoob\altaffilmark{11}  

58: \altaffiltext{1}{X-ray Astrophysics Laboratory, Code 662, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA; agm@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov}

59: \altaffiltext{2}{NASA Post-doc Research Associate}

60: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, JAXA, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan}

61: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8526, Japan}

62: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo, 113-0033, Japan} 

63: \altaffiltext{6}{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, 351-0198, Japan}

64: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Ehime University, Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime 790-8577, Japan}

65: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan}

66: \altaffiltext{9}{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA}

67: \altaffiltext{10}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA}

68: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}

69: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}

70: }

71: 

72: %%%%%%% \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA}

73: 

74: \begin{abstract}

75: A {\it Suzaku} observation of the nucleus of the radio-loud AGN Centaurus A 

76: in 2005 has yielded a broadband spectrum spanning 0.3 to 250 keV. The net 

77: exposure times after screening were: 70 ks per X-ray Imaging Spectrometer 

78: (XIS) camera, 60.8 ks for the Hard X-ray Detector (HXD) PIN, and 17.1 ks for 

79: the HXD GSO. The hard X-rays are fit by two power laws of the same slope, 

80: absorbed by columns of 1.5 and 7 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ respectively.

81: The spectrum is consistent with previous suggestions that the power-law 

82: components are X-ray emission from the sub-pc VLBI jet and from Bondi 

83: accretion at the core, but it is also consistent with a partial-covering 

84: interpretation. The soft band is dominated by thermal emission from the 

85: diffuse plasma and is fit well by a two-temperature {\sc vapec} model,

86: plus a third power-law component to account for scattered nuclear emission, 

87: jet emission, and emission from X-ray Binaries and other point sources. 

88: Narrow fluorescent emission lines from Fe, Si, S, Ar, Ca and Ni are detected.

89: The Fe K$\alpha$ line width yields a 200 light-day lower limit on the 

90: distance from the black hole to the line-emitting gas. Fe, Ca, and S K-shell 

91: absorption edges are detected. Elemental abundances are constrained via 

92: absorption edge depths and strengths of the fluorescent and diffuse plasma 

93: emission lines. The high metallicity ([Fe/H]=+0.1) of the circumnuclear material

94: suggests that it could not have originated in the relatively metal-poor outer 

95: halo unless enrichment by local star formation has occurred. Relative abundances 

96: are consistent with enrichment from Type II and Ia supernovae.

97: \end{abstract}

98:                                                                          

99: \keywords{galaxies: active --- X-rays: galaxies --- galaxies: individual (NGC 5128) }

100: 

101: 

102: \section{Introduction}

103: 

104: 

105: The radio-loud active galactic nucleus (AGN) Centaurus A 

106: (NGC 5128) is one of the most extensively studied AGNs at all 

107: wave bands, thanks to its proximity (distance of $3.8 \pm 0.4$ Mpc, 

108: Rejkuba 2004; 1$\arcmin$ = 1 kpc) and brightness 

109: (2--10 keV flux typically $\sim$2 $\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$). 

110: Cen A features the nearest AGN jet and is considered a prototypical FR I radio galaxy.

111: Its radio structure consists of extended kpc-scale

112: outer, middle, and inner radio lobes, fed by a 

113: one-sided kpc-scale jet. The jet is at an angle of $\sim$60$\degr$

114: to the line of sight, leading to its description as

115: a 'misaligned' BL Lac object (e.g., Bailey \et\ 1986).

116: VLBI observations have also revealed a sub-pc jet 

117: and unresolved ($\sim0.1$pc) core (Tingay \et\ 1998; see also

118: Israel 1998 for a review).

119: 

120: The host galaxy of Cen A 

121: is a giant elliptical with a pronounced optical dust lane

122: that obscures the inner few kpc and is believed to be an edge-on 

123: disk structure (Quillen \et\ 1992). 

124: The inner dust disk, with associated young stars, H II regions, and other

125: ionized gas, is the site of vigorous star formation, e.g., 

126: observed along the edges of the inner disk (e.g., Ebneter \& Balick 1983, Dufour \et\ 1979).

127: The dust disk is interpreted as the result of a merger 

128: between a large elliptical and a gas-rich disk galaxy at least a Gyr ago

129: (e.g., Israel 1998). 

130: Infrared studies are necessary to reveal the compact, pc-scale 

131: core (e.g., Karovska \et\ 2003). NIR studies (e.g, Schreier \et\ 1998) 

132: have revealed a circumnuclear disk tens--hundreds of pc wide, surrounding

133: the central black hole. Stellar kinematic

134: studies indicate a black hole mass near 2$\times$10$^8$ $\Msun$ (Silge \et\ 2005)

135: 

136: 

137: 

138: Previous studies of the nuclear X-ray emission from $\sim$4 keV to several hundred keV

139: (e.g., Rothschild \et\ 1999) have established the presence of a non-thermal,

140: power-law continuum whose origin is not certain. It could be a signature of accretion,

141: or it could be associated with jet emission processes, e.g., synchrotron 

142: or inverse Compton emission from the sub-pc VLBI jet. 

143: 

144: Below $\sim$4 keV, the X-ray continuum 

145: emission undergoes moderately heavily absorption, although the nature of

146: the X-ray obscuring material is not certain; i.e., it could have a sky-covering fraction

147: of 1 as seen from the central X-ray source or it could be in the form of a dusty torus. Rothschild

148: \et\ (2006) have noted $\sim$50$\%$ variations in the absorbing column over 

149: $\sim$20 years, and suggested that the nucleus is seen through the edges of a 

150: warped, rotating disk. The strong X-ray absorption makes Cen A relatively unique: the vast

151: majority of FR I radio galaxies possess relatively weak X-ray absorbing 

152: columns ($\lesssim$ 10$^{20-21}$ cm$^{-2}$). Heavy X-ray absorption, 

153: meanwhile, is usually seen only in FR II radio galaxies, although it is 

154: not yet clear whether the dichotomy in X-ray absorption properties has 

155: the same origin as the FR I/II dichotomy, e.g., differing accretion modes

156: (Donato \et\ 2004, Balmaverde \et\ 2006, Evans \et\ 2006).

157: 

158: 

159: Previous X-ray spectral fits to the nucleus of Cen A center on one or more

160: power laws, with varying degrees of absorption. For instance,

161: using {\it ROSAT} and {\it ASCA}, Turner \et\ (1997) suggested

162: that one plausible description of the 

163: nuclear emission is a partial-covering model, wherein

164: the nucleus is seen through three layers of absorption:

165: 40$\%$, 59$\%$, and 1$\%$ of the nuclear emission is

166: obscured by columns of 4, 1 and 0.01 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively.

167: Using {\it Chandra}-HETGS and {\it XMM-Newton} observations,

168: Evans \et\ (2004) suggested a different interpretation. They

169: fit the hard X-ray continuum spectrum with a heavily-absorbed

170: power law, thought to be associated with Bondi accretion at the core, plus

171: a relatively less-absorbed power law thought to be associated with the sub-pc VLBI jet,

172: although they did not rule out the partial-covering interpretation.

173: 

174: There is a prominent Fe K$\alpha$ emission line at 6.4 keV,

175: first noted by Mushotzky \et\ (1978). It is narrow (e.g., 

176: FWHM = 2200$\pm$900 km s$^{-1}$, Evans \et\ 2004), and its 

177: flux is historically nearly constant despite long-term continuum variations 

178: spanning a factor of $\sim$5 over 20 years (Rothschild \et\ 1999), 

179: implying an origin for the line that is distant from the origin of the variable continuum. 

180: 

181: The soft X-ray emission within $\sim$6 kpc of the nucleus of

182: Cen A consists of both diffuse and point-like emission.

183: There is diffuse emission associated with the kpc-scale jet 

184: extending from $<$ 60 pc to the NE radio lobe (e.g., Kraft \et\ 2002), 

185: as well as from thermal gas that surrounds the

186: nucleus out to a radius of roughly 6 kpc.

187: Point-like emission is associated with several dozen 

188: knots in the kpc-scale jet (e.g., Kataoka \et\ 2006)

189: as well as from a population of X-ray Binaries

190: (e.g., Kraft \et\ 2000). A soft X-ray spectrum covering the inner few kpc

191: is thus expected to contain both power-law continuum 

192: emission from the jet and point-like sources and 

193: line-like emission associated with the thermal gas. For instance,

194: Turner \et\ (1997) modeled the soft X-rays with a 0.6 keV thermal plasma component,

195: a 5 keV component associated with emission from a population 

196: of X-ray Binaries, and a power-law jet component.

197: 

198: In this paper, we report on an observation of Cen A made with

199: the {\it Suzaku} observatory in 2005 August.  

200: The combination of the X-ray Imaging

201: Spectrometer (XIS) CCD and the Hard X-ray Detector (HXD) instruments 

202: have yielded a broadband spectrum covering 0.3 to 250 keV,  allowing us

203: to deconvolve the various broadband emitting and absorbing components in this object.

204: Furthermore, the exceptional response of the XIS CCD and high signal-to-noise ratio  

205: of this observation allow us to study narrow emission lines 

206: in great detail.  This observation has also 

207: yielded the highest quality soft X-ray spectrum of Cen A obtained so far.

208: $\S$2 gives a brief overview of the {\it Suzaku} observatory, and describes the 

209: observation and data reduction. $\S$3 describes the spectral fits.

210: The results are discussed in $\S$4, and a brief summary is given

211: in $\S$5.

212: 

213: 

214: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

215: 

216: 

217: The nucleus of Cen A was observed by {\it Suzaku} from 2005 August 19 at 03:30 UT until 

218: August 20 at 09:50 UT, and in fact was the first light target for the HXD.

219: {\it Suzaku} was launched 2005 July 10 into a low-Earth orbit. It 

220: has four X-ray telescopes (XRTs; Serlemitsos et al.\ 2007), 

221: each with a spatial resolution of 2$\arcmin$ (half-power diameter). 

222: The XRTs focus X-rays onto four X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS; Koyama

223: et al.\ 2007) CCDs, which are sensitive to 0.2--12 keV X-rays on a 

224: 18$\arcmin$ by 18$\arcmin$

225: field of view, contain 1024 by 1024 pixel rows each,

226: and feature an energy resolution of 

227: $\sim$140 eV at 6 keV. Three CCDs (XIS0, 2, and 3) 

228: are front-illuminated (FI),

229: the fourth (XIS1) is back-illuminated (BI) and features 

230: an enhanced soft X-ray response. 

231: The XRT/XIS combination yields effective areas per detector of roughly

232: 330 cm$^{2}$ (FI) or 370 cm$^{2}$ (BI) at 1.5 keV,

233: and 160 cm$^{2}$ (FI) or 110 cm$^{2}$ (BI) at 8 keV.

234: Each XIS is equipped with two $^{55}$Fe calibration sources

235: that produce fluorescent Mn K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ lines and are 

236: located at the CCD corners.

237: {\it Suzaku} also features a non-imaging, collimated Hard X-ray Detector

238: (HXD; Takahashi et al. 2007); its two detectors, PIN and GSO,

239: combine to yield sensitivity from $\sim$10 to $\sim$700 keV. 

240: Further details of the {\it Suzaku} observatory are given in

241: Mitsuda \et\ (2007). 

242: 

243: \subsection{XIS reduction}

244: 

245: The XIS data used in this paper were 

246: version 0.7 of the screened data (Fujimoto \et\ 2007)

247: provided by the {\it Suzaku} team. The screening is based on the

248: following criteria: 

249: grade 0, 2, 3, 4, and 6 events were used, the {\sc cleansis} script 

250: was used to remove hot or flickering pixels,

251: data collected within 256 s of passage through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA)

252: were discarded, and data were selected to be 5$\degr$ in elevation above

253: the Earth rim (20$\degr$ above the day-Earth rim).

254: The XIS FI CCDs were in 2x2, 3x3 and 5x5 

255: editmodes, for a net exposure time after screening of 71.5 (XIS0), 70.3 (XIS2) and 68.6 (XIS3) ks. 

256: XIS1 was in 3x3 and 5x5 modes, for a net exposure of

257: 68.6 ks.

258: 

259: The source was observed at the nominal center position of the XIS.

260: The XIS was kept in Normal Mode, but to reduce the risk of photon-pileup, the 

261: 1/4 Window Option was used: each CCD recorded

262: 256 by 1024 pixel rows, with a readout time of 2 s, as opposed to 

263: 8 s when the full 1024 by 1024 window is used.

264: For each XIS, we extracted a 2$\arcmin$ radius centered on the source.

265: Spectra were binned to a minimum of 50 counts bin$^{-1}$ to

266: allow use of the $\chi^2$ statistic.

267: 

268: The count rates observed over the full XIS band were

269: 5.0 ct s$^{-1}$ (average of XIS0, 2 and 3) or 

270: 4.3 ct s$^{-1}$ (XIS BI). These count rates are far below

271: the limit for photon-pileup in 1/4 Window Mode, $\sim$ 12.5 ct s$^{-1}$.

272: Furthermore, extracting over annular regions with inner and outer radii

273: of 0.4$\arcmin$ and 2$\arcmin$, respectively,  yielded spectra identical

274: in shape to those extracted over 2$\arcmin$ circular regions, indicating

275: that pile-up was negligible.

276: 

277: Because the soft diffuse emission in Cen A covers nearly the

278: entire read-out area of the CCD, we used observations

279: of the north ecliptic pole (NEP) to extract a background spectrum.

280: {\it Suzaku} observed the NEP on 2005 September 2 to 4.

281: There was a brief, sharp flare during the NEP observation,

282: consistent with evidence for solar wind charge exchange emission

283: (see Fujimoto \et\ 2007). Removing that flare and 

284: applying the same screening criteria as above yielded a

285: net exposure time of 93.9 (XIS0), 108.5 (XIS1), 93.3 (XIS2), and 96.6 (XIS3)

286: ks. We extracted data over a 2$\arcmin$ circle. 

287: The NEP is known to contain soft X-ray emission lines

288: (see e.g., Fujimoto \et\ 2007), 

289: but they are much fainter than those of Cen A (see $\S3$).

290: The O {\sc VII} and O {\sc VIII} lines in Cen A are a factor of

291: roughly 10 (20) higher compared to the NEP as seen in the XIS BI

292: (XIS FIs). Lines near 0.8--0.9 keV such as 

293: Fe L {\sc XVII} and Ne {\sc IX} in Cen A are typically 

294: $\sim$60 (100) times brighter in Cen A compared to the NEP

295: as seen in the XIS BI (XIS FIs).

296: 

297: 

298: Average 0.5--2.0 keV count rates for the NEP observation

299: were  0.004, 0.009, 0.004, and 0.003 

300: count s$^{-1}$ for XIS0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively;

301: average 2--10 keV count rates were 0.005, 0.012, 0.005, 

302: and 0.004 count s$^{-1}$, respectively.

303: 

304: 

305: Response matrices and ancillary response files (ARFs) were generated for 

306: each XIS independently using {\sc xissimrmfgen} and 

307: {\sc xissimarfgen} version 2006-10-26 (Ishisaki \et\ 2007). The ARF generator takes into 

308: account the level of hydrocarbon contamination on the optical blocking 

309: filter. However, the Cen A observation occurred very early in 

310: the {\it Suzaku} mission, and the level of contamination was quite low: 

311: we estimate a carbon column density of only $\sim$0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 

312: 0.5$\times$10$^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ for XIS0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

313: 

314: A consequence of observing with the 1/4 Window Option is that

315: there are no $^{55}$Fe calibration source lines

316: on the CCD. This leads to a higher systematic uncertainty in the 

317: energy scale compared to normal mode (where it

318: is a few tenths of a percent at most).

319: To estimate the instrument resolution, we used

320: the calibration source lines from a 77 ks observation 

321: of MCG--6-30-15, observed in Normal Mode with no window option

322: immediately prior to

323: Cen A. We fit the calibration source spectra with

324: three Gaussians. Two Gaussians were for the Mn K$\alpha$ doublet

325: (expected energies 5.899 keV and 5.888 keV), with

326: energy centroids fixed to be 11 eV apart, and the higher energy

327: line flux set to twice that of the lower energy one.

328: The third Gaussian was used to model the K$\beta$ line,

329: expected at 6.490 keV. We found the average of

330: all the calibration line widths $\sigma$ to be 9$^{+6}_{-2}$ eV;

331: residual width may be due e.g., to imperfect CTI correction.

332: 

333: The positional accuracy of {\it Suzaku} is $\sim$1$\arcmin$ at present, as

334: the spacecraft has been known to exhibit small

335: attitude variations (``wobble''). 

336: We checked to make sure that the effect of these attitude variations

337: was not significant, given that the 

338: 1/4 Window Option was used throughout the observation. 

339: We generated light curves by extracting over

340: radii of %%% 2.0$\arcmin$, 

341: 1.5$\arcmin$ and 1.0$\arcmin$ and looked for variations on the 

342: orbital timescale, but found nothing significant.

343:   

344: %%% 2--10 keV light curves for both the Cen A and the NEP extractions

345: %%% were analyzed; no sudden, large flares 

346: %%% which could indicate high particle flux levels were observed.

347: Average 0.5--2.0 keV net source count rates were 0.24, 0.35, 0.25, and 0.25 

348: count s$^{-1}$ for XIS0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

349: Average 2--10 keV net source count rates were 4.7, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.5 count s$^{-1}$ for XIS0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

350: Figure 1 shows 2--10 keV light curves for each XIS.

351: During the observation, the 2--10 keV source flux increased 

352: by only 10$\%$, with fractional variability amplitudes 

353: $F_{\rm var}$ (see Vaughan \et\ 2003 for definition) of 

354: $3.7 \pm 0.2$ $\%$, 

355: $3.4 \pm 0.2$ $\%$,  

356: $3.1 \pm 0.2$ $\%$, and 

357: $3.3 \pm 0.2$ $\%$ for XIS0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

358: The 0.5--2.0 keV flux (determined from model fits; see $\S$3)

359: was 2.33$\times$10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.

360: The 2--10 keV flux was 2.12$\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.

361: 

362: 

363: \subsection{HXD reduction}

364: 

365: The PIN and GSO source spectra were extracted from cleaned version 1.2 

366: (pre-1.2-r1) HXD event files provided by the HXD instrument team. We 

367: first discuss the PIN extraction. Data were selected according to the 

368: following criteria: at least 500 s since SAA passage, COR $\geq$ 8 GV, 

369: and day- and night-Earth elevation angles each $\geq$5$\degr$.

370: Instrumental (non-X-ray) background spectra for the PIN were provided by the 

371: HXD Team (``background D'' model) generated from a time-dependent 

372: model.\footnote{Other recently-published {\it Suzaku} results have made use of

373: the ``background A'' model. However, observations occurring

374: before 2005 September 2 had a hit-pattern width set to a shorter value

375: compared to observations occurring after this date. Because applying

376: the ``background A'' model would yield an underestimate of the true

377: non-X-ray PIN background, we instead use the ``background D'' model.}

378: The model utilized the count rate of upper discriminators as the measure of

379: cosmic ray flux that passed through the silicon PIN diode and yielded

380: background spectra based on a database of non X-ray background observations

381: with the PIN (Fukazawa \et\ 2007).  

382: The systematic uncertainty of the PIN is expected to be $<$5$\%$. 

383: However, we note that Cen A is one of the brightest AGNs in the PIN

384: energy range, and the effect of background subtraction error

385: on the net source spectrum is relatively small.

386: Both the source and 

387: background spectra were generated with identical good-time intervals, and 

388: the exposures were corrected for instrument dead time (a $\sim$5$\%$ 

389: effect). This yielded a good-time exposure of 60.8 ks.

390: Data $<$ 12 keV were discarded due to noise contamination

391: near the lower threshold of the PIN diode. Data above 76 keV were also

392: discarded: the gain above an internal Bi K$\alpha$ calibration line at 

393: 76 keV is not well-defined, although there are GSO data covering these energies. 

394: Further details of the HXD in-orbit performance are given in

395: Kokubun \et\ (2007).

396: To model the contribution to the total background from the cosmic x-ray 

397: background (CXB), the spectrum of the form 

398: 9.0$\times$10$^{-9}$(E/3keV)$^{-0.29}$ exp(--E/40keV) erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ (Gruber \et\ 1999) was used; the contribution

399: in the 12--76 keV band was 1.1$\times$10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.

400: 

401: The spectrum was binned to a minimum of 400 count bin$^{-1}$.

402: We used the response file ae$\_$hxd$\_$pinxinom$\_$20060814.rsp.

403: The 12--76 keV net source flux and count rate were

404: 7.3$\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 1.21 count s$^{-1}$.

405: The total (X-ray plus particle) background 12--76 keV flux and count rate

406: were 6.9$\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and

407: 0.59 count s$^{-1}$.

408: The orbitally-binned light curve is shown in Figure 1. The light curve

409: generally increases in flux by $\sim$10--20$\%$ over the observation,

410: matching the general trend shown by the XIS light curve, although

411: shorter-timescale differences between the XIS and PIN light curves might be attributed

412: to uncertainty associated with the PIN background.

413: Figure 2 shows the net source, background, and total (source + background) spectra.

414: The source spectrum is always at least 30$\%$ of the total up to $\sim$50 keV.

415: 

416: 

417: The HXD GSO data were reduced in a manner similar to the

418: HXD PIN data. A key contributor to the GSO particle background 

419: is activation lines, e.g., delayed emission from radioactive 

420: isotopes induced inside the detector due to interaction with 

421: SAA particles. To minimize such emission,

422: data taken within 6000 s of SAA passage were 

423: discarded; the background is the most reliable and the least variable

424: during non-SAA orbits. This yielded a good-time exposure of 17.1 ks.

425: The 'background D' model files provided by the HXD Team were

426: used (Fukazawa \et\ 2007). The CXB is expected to contribute insignificantly 

427: to the total GSO background and was ignored. Source and background 

428: spectra were both binned with {\sc grppha} following recommendations 

429: from the HXD Team\footnote{group 0 24 25 25 26 2 27 28 2 29 31 3 32 35 4 36 38 3;

430: group 39 42 4 43 46 4 47 51 5 52 56 5 57 62 6;

431: group 63 68 6 69 75 7 76 83 8 84 91 8 92 100 9; 

432: group 101 110 10 111 121 11 122 134 13 135 147 13 148 162 15; 

433: group 163 178 16 179 196 18 197 216 20 217 238 22 239 262 24;

434: group 263 288 26 289 317 29 318 349 32 350 384 35 385 422 38;

435: group 423 465 43 466 511 46}.

436: 

437: The source was detected out to 250 keV; the GSO is sensitive

438: down to roughly 45 keV. The 45--250 keV net source 

439: flux and count rate were   

440: 7.2$\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 0.83 count s$^{-1}$.

441: The 45--250 keV background flux and count rate were

442: 1.0$\times$10$^{-8}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 9.1 count s$^{-1}$.

443: Figure 1 shows the GSO light curve.

444: Figure 2 shows the net source, background, and total (source + background) spectra.

445: The source spectrum is always at least 5$\%$ of the total below 200 keV.

446: The response file ae$\_$hxd$\_$gsoxinom$\_$20060321.rmf was used.

447: 

448: Below 100 keV, the GSO field of view is 

449: 34$\arcmin$$\times$34$\arcmin$ FWHM, the same as the PIN.

450: Above 100 keV, the field of view increases with

451: photon energy to a maximum of 4.5$\degr$$\times$4.5$\degr$ FWHM

452: and there is the possibility of source confusion.

453: The nearest possible contaminating source 

454: is the blazar MS 1312.1--4221 = GRO J1312--42, located $\sim$2$\degr$ west of Cen A.

455: According to Steinle et al.\ (1998), the flux of MS 1312.1--4221 in the {\it Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory} ({\it CGRO}) OSSE band

456: (50--4000 keV) is likely less than a tenth of Cen A's flux. 

457: %%%%  Fichtel \et\ (1994) claimed a marginal detection with {\it CGRO} EGRET

458: %%%%% above 100 MeV, reporting an intensity of 2 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.   %%%%  (  = 3.2e-11 erg/cm2/s ???)

459: %%%%% The brightness of GRO J1312--42 in the GSO band is thus likely no more

460: %%%%%% than a few times 10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and can safely be ignored.

461: MS 1312.1--4221 is much fainter at other X-ray bands as well:

462: the 1 keV intensity is usually only 1--10$\%$

463: of the historically observed Cen A intensities (Kinzer \et\ 1995).

464: We henceforth assume that the contamination from MS 1312.1--4221

465: is negligible in the GSO band. 

466: 

467: \section{Spectral Analysis}

468: 

469: Given the 2$\arcmin$ half-power diameter of the XRT, the spectrum will contain blended 

470: contributions from multiple sources.

471: Previous studies (e.g., Evans \et\ 2004) 

472: have shown the hard X-rays\footnote{We henceforth denote ``hard X-ray'' emission as 

473: any intrinsic emission component above 2--3 keV, as opposed to describing emission detected solely with the HXD.}

474: to be dominated by two power laws;

475: both hard X-ray components are constrained to lie within a few tenths of an arcsecond ($\sim$5 pc) of the

476: position of the unresolved radio core

477: by {\it Chandra} ACIS (Kraft \et\ 2000).

478: Contributions to the soft X-rays include thermal emission from the diffuse plasma plus

479: diffuse emission from the kpc-scale jet, with contributions from 

480: a few of the innermost knots in the kpc-scale jet and other point sources resolved by 

481: {\it Chandra} ACIS (Kraft \et\ 2000; Kataoka \et\ 2006). Each knot, however, 

482: is extremely faint in the soft X-rays ($\lesssim$ 6 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$; Feigelson \et\ 1981).

483: 

484: The four XIS spectra were fit separately; 0.4--11.5 keV FI data and

485: 0.3--11.5 keV BI data were included.

486: We found it reasonable to keep the photon indices tied for all four XISes. while allowing

487: the relative normalizations for XIS0 and 1 to each vary relative to that for XIS2 and 3,

488: which were tied together (XIS3/XIS2 was always consistent with, and therefore fixed at, 1.00).

489: XIS0/XIS2 was typically 1.06; XIS1/XIS2 was typically 0.96

490: (in our best-fit model, XIS0/XIS2 = 1.065$\pm$0.004 and

491: XIS1/XIS2 = 0.951$\pm$0.003).

492: We ignored 1.80--1.87 keV in the XIS FI spectra and 1.75--1.87 keV in 

493: the XIS BI spectrum due to uncertainties in calibration associated with 

494: the instrumental Si K edge. This means we cannot directly study the

495: intrinsic neutral Si K edge in the absorbing material or any  

496: highly-ionized Si K lines expected 

497: due to the thermal plasma emission. 

498: The PIN/XIS2 and GSO/XIS2 normalizations were left free, but were usually 

499: close to 1.09 and 0.9--1.0, respectively, although results were not strongly 

500: dependent on these factors (in our best-fit model, PIN/XIS2 = 1.055$\pm$0.022

501: and GSO/XIS2 = 0.98$\pm$0.06).  

502: Preliminary results on the relative GSO/PIN normalization

503: using the Crab suggest GSO/PIN = 0.84 (T.\ Yamasaki et al.\ 2007, in preparation).

504: Fixing GSO/PIN at 0.84 in the Cen A fits usually resulted in

505: $\chi^2$ increasing by $\lesssim$5; the photon index

506: did not change significantly. We left the GSO/PIN normalization free

507: to attain the lowest $\chi^2$ possible.

508: All errors on one interesting parameter

509: correspond to $\Delta\chi^2 = 2.71$ (with all relative

510: normalizations except XIS3/XIS2 left free). 

511: Observed spectral features in Cen A are redshifted by 

512: z = 0.001825 (Graham 1978), the value corresponding to

513: Cen A's recessional velocity.

514: To calculate luminosities, a redshift of 0.0009, corresponding to

515: a luminosity distance of 3.8 Mpc (assuming $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$)

516: was used.

517: Galactic absorption of 8.6$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ was included.

518: The abundances of Lodders (2003) were used. Absolute abundances

519: relative to solar values are denoted by $Z_{\rm Fe}$; a value of 1 

520: denotes solar abundance.

521: 

522: As shown below, the best model fit includes five overlapping 

523: broadband components, and changes in how one is fit can potentially 

524: cause changes in other components. Our strategy in finding the best-fit 

525: broadband model was to fit the hard band first, then extend it to

526: the soft band. Relatively more narrow features (lines and edges)

527: were explored later.

528: 

529: \subsection{Broadband fit}

530: 

531: We first fit the $>$3 keV emission with an absorbed

532: power law (henceforth denoted PL1) using {\sc zvphabs(cutoffpl)} (Model 1).

533: The power-law cutoff was kept fixed at 400 keV; 

534: abundances in the absorber were initially kept fixed at solar.

535: Residuals are plotted in Figure 3.

536: The slight hard excesses above $\sim$9 keV in the XIS spectra are

537: associated with calibration uncertainties known at the time of this writing.

538: Residuals in the GSO spectrum near 150--200 keV are likely

539: associated with uncertainties in estimating the strengths of

540: activation lines in the GSO background (lines at 153 and 196 keV 

541: are due to $^{153}$Gd and $^{151m}$Eu, respectively);

542: see Kokubun \et\ (2007) for further details.

543: GSO residuals near 65 keV are likely associated with 

544: calibration uncertainties present at the time of this writing.

545: Large residuals near the expected Fe K$\alpha$ line were apparent.

546: We then added Fe K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ lines;

547: the K$\beta$ energy was fixed at 7.056 keV, its intensity was fixed at

548: 0.13 times that of K$\alpha$, and the widths of the two lines were tied.

549: The $\chi^2$/$dof$ dropped from 10700/7135 to 7607/7132,

550: but the residuals in the XIS band

551: suggested the fit could be improved if we added a second, fainter

552: absorbed power law (PL2; Model 2). The photon index of the second power law,

553: $\Gamma_2$, was kept tied to that of PL1, $\Gamma_1$, for simplicity, but

554: the absorbing column densities $\nh$$_1$ and $\nh$$_2$ were not.

555: $\chi^2$ dropped by over 140. PL1, with a 1 keV normalization

556: $\sim$4 times that of PL2, was absorbed by a column

557: $\nh$$_1$ near 1.0$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$; $\nh$$_2$

558: was near 5.0$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. The photon index was

559: 1.773$^{+0.018}_{-0.015}$. Residuals to Model 2 are plotted in Figure 3.

560: 

561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

562: 

563: We then included the soft band data, down to 0.3 keV.

564: Several soft X-ray emission lines are prominent, and are especially

565: well constrained with XIS1, as illustrated in Figure 4. Simply adding a third power law 

566: (Model 3) to the soft X-rays thus did not yield an acceptable broadband fit.

567: Table 1 shows results for the lines when each is fit with a Gaussian; 

568: we identify them as originating in

569: O {\sc VII},  O {\sc VIII}, a blend of Fe {\sc XVII} 3s--2p lines (the 

570: $^3$$P_1$/$^3$$P_2$ doublet and the $^1$$P_1$ line), 

571: a blend of Fe {\sc XVII} 3d--2p lines ($^1$$P_1$ and $^3$$D_1$),

572: Ne {\sc IX}, Ne {\sc X}, and Mg {\sc XI}. 

573: We can use the lines as a check of the absolute energy

574: scale of the XIS. Assuming that in each He-like triplet, the resonant line is a 

575: factor of 2 in intensity greater than the forbidden line (roughly consistent with the plasma temperatures

576: in our best-fit model, below), the measured energy centroids

577: are within $\lesssim$16 eV of the expected energies. 

578: In addition, the Fe K$\alpha$ centroid is 6$\pm$3 eV from its expected energy.

579: 

580: The emission lines could be due to gas that is photo- or 

581: collisionally ionized. A key to distinguishing between the

582: resulting spectra is that collisional ionization usually leads

583: to the presence of very strong Fe L emission, such as

584: a narrow Fe {\sc XVII} emission line near 0.83 keV

585: and a Fe L emission "bump" near 0.7--0.9 keV.

586: We modeled the soft emission using {\sc XSTAR} tables appropriate

587: for emission from photoionized gas, assuming either

588: one or two zones of photoionized gas. 

589: Fitting this model always left strong residuals due to improperly modeled

590: Fe L emission, even when the Fe abundance was left as a free parameter

591: (in which case values commonly pegged at an upper limit of 10).

592: The best-fit models assuming either one or two zones   

593: had $\chi^2$/$dof$ values of 11600/9159 and

594: 11000/9155, respectively.

595: 

596: 

597: %%%%%   Radiative recombination coninuum (RRC) lines, such as O7, O8, would also indicate photoionization. There 

598: %%%%%   is no obvious feature at 0.871 keV, the expected energy of O VIII RRC (upper limit of XXX eV in EW relative

599: %%%%  to a local continuum).

600: %%%%% O VII RRC appears at 0.739 keV. However, this energy is the same as that for

601: %%%%% Fe XVII 3s--2p 1P1 emission line. 

602: %%%%  The emission line observed in the Cen A spectrum at 0.732 keV is likely a blend of Fe 17 emission lines,

603: %%%%% though we formerly cannot rule out a contribution from O 7 RRC (upper limit of XXX eV)

604: 

605: Attempting to model the soft band emission with a single-temperature

606: {\sc vapec} component, with all abundances fixed at solar,

607: also did not yield an acceptable fit. In Model 4,

608: we tried two {\sc vapec} components, henceforth denoted VAPEC1 and VAPEC2.

609: The best-fit model had temperatures of

610: $k_{\rm B}T$ $\sim$ 0.2 keV, to model the He- and H-like O lines,

611: and $k_{\rm B}T$ $\sim$ 0.6 keV, to model the Fe L and He- and H-like Ne lines. 

612: However, $\chi^2$/$dof$ was still high, 10395/9160, and there

613: were still large residuals $<$0.7 keV.

614: 

615: 

616: It is plausible that some optically-thin circumnuclear material 

617: may scatter some of the hard X-ray continuum; a scattered power-law

618: component was included in the best-fit model of Turner \et\ (1997), 

619: for instance. In addition to the two {\sc vapec} components, 

620: we added a third power law (PL3), with photon index $\Gamma_3$ tied to

621: $\Gamma_1$, assuming that

622: PL3 undergoes no absorption in excess of the Galactic column. 

623: Here $\chi^2$/$dof$ was high: 10158/9161. Untying $\Gamma_3$ improved the fit considerably:

624: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 9806.8/9158; $\Gamma_3$ was 1.16$^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ (Model 5).

625: 

626: However, it is plausible that PL3 does undergo some absorption

627: in the host galaxy, so we added a {\sc zvphabs} component to PL3,

628: and refit with $\Gamma_3$ tied to $\Gamma_1$. 

629: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 9798.9/9160. The column density of the third

630: absorber, $\nh$$_3$, was 0.13$\pm$0.06 $\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. The 1 keV normalization of PL3

631: was 0.8$\%$ of the sum of the normalizations of PL1 and PL2.

632: Untying $\Gamma_3$ improved the fit considerably:

633: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 9745.1/9159,

634: $\Gamma_3$ was 1.28$^{+0.08}_{-0.12}$, and $\nh$$_3$ was $<$0.03 $\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ 

635: (Model 6). All of the improvement in the fit

636: when $\Gamma_3$ was thawed came at energies below 2 keV.

637: PL3 likely represents a blend of scattered emission 

638: (likely $\lesssim$ 0.8$\%$ of the total nuclear 

639: hard X-ray continuum) plus X-ray emission associated with the kpc-scale jet, with perhaps some

640: contribution from XRBs or ULXs in the inner 2 kpc of the host galaxy.

641: As we have achieved a much better fit with collisional rather than

642: photoionization models, we will henceforth assume the soft emission lines are collisional in nature, although 

643: we cannot rule out, e.g., that some portion of the O {\sc VII} and O {\sc VIII}

644: emission lines may be due to photoionization,  or that there may be a small contribution from 

645: a O {\sc VII} radiative recombination continuum feature to the observed Fe {\sc XVII} 3s--2p emission complex at 0.732$^{+0.004}_{-0.006}$ keV.

646: For the moment, we adopt Model 6 as our new baseline broadband model. Best-fit parameters for

647: Models 5 and 6 are listed in Table 2. Data/model residuals for Models

648: 3, 4, and 6 are shown in Figure 5. 

649: 

650: \subsubsection{Hard X-ray continuum emission}

651: 

652: Evans \et\ (2004) fit the hard X-ray {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton}

653: data with a dual power-law model, wherein

654: $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ differed by about 0.3.

655: We untied $\Gamma_2$ from $\Gamma_1$. 

656: However, compared to Model 6, $\chi^2$ only dropped by 1.4,

657: and the best-fit values of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$

658: were consistent; the uncertainty on $\Gamma_2$ was $\pm$0.24.

659: In subsequent fits, we will continue to fix $\Gamma_2$=$\Gamma_1$.

660:  

661: There has been no strong evidence from past observations for a

662: strong Compton reflection hump in Cen A. We added a Compton

663: reflection component to Model 6 using {\sc PEXRAV},

664: keeping the input normalization equal to that of PL 1, 

665: the inclination fixed at 30$\degr$, the high-energy cutoff fixed at 400 keV,

666: assuming solar abundances, and leaving the PIN/XIS2 normalization free.

667: The best fit-model preferred a value of the reflection fraction $R$

668: (defined as $\Omega$/2$\pi$, where $\Omega$ is the solid

669: angle subtended by the reflector) of 0, with

670: an upper limit of 0.05, consistent with

671: previous suggestions that the Fe K$\alpha$ line originates in

672: Compton-thin material. This limit is identical to that obtained

673: by Benlloch \et\ (2001) using {\it Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer} ({\it RXTE}) 

674: data. Contour plots of $R$ versus $\Gamma_1$ and versus 

675: the PIN/XIS2 relative instrument normalization are shown in 

676: Figure 6.

677: 

678: Using {\it CGRO} OSSE, 

679: Kinzer \et\ (1995) found evidence for a high-energy

680: cutoff which appeared at 300 keV to $\sim$700 keV in

681: the highest- to lowest-flux states, respectively.

682: In addition, Steinle \et\ (1998) fitted data combined from

683: {\it CGRO} OSSE, COMPTEL and EGRET;

684: one of the spectral breaks they found occurred 

685: near 150 keV, with the spectral index $\alpha$ changing from

686: 1.74$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ below the break to

687: 2.3$\pm$0.1 above it.

688: Keeping the cutoff energies for PL1 and PL2 in Model 6

689: equal to each other, we found a lower limit of 400 keV to any

690: break in the power law.

691: Future improvements to background modeling of the GSO

692: may eventually allow us to establish more strict constraints.

693: 

694: 

695: \subsection{Hard X-ray emission lines and absorption edges}

696: 

697: In addition to that from Fe, fluorescent K$\alpha$ lines from

698: Si and S have been claimed by Sugizaki \et\ (1997) and Evans \et\ (2004).

699: We added five more Gaussians, each with width tied

700: to that of the Fe K$\alpha$ line; it was significant

701: at $>$90$\%$ confidence according to the $F$-test to add each line.

702: The centroid energies are consistent with K$\alpha$ emission from

703: Si, S, Ca, Ar, and Ni; detection of the latter three lines are

704: reported here for the first time. 

705: The decrease in $\chi^2$ for each line, including the 

706: Fe K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ lines,

707: along with energy centroids, fluxes, and observed equivalent widths

708: $EW_{\rm obs}$, are listed in Table 3.

709: In the case of Si, we caution that since data near 1.8 keV have been ignored due to  

710: calibration uncertainties, 

711: values of flux and equivalent width may be uncertain

712: (e.g., some fraction of the large value of $\Delta\chi^2$ may be

713: due to calibration uncertainties).

714: The detection of the Ni line is robust:

715: there does exist a Ni K$\alpha$ line in the NEP background

716: spectrum, but it is 200 times fainter than the source spectrum line.

717: Data/model residuals to models with all six K$\alpha$ lines

718: and the Fe K$\beta$ line removed are shown in Figures 7--9.

719: 

720: The Fe K$\alpha$ line has a best-fit measured width of 14 eV, 

721: although formally the value is

722: only an upper limit, 24 eV. The intrinsic width of the line is then found

723: by subtracting in quadrature

724: the $^{55}$Fe calibration line width of 9$^{+6}_{-2}$ eV

725: from the measured line width. We infer an intrinsic line 

726: width of $<$ 23 eV, which corresponds to a FWHM velocity of 

727: $<$2500 km s$^{-1}$.

728: 

729: We next explored the abundances of the 

730: hard X-ray absorbers (Model 7). The K-shell edges for

731: Fe, Ca, and S are detected at $>$99.999$\%$ confidence, determined by

732: setting each {\sc zvphabs} abundance value to 0 and refitting. 

733: The detection of the Ca K edge is likely robust: the response of a line at 6.4 keV

734: includes a Si escape feature near 4.5 keV, but it is a factor of 

735: more than 50 fainter

736: than the continuum and likely does not influence the Ca edge.

737: The intrinsically weak Ar K and Ni K edges are not detected 

738: at high confidence; in the latter case, the

739: decrease in the effective area of the XIS 

740: above 8 keV is also a factor.

741: We re-fit the data, allowing $Z_{\rm Fe}$,

742: $Z_{\rm Ca}$, and $Z_{\rm S}$ to vary,

743: and keeping the abundances of all three absorbers

744: tied to each other for simplicity.

745: We also kept all other abundances fixed at solar.

746: Best-fit model parameters for Model 7 are listed in Table 2; the edges are also

747: displayed in Figures 7--9.

748: The abundance results are listed in Table 4; note that the Fe abundance

749: is inconsistent with solar at 3$\sigma$ confidence.

750: Given the column density of the absorbing material and the 2--3 keV rollover,

751: most of the rollover is the result of absorption by K-shell O

752: (with some contributions to the total opacity from

753: K-shell Ne and L-shell Fe). We are thus actually measuring

754: abundances relative primarily to O, not to H. The abundances listed

755: relative to H in Table 4 implicitly assume $Z_{\rm O}$ = 1.0.

756: 

757: To find the equivalent optical depth for each edge, we 

758: re-fit the data with $Z_{\rm Fe}$,

759: $Z_{\rm Ca}$, and $Z_{\rm S}$ set to zero in the {\sc zvphabs} components, but with

760: edges at the appropriate energies. The results, listed in Table 4, show that

761: the energy of each edge is consistent with absorption by neutral atoms.

762: 

763: The Fe K$\beta$/K$\alpha$ intensity ratio can yield insight into the

764: ionization state of the line-emitting gas. However, in the present spectrum,

765: the K$\beta$ line is somewhat blended with the Fe K edge.

766: However, we note that the Fe K edge energy and depth are robust to the properties of

767: the K$\beta$ line, and the energy can be used to constrain the ionization state

768: of the material, as discussed further in $\S$4.

769: 

770: We searched for any possible Compton shoulder to the Fe K$\alpha$ line by 

771: adding a Gaussian near 6.24 keV, but there was no improvement in the fit.

772: We find an upper limit of 1.7$\times$10$^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$

773: to Compton shoulder emission ($EW$ $<$ 10 eV, determined relative to a

774: locally-fit continuum).

775: 

776: Grandi \et\ (2003) claimed emission due to ionized Fe

777: near 6.8 keV using {\it BeppoSAX}. We added a narrow 

778: Gaussian at the rest energies of Fe {\sc XXV} and Fe {\sc XXVI}, 

779: with no change in the fit statistic in either case;

780: upper limits to the $EW$ of emission lines were 3 and 1 eV, respectively.

781: 

782: 

783: \subsection{Abundances of the thermal plasma}

784: 

785: We next explored the abundances $Z$ 

786: of the thermal plasma relative to solar values.

787: Abundances for the VAPEC1 and VAPEC2 components were kept tied

788: to each other. We thawed one element at a time from solar, while

789: assuming solar abundances for all other elements.

790: Abundances relative to H can be measured accurately

791: if the continuum is well-determined and the thermal emission

792: is not too heavily dominated by lines.

793: Given the presence of PL3, one must keep in

794: mind that there could be systematic effects

795: associated with some derived abundance values. 

796: 

797: We did not find any strong evidence for non-solar abundances for

798: C, N, or O. The best chance to constrain $Z_{\rm C}$ in our model is via the

799: C {\sc VI} Ly $\alpha$

800: and Ly $\beta$ lines at 0.368 and 0.436 keV, respectively.

801: However, there are very few counts at these energies, and the

802: PL3 component dominates at these energies. 

803: Similarly, $Z_{\rm N}$ could, in principle, be constrained via the

804: N {\sc VII} Ly$\alpha$ line, but the line is not robustly detected. 

805: Allowing $Z_{\rm O}$ to vary resulted in a best-fit value of

806: 0.95$\pm$0.35 solar, with $\chi^2$ decreasing by only 1.7.

807: We assume $Z_{\rm C}$, $Z_{\rm N}$ and $Z_{\rm O}$ are solar 

808: for the rest of the paper.

809: 

810: We did not test the Si abundance: Si {\sc XIII} emission cannot be

811: constrained, as we have ignored data near the Si K instrument edge.

812: The best-fit model does predict a modest Si {\sc XIV} emission line

813: at 2.05 keV, but at that energy, the PL3 component and the

814: absorbed hard X-ray power laws dominate.

815: 

816: In addition to Fe {\sc XVII} emission lines,

817: Fe is also responsible for a large bump in the continuum emission

818: from about 0.7 to 1.0 keV. Adjusting the Fe abundance

819: causes the PL3 component to vary in normalization to

820: compensate, creating systematic uncertainty 

821: to $Z_{\rm Fe}$ derived from L-shell emission.

822: %%%%% Thawing $Z_{\rm Fe}$ resulted in a fit improvement of 

823: %%%%% $\Delta$$\chi^2$=2.1, with a best-fit value of $Z_{\rm Fe}$ = 0.95$\pm$0.10. 

824: We henceforth rely on the 

825: abundance determined using the K-edge depth ($\S$3.3). 

826: 

827: We did, however, find significant improvements to the fit when the

828: Ne or Mg abundances were varied.

829: In the case of Ne, the best-fit abundance was 2.7$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ solar;

830: $\chi^2$ decreased by 71 ($F$-test probability 2$\times$10$^{-15}$).

831: For Mg, the best-fit abundance was 1.6$\pm$0.3 solar,

832: with $\chi^2$ decreasing by 19 ($F$-test probability 2$\times$10$^{-5}$).

833: 

834: We re-fit the data with the Ne and Mg abundances in VAPEC1 and VAPEC2 thawed

835: (Model 8).

836: We left the {\sc vapec} abundances for C, N, O, Si, and Fe fixed at solar (fixing

837: $Z_{\rm Fe}$ at 1.17, the value derived from the Fe K edge, had minimal impact).

838: In the best-fit model, $Z_{\rm Ne}$ and 

839: $Z_{\rm Mg}$ were 2.7$\pm$0.3, and 1.9$\pm$0.4, 

840: respectively. The temperature of the VAPEC2 component fell slightly to 

841: 0.56$^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$ keV.

842: With the exception of these parameters, all other previously-derived 

843: parameters did not change significantly compared to Model 7.

844: The best-fit parameters for Model 8 are listed in Table 2.

845: A contour plot of $\nh$$_1$ versus the photon index and normalization

846: of the primary power law is shown in Figure 10.

847: An unfolded model spectrum is plotted in Figure 11.

848: 

849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

850:  

851: \subsection{Continuum variability}

852: 

853: Having decomposed the broadband spectrum, it is natural to ask

854: whether the observed 2--10 keV variability (see Figure 1)

855: is due to variations in the flux of PL1, PL2, or both.

856: Figure 12 shows the 2--4 and 5--10 keV light curves,

857: summed over all four XISes and normalized by their respective means; 

858: the 2--4 keV band is dominated by PL1; 

859: PL3, a component that is not expected to display short-term variability,

860: is an average factor of 30 times fainter in this band.

861: In the 5--10 keV band, PL1 is a factor of roughly 6 times 

862: brighter than PL2. 

863: Fractional variability amplitudes for these two

864: bands are similar: $F_{\rm var,2-4}$ = 3.0 $\pm$ 0.2$\%$ and

865: $F_{\rm var,5-10}$ = 3.5 $\pm$ 0.1 $\%$.

866: Moreover, one can see that the two mean-normalized light curves display

867: virtually identical variability trends.

868: 

869: 

870: The fact that the 2--4 keV band varies implies that PL1 does vary

871: in flux. If PL2 is constant or only negligibly variable, 

872: then variability in the 5--10 keV should be diluted

873: relative to that in the 2--4 keV band\footnote{If a lightcurve $C$ consists of 

874: a variable component $A$ plus a constant component $B$,

875: then $F_{\rm var} (C)$ will be equal to 

876: $F_{\rm var} (A) / (1 + \frac{\mu_B}{\mu_A})$, 

877: where $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$ are the average count rates of lightcurves 

878: $A$ and $B$, respectively. For instance, in the case of Cen A, if PL1

879: is an average of 6 times brighter than PL2 in the 5--10 keV band, 

880: and PL2 is constant,

881: than $F_{\rm var,5-10}$ should be $6/7 \times F_{\rm var}$(PL1) 

882: (assuming emission from PL3 is negligible).}.

883: However, it is not the case that

884: $F_{\rm var,5-10}$ is significantly lower than $F_{\rm var,2-4}$;

885: in fact, $F_{\rm var,5-10}$ is slightly higher than $F_{\rm var,2-4}$.

886: On the other hand, with such small $F_{\rm var}$ values 

887: and the fact that PL1 is so much brighter than PL2, it is 

888: difficult to accurately conclude anything about whether PL2 is constant,

889: as variable, or more variable than PL1.

890: 

891: While we have confirmed that PL1 varies,

892: the similarity in $F_{\rm var}$ for both bands

893: and the similarity in variability trends

894: means we cannot rule out the idea that both PL1 and PL2

895: vary in concert, as expected if a partial-covering scenario applies.

896: Further progress can be made through continued broadband monitoring

897: spanning a larger flux range. 

898: 

899: 

900: 

901: \section{Discussion}

902: 

903: The broad bandpass of the XIS and HXD aboard {\it Suzaku} has allowed us to obtain

904: a high-quality spectrum spanning nearly 3 decades in photon energy.

905: The long exposure time, narrow response,

906: and the low background make the XIS spectrum

907: one of the highest quality CCD spectra of Cen A to

908: date, particularly below 2 keV.

909: 

910: In $\S$4.1, we compare our results to other recent works to

911: test for evidence of long-term variations in several observed parameters.

912: The dual power laws that dominate the hard X-rays, and the material that absorbs them,

913: are both discussed in $\S$4.2. That same absorbing material is likely the origin of the

914: fluorescent emission lines; the nature of the Fe K$\alpha$ line is discussed in $\S$4.3.

915: The soft X-ray emission from the thermal plasma is discussed in $\S$4.4. 

916: Finally, in $\S$4.5, element abundances are derived from the hard X-ray absorption edges 

917: and fluorescent emission lines, the first time abundances in the absorbing gas of Cen A

918: have been measured. In conjunction with abundances measured using the

919: thermal plasma lines, 

920: we show that the abundances are consistent with enrichment from star formation.

921: 

922: 

923: \subsection{Comparison to previous observations}

924: 

925: 

926: We can compare our results to previous works to search for any variations in flux, photon index, 

927: column densities, and Fe K$\alpha$ line flux. 

928: 

929: We find an absorbed 2--10 keV flux of 2.12$\times$10$^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,

930: similar to values obtained by Rothschild \et\ (2006) for {\it RXTE} and {\it INTEGRAL}

931: observations of Cen A between 2003 and 2004. We find a 20--100 keV flux of 6.4$\times$10$^{-10}$ 

932: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, within the range of 20--100 keV fluxes measured by Rothschild \et\ (2006).

933: We measure an unabsorbed 4--7 keV continuum flux of 1.5$\times$10$^{-10}$ 

934: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and a 2--10 keV absorbed luminosity of 

935: 2.9$\times$10$^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, values almost identical to those 

936: found by Evans \et\ (2004) during the 2001 {\it XMM-Newton} observation.

937: These facts suggest the source has not varied in hard X-ray flux greatly over 

938: the last 5 years.

939: 

940: The photon index, power-law normalization, and absorbing column density

941: of the primary (brighter) power law, PL1, are all similar to values obtained

942: by Rothschild \et\ (2006). Evans \et\ (2004), modeling

943: {\it XMM-Newton} observations in 2001 and 2002 and a {\it Chandra}

944: observation in 2002, fit partial-covering models ($\Gamma_1$=$\Gamma_2$) and

945: dual power-law models ($\Gamma_2$ not tied to $\Gamma_1$). In all previous observations, the

946: parameters of the primary power law and its absorber

947: are very similar to those for the {\it Suzaku} observation, suggesting

948: a lack of strong variations over the last 5 years. 

949: 

950: The $EW_{\rm obs}$ of the Fe K$\alpha$ line in the {\it Suzaku} observation

951: is consistent with that measured from the {\it XMM-Newton} observations;

952: we measure the Fe K$\alpha$ line intensity to be

953: 2.32 $\pm$ 0.1 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and the

954: unabsorbed Fe K$\alpha$ flux to be 2.6$\times$10$^{-12}$ erg

955: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, consistent with the {\it Chandra} and 2001 {\it XMM-Newton}

956: observations (Evans \et\ 2004). 

957: Our $EW_{\rm obs}$ values for the Si and S lines are consistent with

958: those obtained using {\it Chandra} HETGS.

959: The {\it Suzaku} observation thus shows no evidence for variability of

960: the Fe, Si, or S K$\alpha$ lines compared to the 2001--2002 observations.

961:     

962: 

963: \subsection{Continuum emission components}

964: 

965: We now turn our attention to the nature of the two hard X-ray power laws, PL1 and PL2, and the less-absorbed, 

966: soft X-ray power law PL3. The absorbers for PL1 and PL2 are similar in column density to absorbers seen in some 

967: other radio galaxies (Wozniak \et\ 1998). Cen A's dust lane provides an optical extinction of 3--6 mag, which, 

968: assuming a Galactic gas/dust ratio, corresponds to a column $N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 5--10 $\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. 

969: The circumnuclear material within a few hundred pc of the black hole, however, is believed to have a much higher 

970: column, $\sim$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. Both hard X-ray absorbers are thus more likely associated with the circumnuclear 

971: material than the optical dust lane; PL3, meanwhile, is consistent with absorption by the optical dust lane only.

972: 

973: Historically, it has not been clear whether the X-ray emission is associated with jet or accretion processes. As far 

974: as jet emission is concerned, several papers in the 1980s (e.g., Burns \et\ 1983) suggested that the X-ray emission 

975: was synchrotron emission. However, by constructing the broadband SED, Chiaberge \et\ (2001) concluded that the X-ray 

976: continuum was primarily inverse Compton emission, with the synchrotron component peaking in the far-IR and falling by 

977: 10$^{15-16}$ Hz. We can gauge whether one or more of the three power laws observed by {\it Suzaku} are consistent with X-ray 

978: emission from a jet by using the radio--X-ray luminosity density correlations of Canosa \et\ (1999) and Evans \et\ (2006), 

979: which are based on samples of low-redshift radio galaxies. The total 5 GHz luminosity density of the nucleus of Cen A is 

980: $\sim$6$\times$10$^{20}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ (e.g., Evans \et\ 2006). This value corresponds to a 1 keV luminosity density 

981: of $\sim$1--2$\times$10$^{14}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$. The 1 keV power-law normalizations for PL1, PL2, and PL3 correspond to, 

982: respectively, 1 keV flux densities of 70, 12 and 0.4 $\mu$Jy, or 1 keV luminosity densities of $\sim$ 8$\times$10$^{15}$, 

983: 1$\times$10$^{15}$, and 4$\times$10$^{13}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$. It is therefore plausible that PL3 could correspond to 

984: jet emission. The X-ray luminosity density of PL2 places it an order of magnitude above the Canosa \et\ (1999) and Evans 

985: \et\ (2006) relations; however, given that there is roughly an order of magnitude of scatter in the relations, it is still 

986: possible that PL2 could be associated with jet emission,

987: 

988: We can now revisit previous suggestions that there could exist two physically distinct sites of hard X-ray continuum emission.

989: Our best-fit model indicates components with unabsorbed 2--10 keV luminosities of 6.7$\times$10$^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (PL1) and 

990: 1.3$\times$10$^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (PL2), each independently absorbed by different columns. Evans \et\ (2004) suggested that 

991: the primary power law, PL1, arises via Bondi accretion onto the black hole, consistent with the low accretion rate of Cen A 

992: (0.2$\%$ of Eddington), and consistent with PL1 representing X-ray emission far in excess above what is expected from jet emission.

993: Evans \et\ (2004) also suggested that their secondary power-law component could be associated with X-ray emission from the 

994: pc-scale jet. Our PL2 component has a 1 keV normalization $\gtrsim$ 3 times higher and an absorbing column density a factor 

995: of $\gtrsim$10 higher compared to the secondary power-law component detected by Evans \et\ (2004). However, a one-to-one 

996: correspondence between our PL2 and the {\it Chandra}/{\it XMM-Newton} secondary power law is highly uncertain. We are 

997: using larger PSFs and extraction radii than Evans \et\ (2004); the secondary power-law component detected by Evans \et\ (2004)  

998: could be overwhelmed by non-nuclear emission (e.g., what we detect as PL3) in the {\it Suzaku} spectrum. Meanwhile, 

999: {\it Chandra} HETGS's low effective area $>$ 5 keV makes it relatively insensitive to the presence of a power-law component

1000: absorbed by a column 7$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.  It is therefore possible, though not certain, that PL2 could correspond 

1001: to X-ray emission associated with the pc-scale jet. In the soft X-rays, PL3 could be the sum of diffuse X-ray emission and 

1002: knots within the kpc scale jet, scattered nuclear emission, and emission from other point sources resolved by {\it Chandra} ACIS. 

1003: The 0.5--3 keV luminosity of PL3 is $ 1 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, similar to the sum of the jet and knot component 

1004: luminosities as reported by Kraft \et\ (2002) and Kataoka \et\ (2006). PL3 may additionally reflect uncertainties in modeling 

1005: the thermal gas. 

1006: 

1007: Alternatively, as suggested by Turner \et\ (1997), a partial-covering model, with only one site of 

1008: hard X-ray emission, is applicable, as the photon indices of PL1 and PL2 are consistent.

1009: Our best-fit model is consistent with the idea that the central hard X-ray source is powered by accretion.

1010: 84$\%$ of the sky as seen from the central hard X-ray source

1011: is covered by a column 1.5$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$,

1012: and the remaining 16$\%$ by a column 7$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. In this model, PL3 

1013: represents the sum of X-ray emission from both the kpc-scale and pc-scale jets, any

1014: scattered nuclear emission, jet knots, XRBs and other point sources, all modified by dust lane absorption,

1015: along with any uncertainty in modeling the thermal gas. 

1016: 

1017: Finally, we comment on the absence of a strong Compton reflection component.

1018: The low $R$ value could of course indicate the absence of a large amount of 

1019: Compton-thick material that is brightly illuminated by the primary continuum

1020: and also efficiently radiates the reflection continuum. 

1021: An alternate suggestion is that the Compton hump is

1022: diluted by a power-law component, e.g., from one of the

1023: jets. However, the large Fe line flux observed is inconsistent with

1024: this notion. In addition, Wozniak \et\ (1998) demonstrated that

1025: spectral fitting of several radio galaxies

1026: that also displayed weak or non-existent Compton humps

1027: is inconsistent with this notion.

1028: 

1029: 

1030: \subsection{The origin of the Fe K$\alpha$ line}

1031: 

1032: Assuming that the line originates in gas that is in virialized

1033: orbit around the black hole, we can

1034: estimate the distance $r$ from the black hole to the Fe K$\alpha$ 

1035: line-emitting gas. The width of the Fe K$\alpha$ line corresponds to a

1036: FWHM velocity $v_{\rm FWHM}$ of $<$2500 km s$^{-1}$.

1037: Assuming that the velocity dispersion is related to

1038: $v_{\rm FWHM}$ as $<$$v^2$$>$ = $\frac{3}{4}v^2_{\rm FWHM}$ (Netzer \et\ 1990),

1039: assuming a black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$ of 

1040: 2$\times$10$^8$ $\Msun$, and using

1041: $G$$M_{\rm BH}$ = $r$$v^2$, we find a lower limit to $r$ of 

1042: 6$\times$10$^{15}$ m = 200 light-days.

1043: The best-fit edge energy, 7.103$\pm$0.015 keV, is consistent with absorption by Fe {\sc I},

1044: although ionization stages up to Fe $\sim${\sc V} cannot be ruled out (Kallman \et\ 2004). 

1045: 

1046: 

1047: It is plausible that the same material that absorbs the hard X-rays

1048: is responsible for producing the fluorescent lines.

1049: The fact that no Compton hump or 6.2 keV Compton shoulder

1050: are seen, indicating an origin for the Fe K$\alpha$ line in Compton-thin

1051: material, supports this notion. 

1052: On the other hand, the material cannot have a column substantially less than

1053: 10$^{\sim 22}$ cm$^{-2}$ or else there would be insufficient optical depth

1054: to produce a prominent Fe K line.

1055: As an estimate of the Fe K$\alpha$ equivalent width expected in this case, we can use the following equation:

1056: \begin{equation}

1057: EW_{\rm calc} = f_{\rm c} \omega f_{\rm K\alpha} A \frac{\int^{\infty}_{E_{\rm K edge}}P(E) \sigma_{\rm ph}(E) N_{\rm H} dE}{P(E_{\rm line})}

1058: \end{equation}

1059: This method assumes an origin in optically-thin gas that completely surrounds a 

1060: single X-ray continuum source and is uniform in column density. 

1061: Emission is assumed to be isotropic.

1062: Here, $f_{\rm c}$ is the covering fraction, initially assumed to be 1.0.

1063: $\omega$ is the fluorescent yield: the value for Fe, 0.34, was taken from 

1064: Kallman \et\ (2004). $f_{\rm K\alpha}$ is the fraction of photons that go into the K$\alpha$ line

1065: as opposed to the K$\beta$ line; this is 0.89 for Fe {\sc I}.

1066: $A$ is the number abundance relative to hydrogen. 

1067: Initially, we assumed solar abundances, using Lodders (2003).

1068: $P(E)$ is the spectrum of the illuminating continuum at energy $E$;

1069: $E_{\rm line}$ is the K$\alpha$ emission line energy.

1070: The illuminating continuum is assumed to be the sum of both unabsorbed hard X-ray

1071: power-law components in Cen A, as $EW_{\rm obs}$ values were determined relative to

1072: the total, local continuum. 

1073: We note that the fainter power-law component cannot reproduce the

1074: entire Fe line as $EW_{\rm obs}$ is too large; the primary power law

1075: must be responsible for the bulk of the line. Finally, 

1076: $\sigma_{\rm ph}(E)$ is the photoionization cross section 

1077: assuming absorption by K-shell electrons only; all cross sections were taken

1078: from Veigele (1973\footnote{http://www.pa.uky.edu/$\sim$verner/photo.html}).

1079: $N_{\rm H}$ is the column density. The two hard X-ray absorbing components 

1080: in Model 8 have column densities 1.5 and 7 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, which attenuate 

1081: power laws with normalizations in a 5.3:1 ratio. We therefore use a weighted average 

1082: $N_{\rm H}$ column of 2.2 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1083: (Strictly speaking, 

1084: the observation in Cen A of two different column densities argues against

1085: the use of a single, uniform column; however, this weighted average suffices for our purpose

1086: of estimating the total Fe K$\alpha$ $EW$ expected from both absorbers.)

1087: 

1088: 

1089: The value of $EW_{\rm calc}$ is 128 eV, a factor of 1.5 higher than

1090: $EW_{\rm obs}$.  Assuming that $Z_{\rm Fe}$ = 1.17, 

1091: as the Fe K absorption edge depth suggests, yields $EW_{\rm calc}$ = 153 eV.

1092: Possible explanations for this discrepancy include the following:

1093: (1) The initial assumption of a 100$\%$ covering fraction for the line-emitting

1094: gas may be incorrect. Assuming isotropic emission, $f_{\rm c}$ = 0.7 ($Z_{\rm Fe}$ = 1.0) or

1095: 0.6 ($Z_{\rm Fe}$=1.17) may fit the data. Such values would be more consistent with

1096: an origin in a disk as opposed to a shell completely surrounding the core.

1097: (2) The illuminating X-ray continuum may be anisotropic. For instance, 

1098: Rothschild \et\ (2006) found that $I_{\rm K\alpha}$ was not correlated

1099: with $N_{\rm H}$ and suggested that the line-emitting gas

1100: may lie along the VLBI jet some distance from the black hole.

1101: (3) The line-emitting gas may be responding to an illuminating flux that 

1102: is $\sim$0.6 of the observed flux. This is possible, for instance, if

1103: the line-emitting gas is $\gtrsim$200 light-days from the X-ray continuum origin,

1104: and does not lie on our line of sight to the continuum origin; the observed line flux

1105: is a response to the continuum flux convolved with a $>$200-day time delay.

1106: {\it Swift}/BAT monitoring indicates that the average 14--195 keV flux of Cen A in early 2005

1107: was very roughly 15$\%$ higher compared to the flux in 2005 August (private communcation from the {\it Swift} team in 2007\footnote{See also

1108: the {\it Swift}/BAT Transient Monitoring web page, http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/results/transients/}),

1109: possibly explaining some of the line flux discrepancy.

1110: %%%% However, it is not obvious that this is the case, as the 2--10 keV flux measured by

1111: %%%% {\it Suzaku} is generally consistent

1112: %%%% with fluxes measured by other missions between 2001 and 2004, as noted in $\S$4.1.

1113: Continued long-term monitoring of the continuum and line fluxes may shed light on this issue.

1114: Alternatively, the line of sight from the continuum origin to the line-emitting

1115: gas may be blocked, by a clump of gas 

1116: that absorbs 40$\%$ of the $>$7 keV flux and that 

1117: does not lie along our line of sight to the continuum.

1118: (4) It is plausible that our initial assumption of a uniform-column density absorber is incorrect and

1119: the absorbers are instead clumpy; this is 

1120: more consistent with the observation of two different columns.

1121: There could be higher columns lying out of our line of sight

1122: to the X-ray continuum source. For instance, 

1123: we can use Eq.\ 1 of Wozniak \et\ (1998), which gives the expected Fe K$\alpha$ intensity assuming a cloud 

1124: with a column $\gtrsim$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ lying off the line of sight and subtending

1125: a fraction $\Omega/4\pi$ of the sky as seen from the source, as a function of the 

1126: K edge optical depth and the spectral index and normalization of the illuminating continuum.

1127: We find that a solid angle of $\Omega/4\pi$ $\sim$ 0.5 yields a predicted

1128: line intensity compatible with what {\it Suzaku} observes.

1129: Such a covering fraction suggests a torus or some sort of infinite slab, e.g., a 

1130: disk-like structure, although the current data cannot constrain whether

1131: such a disk would be in the form of a ``standard'' optically-thick, geometrically-thin

1132: disk at all radii or a ``disk + sphere'' hybrid (e.g., Esin, McClintock \& 

1133: Narayan 1997), wherein the inner parts of a standard thin disk are replaced by 

1134: a radiatively-inefficient flow such as an advection dominated accretion flow (Narayan \& Yi 1995).

1135: 

1136: %%%% It is interesting to note that Evans \et\ (2004) suggest that, based on the observed

1137: %%%% accretion rate, the Bondi accretion mode would favor a high efficiency

1138: %%%% flow in the form of a disk.

1139: 

1140: 

1141: 

1142: 

1143: 

1144: 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: 

1148: 

1149: \subsection{Soft X-ray emission from the thermal plasma}

1150: 

1151: The {\it Suzaku} XIS has yielded the best

1152: soft X-ray spectrum obtained to date for Cen A, revealing 

1153: emission lines that likely originate in the thermal plasma

1154: that extends from the nucleus to a radius of $\sim$6 kpc.

1155: At least the inner parts of the gas are likely heated by the AGN

1156: central engine and/or the nuclear starburst;

1157: O'Sullivan, Ponman \& Collins (2003) demonstrated

1158: that the gas in the central 2 kpc of Cen A has a much higher 

1159: temperature then the $>$2 to 14 kpc gas in the halo.

1160: %%%% (5 keV versus $\sim$0.5 keV). 

1161: 

1162: Photoionization does not yield as good a fit to the

1163: {\it Suzaku} data as collisional ionization models, 

1164: as the former cannot reproduce the strong observed Fe L emission

1165: complex. Specifically, to obtain a good 

1166: model fit, we have assumed that the emission is entirely collisional in nature,

1167: and used  a two-temperature

1168: {\sc VAPEC} model with $k_{\rm B}T$ near 0.2 and 0.6 keV.

1169: This is similar to results obtained in a wide variety of

1170: spiral and starburst galaxies (see references in Strickland \et\ 2004).

1171: However, we are likely sampling

1172: thermal emission from plasma spanning a range of temperatures.

1173: For example, the soft X-rays are likely 

1174: not completely dominated by emission from gas with $k_{\rm B}T$

1175: above 0.6 keV, or else we would detect 

1176: a H-like Mg line at least as intense as the He-like Mg line,

1177: and the He-like Ne line would be extremely faint.

1178: Similarly, emission from gas with $k_{\rm B}T$ $<$ 0.20 keV

1179: does not dominate, as the Ne {\sc X} would be extremely faint.  

1180: 

1181: 

1182: 

1183: \subsection{Constraints on abundances} 

1184: 

1185: 

1186: We have derived estimates of $Z_{\rm S}$, $Z_{\rm Ca}$, and $Z_{\rm Fe}$ using the

1187: K shell edge depths, and estimates of $Z_{\rm O}$, $Z_{\rm Ne}$, and $Z_{\rm Mg}$

1188: from the thermal plasma (for the remainder of this paper,

1189: we assume that the abundances in the extended thermal plasma

1190: and in the circumnuclear absorbing material are identical).  

1191: 

1192: We can also estimate abundances relative to Fe, e.g., $Z_{\rm Si}$/$Z_{\rm Fe}$,

1193: from the K$\alpha$ fluorescent lines and Eq.\ 1.

1194: Values of $\omega$ were taken from the X-ray Data Booklet\footnote{http://xdb.lbl.gov}.

1195: For Ni and Ca,  $f_{\rm K\alpha}$ = 0.89 and 0.88, respectively, assuming neutral atoms (Bambynek \et\ 1972).

1196: We assume $f_{\rm K\alpha}$ = 0.9 for all other elements.

1197: The values of $EW_{\rm calc}$, calculated assuming solar abundances and a covering fraction $f_{\rm c}$=1.0,

1198: are listed in Table 3. 

1199: 

1200: Relative abundances are calculated as, e.g., $Z_{\rm Si}$/$Z_{\rm Fe}$ = 

1201: ($EW_{\rm obs, Si}$/$EW_{\rm calc, Si}$) /

1202: ($EW_{\rm obs, Fe}$/$EW_{\rm calc, Fe}$), where

1203: $EW_{\rm calc, Fe}$ has been estimated using the 

1204: abundance derived from the Fe K edge depth, $Z_{\rm Fe}$=1.17, and

1205: the solar abundance was used for $EW_{\rm calc, Si}$. 

1206: We caution that 

1207: for Ar, Ca, and Ni, the lines are weak and the statistics are poor. 

1208: For Si, there may be systematic effects

1209: due to current XIS calibration as well as from the fact that

1210: the continuum near 1.7 keV is a mixture of all three power-law components.

1211: %%%% Furthermore, these values depend on $Z_{\rm Fe}$, determined using the Fe K edge.

1212: Table 5 lists the abundance ratios. There is agreement on the values of

1213: $Z_{\rm S}$/$Z_{\rm Fe}$ derived from the edges and from the lines.

1214: 

1215: We observe [m/H] = log($Z_{\rm Fe}$) = +0.1, a slightly higher metallicity 

1216: value than in the metal-rich population of globular clusters at 2--20 kpc radii

1217: ([m/H] $\sim -0.1$, Peng \et\ 2004) or in the outer stellar bulge component 

1218: (e.g., [m/H] $\sim$ --0.2 at a radius of 8 kpc, Harris \& Harris 2002).

1219: There have been previous indications of high metallicities

1220: in the central regions of Cen A, i.e., indications of 

1221: overabundances of N and O in young H {\sc II} regions in the 

1222: inner few kpc (Moellenhoff 1981).

1223: Our observed [m/H] value is only slightly 

1224: higher than values for the ISM of other 

1225: early-type galaxies (Humphrey \& Buote 2006).

1226: It is similar to values for the stellar components of large ellipticals

1227: in general, [m/H] $\sim 0.0-0.4$ 

1228: (Henry \& Worthey 1999). Trager \et\ (2000) also found the stellar populations of

1229: eight field ellipticals to have [m/H] $\sim 0.0-0.4$, though it may not be straightforward

1230: to compare Cen A to field ellipticals due to Cen A's recent merger.

1231: Our observed value of $Z_{\rm Mg}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ is consistent with the 

1232: value of 2 obtained by Peng \et\ (2004) for Cen A's globular clusters. 

1233: 

1234: However, our observed [m/H] value is much higher than the 

1235: average value (of a very wide distribution) found in the halo stars of Cen A,

1236: [m/H] = --0.4 at radii of 20--30 kpc (Harris \& Harris 2000,

1237: Harris, Harris \& Poole 1999).  

1238: It is therefore unlikely that the circumnuclear material and

1239: the diffuse plasma have directly originated in the relatively metal-poor outer halo,

1240: unless enrichment via local star formation has occurred.

1241: 

1242: The premerger origin of the circumnuclear material cannot be known for certain,

1243: although it is plausible that during the merger, gaseous material

1244: originally in the outer portions of the progenitor galaxies

1245: lost sufficient angular momentum to be transported to the nuclear regions

1246: (Toomre \& Toomre 1972). 

1247: %%% Merger simulations incorporating gas dynamics and star formation demonstrate that mergers can channel as much as half

1248: %%% the merging disks' ISM into the central regions (e.g., Mihos, Richstone \& Bothun 1992). 

1249: Furthermore, connections between the  

1250: nuclear gas and starburst activity at radii of hundreds of pc and less are well-known

1251: (e.g., Hopkins \et\ 2006 and references therein). The likelihood that Cen A's

1252: circumnuclear gas has been enriched due to starburst processes is therefore high.

1253: 

1254: 

1255: The degree of metallicity enrichment depends on many factors,

1256: including the IMF, star formation rate, and the total gas consumed,

1257: but simulations of disk-disk mergers incorporating star formation

1258: by Mihos \&  Hernquist (1994)

1259: demonstrated that [m/H] values of 0.3--0.4 at the center of 

1260: the resulting merged ellipticals are plausible.

1261: The metallicity value derived from the {\it Suzaku}

1262: data is consistent with enrichment due to the ongoing 

1263: star formation in the inner bulge,

1264: as a result of the merging process.

1265: 

1266:  

1267: The observed relative element abundances also support enrichment.

1268: We calculated the expected relative abundances due to enrichment by

1269: Type II and Type Ia SNe, ignoring enrichment via stellar wind processes.

1270: We used the abundances relative to solar as found in 

1271: Tsujimoto \et\ (1995; their Figures 1--2),

1272: assuming a Salpeter IMF, converting to the abundances of Lodders (2003), and

1273: assuming one Type Ia explosion for every 10 Type II explosions. 

1274: For the ratios listed in Table 5, 

1275: we expect $Z_{\rm O}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ $\sim$2.5,

1276: $Z_{\rm Ne}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ through $Z_{\rm Si}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ to be 1.4--1.7,

1277: and $Z_{\rm S}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ through $Z_{\rm Ca}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ and

1278: $Z_{\rm Ni}/Z_{\rm Fe}$ to all be $\sim$ 0.7--0.9.

1279: Most of our observed abundance ratios are consistent (or at least

1280: roughly consistent) with these predictions.

1281: The current burst of star formation is estimated to have started at least 50 Myr ago 

1282: (e.g., Dufour \et\ 1979).

1283: Assuming star formation at a uniform rate of 30 $\Msun$ yr$^{-1}$ (Telesco 1978

1284: measured a star formation rate 10 times that of the Milky Way's spiral arms),

1285: this is sufficient 

1286: to enrich the gas to the current metallicity levels within that time

1287: span (M.\ Loewenstein, priv.\ comm.), although we cannot know for

1288: certain how much enrichment of the gas has occurred within the last 10$^8$ yr 

1289: and how much occurred closer in time to the merger.

1290: 

1291: Finally, we discuss the argument of Hardcastle, Evans and Croston (2007) that

1292: "high-excitation" sources, which have torus-like circumnuclear absorbing gas 

1293: and which accrete at moderate fractions of the Eddington limit (e.g., FR IIs), 

1294: are fueled by a supply of cold gas, i.e., gas transported to the nucleus

1295: as a result of a merger or tidal interactions. In contrast, "low-excitation" 

1296: sources, which include all FR I's and some of the less powerful FR IIs, may be 

1297: powered by accretion of hot (X-ray emitting) gas. As mentioned before, Cen A, 

1298: although classified as an FR I, has heavy X-ray absorption characteristic of most 

1299: FR IIs. Our observation of high metallicity, indicative of cold gas being 

1300: transported inwards to the nucleus as a result of the merger, is thus consistent 

1301: with this argument of "cold-mode" accretion.

1302: 

1303: \section{Conclusions}

1304: 

1305: The combination of {\it Suzaku}'s XIS and HXD has allowed us to obtain a high-quality spectrum of 

1306: the nucleus (inner 2 kpc) of Cen A spanning 0.3--250 keV. The long exposure time, narrow response of the XIS,

1307: and low background make the XIS spectrum one of the highest quality CCD spectra of Cen A to date, 

1308: particularly below 2 keV. The HXD PIN above 12 keV is more sensitive than {\it RXTE} HEXTE or {\it INTEGRAL} 

1309: instruments, allowing us to accurately and directly measure the 12--76 keV flux and spectral shape. The 

1310: HXD GSO provides a direct estimate of the 45--250 keV flux of Cen A.

1311: 

1312: Our best-fit model includes several broadband components. The $>$3 keV emission can be fit by two absorbed power laws.

1313: The primary (brighter) power law is absorbed by a column of about 1.5$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{2}$.

1314: The secondary power law, with a brightness about 19$\%$ of the primary,

1315: is absorbed by a much higher column, about 7$\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1316: In our best-fit model, the photon indices were the same, and the best-fit value was 1.817$^{+0.023}_{-0.010}$.

1317: Untying the photon indices did not result in a significant fit improvement.

1318: Including data down to 0.3 keV, we find that two {\sc VAPEC}

1319: components plus a third absorbed power-law component

1320: can fit the data. The soft X-rays reveal emission lines due to

1321: He- and H-like O, Fe {\sc XVII}, He- and H-like Ne, and  He-like Mg.

1322: The strong Fe L emission supports an origin in collisionally ionized, 

1323: rather than photoionized, gas. Two {\sc VAPEC} components of temperatures $k_{\rm B}T$ = 0.2 and 0.6 keV

1324: can model the soft X-ray emission lines well.

1325: 

1326: The {\it Suzaku} data are consistent with scenarios previously forwarded to explain the nature of the 

1327: various power-law components. As suggested by Evans \et\ (2004), 

1328: the primary, hard X-ray power law is likely associated with Bondi accretion at the black hole.

1329: The secondary power law could represent X-ray emission associated with the pc-scale VLBI jet,

1330: although this is not certain. Alternatively, a partial-covering model, as suggested by Turner \et\ (1997), may apply:

1331: 84$\%$ (16$\%$) of the sky as seen from the X-ray source is obscured by a column 1.5 (7) $\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{2}$.

1332: In any event, it more likely that the material obscuring the hard X-rays is associated

1333: with the circumnuclear material than with the optical dust lane.

1334: The third, soft X-ray power-law component is consistent with absorption by

1335: the optical dust lane only. It likely represents a blend of

1336: diffuse emission and knot emission from the kpc-scale jet (as well as possibly the pc-scale jet),

1337: plus emission from a population of XRBs and other X-ray point sources,

1338: plus a likely contribution from scattered nuclear emission, which is likely less than 1$\%$

1339: of the total hard X-ray power-law emission. 

1340: 

1341: The hard X-ray photon index, the 2--10 keV flux, the Fe K$\alpha$ line intensity

1342: and the column density of the material

1343: absorbing the primary power law are all consistent with recent

1344: observations over the last $\sim$5 years,

1345: suggesting that no large variations in these parameters have occurred over the last few years.

1346: During the {\it Suzaku} observation, the hard X-ray flux

1347: was not strongly variable on short timescales, showing only a 10$\%$ increase in flux

1348: throughout the observation.

1349: 

1350: K-shell absorption edges due to Fe, Ca, and S are significantly detected.

1351: Several fluorescent emission lines, likely originating in 

1352: the absorbing material, 

1353: are detected. In addition to Fe K$\alpha$ and Fe K$\beta$, 

1354: K$\alpha$ lines from Si, S, Ar, Ca and Ni are detected at 

1355: at least 90$\%$ confidence. The latter three are detected

1356: for the first time in Cen A. The strict upper limit on the amount of 

1357: Compton reflection, $R < 0.05$, supports the notion that

1358: the fluorescent lines originate in Compton-thin material.

1359: The Fe K$\alpha$ line width is $<$ 2500 km s$^{-1}$ FWHM.

1360: If the line-emitting material is in virial orbit,

1361: then it is no closer than 200 light-days to the black hole.

1362: No emission due to He- or H-like Fe is detected. The Fe K edge energy

1363: is consistent with absorption by Fe {\sc I}; ionization stages 

1364: above Fe $\sim${\sc V} are ruled out. 

1365: The gas does not likely completely surround the X-ray continuum source;

1366: the equivalent width of the Fe K$\alpha$ line is more consistent

1367: with gas which is clumpy and/or covers the continuum source

1368: only partially, or the bulk of the gas may lie off the line of sight to the 

1369: X-ray source, possibly in the form of a disk.

1370: 

1371: 

1372: Metallicities are measured for the circumnuclear

1373: absorbing gas for the first time in Cen A. 

1374: The high signal-to-noise ratio of the XIS spectrum has

1375: enabled us to use the K-shell absorption edge depths,

1376: relative fluorescent line strengths, and

1377: thermal plasma emission lines to derive

1378: abundances (we have assumed that abundances in the 

1379: thermal plasma gas are the same as those for the 

1380: circumnuclear absorbing material).

1381: We observe a value of 

1382: [m/H] = log($Z_{\rm Fe}$) = +0.1 for the circumnuclear material/diffuse plasma

1383: which is much higher than for the halo stars at 20--30 kpc radii.

1384: It is likely that the merger that created Cen A's famous

1385: edge-on dust disk also triggered the infall of cold gas into the inner regions of Cen A, where it 

1386: currently accretes onto the black hole. 

1387: Our metallicity observation suggests that the accreting material could not have originated

1388: in the relatively metal-poor outer halo unless

1389: enrichment due to local star formation occurred at some point.

1390: The relative observed abundances are indeed consistent with enrichment

1391: by a mixture of Type II and Type Ia supernovae.

1392: 

1393: 

1394: %%%% The Future

1395: 

1396: %%%% This high signal-to-noise CCD observation is

1397: %%%% just a taste of what can be done with an orbiting X-ray calorimeter.

1398: %%%% In particular, {\it Constellation-X} will be able to

1399: %%%% provide abundance constraints on the circumnuclear material

1400: %%%% in potentially many dozens of AGNs once it is launched.

1401: 

1402: This high signal-to-noise ratio CCD observation 

1403: has yielded breakthroughs in constraining abundances,

1404: but further progress can be made

1405: with a very high spectral resolution instrument, such as the

1406: planned calorimeter aboard {\it Constellation-X}.

1407: By better constraining the 

1408: widths and intensities of K$\alpha$ emission lines

1409: and soft X-ray emission lines, as well as

1410: edge energies and depths,

1411: {\it Constellation-X} will thus yield

1412: abundance constraints on the

1413: circumnuclear material in potentially many dozens of AGNs once it is launched.

1414: 

1415: 

1416: 

1417: 

1418: 

1419: 

1420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1421: 

1422: \acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the

1423: dedication and hard work of the {\it Suzaku} hardware teams

1424: and operations staff for making this observation possible and

1425: for assistance with data calibration and 

1426: analysis. The authors thank the referee for useful comments

1427: and suggestions. A.M.\ thanks Rick Rothschild, Mike Loewenstein, and 

1428: Tim Kallman for useful discussions. 

1429: This research has made use of HEASARC online services, supported by

1430: NASA/GSFC. This research has also made use of the NASA/IPAC 

1431: Extragalactic Database,

1432: operated by JPL/California Institute of Technology, under

1433: contract with NASA.

1434: 

1435: \begin{references}

1436: %%%%%%\reference{angr} Anders, E.\ \& Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197

1437: \reference{B86} Bailey, J., Sparks, W.B., Hough, J.H., Axon, D.J. 1986, Nature, 322, 150

1438: \reference{B06} Balmaverde, B., Capetti, A.\ \& Grandi, P. 2006, A\&A, 451, 35

1439: \reference{B72} Bambynek, W., Crasemann, B., Fink, R., Freund, H.-U., Mark, H., Swift, C., Price, R.\ \& Rao, P.V. 1972, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. 44, 716

1440: \reference{B01} Benlloch, S., Rothschild, R., Wilms, J., Reynolds, C.S., Heindl, W.A.\ \& Staubert, R. 2001, A\&A, 371, 858

1441: \reference{B83} Burns, J.O., Feigelson, E.D.\ \& Schrier, E.J. 1983, ApJ, 273, 128

1442: \reference{C99} Canosa, C.M., Worrall, D.M., Hardcastle, M.J.\ \& Birkinshaw, M. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 30

1443: \reference{C01} Chiaberge, M., Capetti, A.\ \& Celotti, A. 2001, MNRAS, 324, L33

1444: \reference{D94} Donato, D., Sambruna, R.\ \& Gliozzi, M. 2004, ApJ, 617, 915

1445: \reference{D79} Dufour, R.J., Harvel, C.A., Martins, D.M., Schiffer, F.H.,III, Talent, D.L., Wells, D.C., van den Bergh, S.\ \&  Talbot, R.J., Jr. 1979, AJ, 84, 284

1446: \reference{EB83} Ebneter, K.\ \& Balick, B. 1983, PASP, 95, 675

1447: \reference{EMN97}  Esin, A., McClintock, J.\ \& Narayan R., 1997, ApJ, 489, 865

1448: \reference{E04} Evans, D.A., Kraft, R.P., Worrall, D.M., Hardcastle, M.J., Jones, C., Forman, W.R., \& Murray, S.S. 2004, ApJ, 612, 786

1449: \reference{Ev06} Evans, D.A.,  Worrall, D.M., Hardcastle, M.J., Kraft, R.P.\ \& Birkinshaw, M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 96

1450: \reference{F81} Feigelson, E.D., Schreier, E.J., Delvaille, J.P. Giacconi, R., Grindlay, J.E.\ \& Lightman, A.P. 1981, ApJ, 251, 31

1451: %%%% \reference{F94} Fichtel, C.E. et al 1994, ApJS, 94, 551

1452: \reference{F06} Fujimoto, R.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S133

1453: \reference{F07} Fukazawa, Y.\ \et\ 2007, Suzaku Memo 2007-02

1454: %%%%\reference{G05} Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F.\ \& Chiaberge, M. 2005, A\&A, 432, 401 

1455: \reference{G78} Graham, J.A. 1978, PASP, 90, 237

1456: \reference{G03} Grandi, P.\ \et\ 2003, ApJ, 593, 160

1457: \reference{G99} Gruber, D.E., Matteson, J.L., Peterson, L.E.\ \& Jung, G.V. 1999, ApJ, 520, 124

1458: \reference{HEC07} Hardcastle, M.J., Evans, D.A.\ \& Croston, J.H. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1849

1459: \reference{HHP99} Harris, G.L.H.,  Harris, W.E.\ \& Poole, G. 1999, AJ 117, 885

1460: \reference{HH00} Harris, G.L.H. \& Harris, W.E. 2000, AJ, 120, 2423

1461: \reference{HH02} Harris, W.E.\ \&  Harris, G.L.H. 2002, AJ, 123, 3108

1462: \reference{HW99} Henry, R.B.C.\ \& Worthey, G. 1999, PASP, 111, 919

1463: \reference{Hp06} Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson, B.\ \& Springel, V. 2006 ApJS, 163, 1

1464: \reference{HB06} Humphrey, P.J.\ \& Buote, D.A. 2006 ApJ, 639, 136

1465: \reference{I07} Ishisaki, Y.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S113

1466: \reference{I98} Israel, F.P. 1998, A\&A Rev., 8, 237

1467: \reference{K04} Kallman, T.R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M.A., Mendoza, C.\ \& Krolik, J.H. 2004, ApJS, 155, 675

1468: \reference{K03} Karovska, M., Marengo, M., Elvis, M., Fazio, G., Hora, J., Hinz, P., Hoffmann, W., Meyer, M.\ Mamajek, E. 2003, ApJ, 598, L91 

1469: \reference{K06} Kataoka, J., Stawarz, L., Aharonian, F., Takahara, F., Ostrowksi, M.\ \& Edwards, P.G. 2006, ApJ, 641, 158  

1470: \reference{K95} Kinzer, R.L.\ \et\ 1995, ApJ, 449, 105

1471: \reference{Kb06} Kokubun, M.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S53

1472: \reference{Koy06} Koyama, K.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S23

1473: \reference{K00} Kraft, R.P.\ \et\ 2000, ApJ, 531, L9

1474: \reference{K02} Kraft, R.P., Forman, W.R., Jones, C., Murray, S.S., Hardcastle, M.J.\ \& Worrall, D.M. 2002, ApJ, 569, 54

1475: %%%%%\reference{K03} Kraft, R.P.\ \et\ 2003, ApJ, 592, 129

1476: \reference{L03} Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

1477: \reference{Mk86} Makashima, M. 1986, in The Physics of Accretion onto Compact Objects, eds.\ K.\ Mason, M.\ Watson \& N.\ White (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 249

1478: \reference{M02} Matt, G. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 147

1479: \reference{MH94} Mihos, J.C.\ \& Hernquist, L. 1994, ApJ, 427, 112

1480: %%% \reference{MRB92} Mihos, J.C., Richstone, D. \& Bothun, G.D. 1992, ApJ, 400, 153

1481: \reference{M06} Mitsuda, K.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S1

1482: \reference{M81} Moellenhoff, C. 1981, A\&A, 99, 341

1483: \reference{M78} Mushotzky, R.F., Serlemitsos, P.J., Boldt, E.A., Holt, S.S.\ \& Becker, R.H. 1978, ApJ, 220, 790

1484: \reference{NY95} Narayan, R.\ \& Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 444, 231

1485: \reference{Nz90} Netzer, H.\ \et\ 1990, ApJ, 353, 108

1486: \reference{OS03} O'Sullivan, E., Ponman, T.J.\ \& Collins, R.S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1375

1487: \reference{Pg04} Peng, E.W., Ford, H.C.\ \& Freeman, K.C. 2004, ApJ, 602, 705 

1488: %%%%%\reference{P99} Ptak, A., Serlemitsos, P., Yaqoob, T.\ \& Mushotzky, R. 1999, ApJS, 120, 179

1489: \reference{Q92} Quillen, A.C., de Zeeuw, P.T., Phinney, E.S.\ \& Phillips, T.G. 1992, ApJ, 391, 121

1490: \reference{Rj04} Rejkuba, M. 2004, A\&A, 413, 903 

1491: \reference{R99} Rothschild, R.\ \et\ 1999, ApJ, 510, 651

1492: \reference{R06} Rothschild, R., Wilms, J., Tomsick, J., Staubert, R., Benlloch, S., Collmar, W., Madejski, G., Deluit, S.\ \& Khandrika, H. 2006, ApJ, 641, 801 

1493: \reference{S06} Serlemitsos, P.J.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S9

1494: \reference{S98} Schreier, E.J. \et\  1998, ApJ, 499, L143

1495: \reference{Si05} Silge, J.D., Gebhardt, K., Bergmann, M.\ \& Richstone, D. 2005, AJ, 130, 406

1496: \reference{St98} Steinle, H.\ \et\ 1998, A\&A, 330, 97

1497: \reference{Sd04} Strickland, D.K., Heckman, T., Colbert, E.J M., Hoopes, C.G.\ \& Weaver, K.A., 2004, ApJS, 151, 193    

1498: \reference{S97} Sugizaki, M., Inoue, H., Sonobe, T., Takahashi, T.\ \& Yamamoto, Y. 1997, PASJ, 49, 59

1499: \reference{T06} Takahashi, T.\ \et\ 2007, PASJ, 59, S35

1500: \reference{Te78} Telesco, C.M. 1978, ApJ, 226, L125

1501: \reference{Ty98} Tingay, S.\ et al.\ 1998, AJ, 115, 960

1502: \reference{TT72} Toomre, A.\ \& Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

1503: \reference{T00} Trager, S.C., Faber, S.M., Worthey, G.\ \& Gonz\'{a}lez, J.J. 2000, AJ, 120, 165

1504: \reference{Ts95} Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., Hashimoto, M., Yanagida, S., Thielemann, F.-K. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

1505: \reference{T97} Turner, T.J., George, I.M., Mushotzky, R.F.\ \& Nandra, K. 1997, ApJ, 475, 118

1506: \reference{V03} Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R.\ \& Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

1507: \reference{V73} Veigele, W.M. 1973, Atomic Data Tables, 5, 51

1508: \reference{W98} Wozniak, P.R., Zdziarski, A.A., Smith, D., Madejski, G.\ \&  Johnson, W.N. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 449

1509: \end{references}

1510: 

1511: \clearpage

1512: 

1513: 

1514: 

1515: %%%% Table 1 -- SX emission lines (individual Gaussian fits)

1516: 

1517: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

1518: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1519: \tablewidth{6.5in}

1520: \tablenum{1}

1521: \tablecaption{Soft X-ray Emission Lines\label{tab1}}

1522: \tablehead{

1523: \colhead{Line}    & \colhead{Observed Energy} & \colhead{Intensity}                                  & \colhead{$EW$}     \\

1524: \colhead{Identification}& \colhead{Centroid (keV)}  & \colhead{(10$^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(eV)}   }

1525: \startdata

1526: O {\sc VII} &  0.564$^{+0.006}_{-0.004}$ & 10.9 $\pm$ 2.1      &  39$\pm$0.8     \\

1527: O {\sc VIII} & 0.654$\pm$0.003           & 9.3$^{+2.6}_{-1.1}$ &  37$^{+10}_{-4}$ \\

1528: Fe {\sc XVII} 3s--2p ($^3$$P_1$/$^3$$P_2$/$^1$$P_1$)     & 0.732$^{+0.004}_{-0.006}$ & 5.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ & 23$^{+4}_{-3}$   \\

1529: Fe {\sc XVII} 3d--2p ($^1$$P_1$/$^3$$D_1$) & 0.820$^{+0.005}_{-0.003}$ & 7.4$^{+0.8}_{-1.4}$ & 33$^{+4}_{-6}$   \\

1530: Ne {\sc IX}   & 0.901$\pm$0.004           & 6.3$^{+0.6}_{-0.9}$ & 36$^{+3}_{-5}$  \\

1531: Ne {\sc X}    & 1.010$\pm$0.003           & 4.1$\pm$0.6         & 33$\pm$5  \\

1532: Mg {\sc XI}   & 1.331$^{+0.008}_{-0.004}$ & 1.5$\pm$0.4         & 22$\pm$6   \\

1533: \enddata

1534: \tablecomments{Equivalent widths $EW$ (col.\ [4]) were determined relative to a locally-fit continuum.}

1535: \end{deluxetable}

1536: 

1537: %%%%%\clearpage

1538: 

1539: %%%% TABLE 2 = best fit parms for Models 5, 6, 7, &  8 (formerly 7, 8, 11e and 12,respectively) 

1540: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

1541: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1542: \tablewidth{6.5in}

1543: \tablenum{2}

1544: \tablecaption{Best-fit parameters for selected models \label{tab2}}

1545: \tablehead{

1546: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Model 5}        & \colhead{Model 6} & \colhead{Model 7} & \colhead{Model 8}}

1547: \startdata

1548: $\chi^2$/$dof$                    &   9806.8/9158                      & 9745.1/9159                 &  9639.6/9144              & 9529.9/9142 \\

1549: $\Gamma_{1,2}$                    & 1.852$^{+0.008}_{-0.019}$          & 1.831$^{+0.019}_{-0.010}$   & 1.820$^{+0.016}_{-0.010}$ & 1.817$^{+0.023}_{-0.010}$ \\

1550: PL1 normalization$^1$                     & 0.116$^{+0.002}_{-0.012}$          & 0.112$\pm$0.002             & 0.111$\pm$0.002  & 0.111$^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$  \\

1551: $N_{\rm H,1}$ (10$^{22}$ cm$^2$) &    15.2$^{+0.1}_{-0.6}$            &    15.1$\pm$0.2             &    14.7$\pm$0.2  & 14.7$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$   \\

1552: PL2 normalization$^1$                     &  0.026$^{+0.004}_{-0.002}$         & 0.022$\pm$0.003             & 0.021$^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$ & 0.021$\pm$0.003   \\

1553: $N_{\rm H,2}$ (10$^{22}$ cm$^2$) &   82$\pm$7                         & 75$\pm$8                    &      72$^{+10}_{-3}$    & 70$^{+11}_{-7}$  \\

1554: {\sc vapec}1 $k_{\rm B}T$ (keV)    &   0.31$^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$        &   0.24$\pm$0.02             &   0.23$\pm$0.02   & 0.22$^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ \\

1555: {\sc vapec}1 normalization                 & 7.2$^{+0.1}_{-1.3}\times$10$^{-4}$ & 5.0$^{+0.1}_{-0.3}\times$10$^{-4}$  & 5.0$^{+0.1}_{-0.3}\times$10$^{-4}$ &  4.3$^{+0.1}_{-0.3}$$\times$10$^{-4}$ \\

1556: {\sc vapec}2 $k_{\rm B}T$ (keV)    &     0.74$^{+0.09}_{-0.03}$         & 0.62$\pm$0.01  & 0.62$\pm$0.01  & 0.56$^{+0.01}_{-0.03}$  \\

1557: {\sc vapec}2 normalization                 & 3.7$^{+0.3}_{-0.8}\times$10$^{-4}$ & 5.1$\pm$0.3$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 5.2$^{+0.2}_{-0.3}\times$10$^{-4}$ & 4.8$\pm$0.4$\times$10$^{-4}$ \\

1558: $\Gamma_3$                        & 1.16$^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$             & 1.28$^{+0.08}_{-0.12}$    &  1.41$^{+0.14}_{-0.09}$  &  1.31$^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ \\

1559: PL3 normalization$^1$                     & 6.9$^{+0.5}_{-0.3}\times10^{-4}$   & 7.4$^{+0.4}_{-0.5}\times10^{-4}$ & 7.8$^{+0.5}_{-0.9}\times10^{-4}$ & 7.0$^{+0.6}_{-0.3}\times10^{-4}$  \\

1560: $N_{\rm H,3}$ (10$^{22}$ cm$^2$) & 0(fixed)                           &  $<$0.03               & $<$0.05    & $<$0.03 \\   

1561: \enddata

1562: \tablecomments{Best-fit parameters for selected broadband models. All models include two absorbed X-ray power laws (PL1, PL2),

1563: two {\sc vapec} components, a third soft X-ray power law (PL3), and Fe K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ emission lines.

1564: Listed are:

1565: Model 5, where PL3 is not absorbed;

1566: Model 6, where PL3 is absorbed;

1567: Model 7, where {\sc zvphabs} abundances are thawed for S, Ca, and Fe and fluorescent lines for 

1568: Si, S, Ar, Ca, and Ni are added; and

1569: Model 8, our best-fit model, in which the {\sc vapec} abundances $Z_{\rm Ne}$ = 

1570: 2.7$\pm$0.3 and $Z_{\rm Mg}$ = 1.9$\pm$0.4.  \\

1571: $^1$: units are ph keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 1 keV. }

1572: \end{deluxetable}

1573: 

1574: %%%%%\clearpage

1575: 

1576: 

1577: 

1578: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}

1579: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1580: \tablewidth{6.5in}

1581: \tablenum{3}

1582: \tablecaption{Fluorescent Emission Line Parameters\label{tab3}}

1583: \tablehead{

1584: \colhead{}     & \colhead{Energy}         & \colhead{Intensity (10$^{-5}$ }  & \colhead{$EW_{\rm obs}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$F$-test} & \colhead{$EW_{\rm calc}$} \\

1585: \colhead{Line} & \colhead{Centroid (keV)} & \colhead{ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(eV)}   & \colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$} & \colhead{Prob.}   & \colhead{(eV)} }

1586: \startdata

1587: Si K$\alpha$           & 1.71$\pm$0.01   &  0.9$\pm$0.2 & 24$\pm$6 & 39.8 & 7.6$\times$10$^{-10}$   & 26.3 \\

1588: S K$\alpha$            & 2.307$\pm$0.016 &  0.8$\pm$0.4 &  6$\pm$2 &  5.0 & 9.6$\times$10$^{-2}$    & 11.4 \\

1589: Ar K$\alpha$           & 2.994$\pm$0.023 &  1.2$\pm$0.5 & 13$\pm$4 & 20.1 & 8.0$\times$10$^{-5}$    & 4.7  \\

1590: Ca K$\alpha$           & 3.690$\pm$0.023 &  1.8$\pm$0.7 &  8$\pm$3 &  6.2 & 5.4$\times$10$^{-2}$    & 3.7  \\

1591: Fe K$\alpha$           & 6.394$\pm$0.003 & 23.2$\pm$1.0 & 83$\pm$3 & 3077 & $<$1$\times$10$^{-40}$  & 128  \\

1592: Fe K$\beta$            & 7.056$^{1}$     &  3.0$^2$     & 11$^2$   & 28.3 & 2.7$\times$10$^{-7}$ &  17$^2$\\

1593: %%%%%%%Fe K$\beta$ (Mod.\ 12) & 7.09$\pm$0.03   &  1.7$\pm$0.5 & 6$\pm$1  & 20.2 & 1.5$\times$10$^{-5}$ &  \\

1594: Ni K$\alpha$           & 7.47$\pm$0.05   &  1.4$\pm$0.8 & 15$\pm$5 &  9.3 & 1.1$\times$10$^{-2}$     & 7.1   \\

1595: \enddata

1596: \tablecomments{Results are for Model 8.

1597: Observed equivalent widths (col.\ [4]) are determined relative to a locally-fit continuum.

1598: All widths were tied to that for the Fe K$\alpha$ line, 14$^{+10}_{-14}$ eV.

1599: $EW_{\rm calc}$ (col.\ [7]) denotes predicted equivalent width values using equation 1 (uniform covering

1600: assuming line of sight column density), solar abundances, and a covering fraction of 1.0. \\

1601: $^1$ denotes a fixed parameter. \\

1602: $^2$ denotes value tied to 0.13 that for the Fe K$\alpha$ line.}

1603: \end{deluxetable}

1604: 

1605: %%% col.\ (8) denotes estimated abundances, calculated using $EW_{\rm obs}$/$EW_{\rm calc,Fe}$, where

1606: %%% $EW_{\rm calc,Fe}$ are predicted equivalent widths which have been adjusted to conform to the

1607: %%% Fe $EW$, assuming a covering fraction of 0.6 and the Fe abundance value derived using the K edge absorption feature.

1608: 

1609: %%%%%\clearpage

1610: 

1611: 

1612: 

1613: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

1614: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1615: \tablewidth{6.5in}

1616: \tablenum{4}

1617: \tablecaption{Hard X-ray Absorption Edges\label{tab4}}

1618: \tablehead{

1619: \colhead{K-shell} & \colhead{{\sc zvphabs}} & \colhead{Edge Energy} &  \colhead{Edge Optical} \\

1620: \colhead{Edge} & \colhead{Abundance}     & \colhead{(keV)}       &  \colhead{Depth, $\tau$}}

1621: \startdata

1622: S                 &   1.14$^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ & 2.468$^{+0.014}_{-0.011}$ & 0.24$^{+0.03}_{-0.06}$  \\

1623: Ca                &   1.5$^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$    & 4.040$\pm$0.045           & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01         \\

1624: Fe                &   1.17$^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$ & 7.103$\pm$0.015           & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.01         \\

1625: \enddata

1626: \tablecomments{The {\sc zvphabs} abundances in col.\ (2) are from Model 8. The edge energy and optical depths

1627: (cols.\ [3]--[4]) are from a model with {\sc zvphabs} abundances for Fe, Ca and S set to zero and edges

1628: fit instead.}

1629: \end{deluxetable}   

1630: 

1631: %%%%%\clearpage

1632: 

1633: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}

1634: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1635: \tablewidth{6.5in}

1636: \tablenum{5}

1637: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios\label{tab5}}

1638: \tablehead{ \colhead{Method} &  \colhead{Ratio} &  \colhead{Value}} 

1639: \startdata

1640: 1 & $Z_{\rm O}/Z_{\rm Fe}$   &   0.8 $\pm$ 0.4 \\

1641: 1 & $Z_{\rm Ne}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &   2.3 $\pm$ 0.3 \\           

1642: 1 & $Z_{\rm Mg}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &   1.6 $\pm$ 0.3 \\              

1643: 3 & $Z_{\rm Si}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &     1.5 $\pm$ 0.4  \\

1644: 2 & $Z_{\rm S}/Z_{\rm Fe}$   &   1.0 $\pm$ 0.1 \\ 

1645: 3 & $Z_{\rm S}/Z_{\rm Fe}$   &     0.8 $\pm$ 0.3 \\

1646: 3 & $Z_{\rm Ar}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &       4 $\pm$ 1 \\

1647: 2 & $Z_{\rm Ca}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &   1.3 $\pm$ 0.6 \\

1648: 3 & $Z_{\rm Ca}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &       3 $\pm$ 1 \\

1649: 3 & $Z_{\rm Ni}/Z_{\rm Fe}$  &       3 $\pm$ 1 \\

1650: \enddata

1651: \tablecomments{Methods 1, 2, and 3 (col.\ [1]) denote abundances derived from

1652: thermal plasma emission lines, K shell edge depths, and K$\alpha$ fluorescent

1653: emission line intensities, respectively.}

1654: \end{deluxetable}   

1655: 

1656: 

1657: \clearpage

1658: 

1659: 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: 

1663: 

1664: 

1665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 1 = light curve

1666: 

1667: \begin{figure}

1668: \epsscale{0.60}

1669: \plotone{f1.eps}

1670: \caption{Orbitally binned XIS and HXD light curves. The top panel shows the 

1671: 2--10 keV count rate light curve, summed over all four XIS cameras.

1672: The 12--76 keV HXD PIN light curve is shown in the middle panel.

1673: The 45--250 keV HXD GSO light curve is shown in the bottom panel.}

1674: \end{figure}

1675: 

1676: %%%%%\clearpage

1677: 

1678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 2 = HXD Spectra:  Net, Bgd, Total

1679: 

1680: \begin{figure}

1681: \epsscale{0.80}

1682: \plotone{f2.eps}   %%%% hxdspec.eps 

1683: \caption{HXD PIN ({\it left}) and GSO ({\it right}) spectra. The upper panels show

1684: the net source spectrum ({\it gray points}), the background ({\it lower black points}),

1685: and the total (source + background) spectrum ({\it upper black points}).

1686: The PIN spectra have been binned such that the net spectrum has a minimum

1687: signal-to-noise ratio of 10$\sigma$ per bin.

1688: The GSO spectra have been binned as described in $\S$2.

1689: The lower panels shows the ratio of the net source spectrum to

1690: the total spectrum.}

1691: \end{figure}

1692: 

1693: %%%%%\clearpage

1694: 

1695: 

1696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 3 = >3 keV Resids to models 1 and 2

1697: 

1698: \begin{figure}

1699: \epsscale{0.80}

1700: \plotone{f3.eps} %%% Mod13coadddel.eps

1701: \caption{Residuals to Model 1, the single absorbed power law ({\it top},

1702: and Model 2, which included dual absorbed power-law components and 

1703: Fe K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ line emission ({\it bottom}). Black points denote

1704: the three FI XIS spectra, which have been co-added here for clarity.

1705: Gray, red and blue points denote XIS1, PIN, and GSO,

1706: respectively. Rest-frame energies are shown.

1707: The XIS data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1708: \end{figure}

1709: 

1710: %%%%%\clearpage

1711: 

1712: 

1713: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 4 = softband

1714: 

1715: \begin{figure}

1716: \epsscale{0.80}

1717: \plotone{f4.eps}    %%%% softband.eps 

1718: \caption{Ratio of the soft band data to a simple power law, 

1719: showing the prominent emission lines.

1720: Black points denote the XIS BI; gray points denote data from XIS0, 2 and 3,

1721: which have been co-added for clarity.

1722: Rest-frame energies are shown.

1723: The data have been plotted with a binning factor of 3.}

1724: \end{figure}

1725: 

1726: %%%%%\clearpage

1727: 

1728: 

1729: 

1730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 5 = resids to models 3  4  6 7 8 (formerly 4, 6, 8, 11e, 12)

1731: 

1732: \begin{figure}

1733: \epsscale{0.80}

1734: \plotone{f5.eps}   %%%%  fig3_coadd.eps 

1735: \caption{Residuals to various broadband models are shown. 

1736: From top to bottom are: Model 3, with soft X-rays fit with a simple power law;

1737: Model 4, with soft X-rays fit with two {\sc vapec} components only;

1738: Model 6, with soft X-rays fit with two {\sc vapec} components plus an absorbed power law;

1739: Model 7, with K-shell absorption edges and K$\alpha$ emission lines for

1740: S, Si, Ar, Ca and Ni fit; and

1741: Model 8, our best-fit model, with {\sc VAPEC} abundances for Ne and Mg thawed. 

1742: Black points denote the three FI XIS spectra, which have been co-added here for clarity.

1743: Gray, red and blue points denote XIS1, PIN, and GSO,

1744: respectively. Rest-frame energies are shown.

1745: The XIS data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1746: \end{figure}

1747: 

1748: %%%%%\clearpage

1749: 

1750: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 6 = R contour

1751: 

1752: \begin{figure}

1753: \epsscale{0.80}

1754: \plotone{f6.eps}   %%%% Rcont.eps

1755: \caption{Contour plots of the Compton reflection fraction $R$

1756: versus the hard X-ray photon index $\Gamma_1$=$\Gamma_2$

1757: and the PIN/XIS2 instrument normalization for Model 8.

1758: Dotted, dashed, and solid lines denote 68, 95.4, and 99.73$\%$

1759: confidence levels, respectively.}

1760: \end{figure}

1761: 

1762: %%%%%\clearpage

1763: 

1764: 

1765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 7 = Fe K resids 

1766: 

1767: \begin{figure}

1768: \epsscale{0.60}

1769: \plotone{f7.eps}    %%%%   FeKresidscoadd.eps

1770: \caption{Residuals to a simple power-law model in the

1771: Fe K bandpass, showing the prominent Fe K$\alpha$

1772: emission line as well as the

1773: Fe K$\beta$ line at 7.08$\pm$0.03 keV, the

1774: Ni K$\alpha$ line at 7.47$\pm$0.05 keV, and the Fe K edge.

1775: Black points denote the three FI XIS spectra, which have been co-added

1776: for clarity; gray points denote XIS1.

1777: Rest-frame energies are shown.

1778: All data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1779: \end{figure}

1780: 

1781: %%%%%\clearpage

1782: 

1783: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 8 = Si+S  K resids 

1784: 

1785: \begin{figure}

1786: \epsscale{0.60}

1787: \plotone{f8.eps}    %%%%   SKresidscoadd.eps

1788: \caption{Residuals to a simple power-law model in the

1789: S K and Si K bandpass, showing the Si K$\alpha$

1790: emission line at 1.71$\pm$0.01 keV, the S K$\alpha$

1791: line at 2.307$\pm$0.016 keV, and the S K edge.

1792: Black points denote the three FI XIS spectra, which have been co-added

1793: for clarity; gray points denote XIS1.

1794: Rest-frame energies are shown.

1795: All data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1796: \end{figure}

1797: 

1798: %%%%%\clearpage

1799: 

1800: 

1801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 9 = Ar+Ca  K resids 

1802: 

1803: \begin{figure}

1804: \epsscale{0.60}

1805: \plotone{f9.eps}    %%%%   CaKresidscoadd.eps

1806: \caption{Residuals to a simple power-law model in the

1807: Ar K and Ca K bandpass, showing the Ar K$\alpha$

1808: emission line at 2.994$\pm$0.023 keV, the Ca K$\alpha$

1809: line at 3.690$\pm$0.023 keV, and the Ca K edge.

1810: Black points denote the three FI XIS spectra, which have been co-added

1811: for clarity; gray points denote XIS1.

1812: Rest-frame energies are shown.

1813: All data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1814: \end{figure}

1815: 

1816: %%%%%\clearpage

1817: 

1818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig 10  = NH1 versus Gamma1 and PLNorm1

1819: 

1820: \begin{figure}

1821: \epsscale{0.80}

1822: \plotone{f10.eps}    %%%%   nhcont.eps

1823: \caption{Contour plots of the line of sight column density absorbing

1824: the primary power law versus the photon index ({\it left}) and

1825: 1 keV normalization ({\it right}) 

1826: of the primary power-law component in Model 8. 

1827: Dotted, dashed, and solid lines denote 68, 95.4, and 99.73$\%$

1828: confidence levels, respectively. The plus signs mark the best-fit

1829: values.}

1830: \end{figure}

1831: 

1832: 

1833: %%%%%\clearpage

1834: 

1835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 11

1836: 

1837: \begin{figure}

1838: \epsscale{0.60}

1839: \plotone{f11.eps}    %%%%   broadband0106.eps

1840: \caption{Unfolded broadband spectrum for Model 8, illustrating the 

1841: three absorbed power-law components and the two {\sc vapec}

1842: components. All data have been plotted with a binning factor of 10.}

1843: \end{figure}

1844: 

1845: %%%%%\clearpage

1846: 

1847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 12

1848: 

1849: \begin{figure}

1850: \epsscale{0.80}

1851: \plotone{f12.eps}    %%%%  

1852: \caption{Mean-normalized, orbitally-binned 

1853: 2--4 keV ({\it black filled circles}) and 5--10 keV ({\it gray open circles})

1854: light curves, summed over all four XISes.

1855: Both light curves display very similar variability trends.}

1856: \end{figure}

1857: 

1858: \end{document}

1859: 

1860: 

1861: 

1862: 

1863: