1: \documentclass{elsart}
2:
3: \usepackage{natbib}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \newcommand\arcdeg{\mbox{$^\circ$}}
8: \newcommand\arcmin{\mbox{$^\prime$}}
9: \newcommand\arcsec{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
10: \newcommand\nodata{ ~$\cdots$~ }
11:
12: \newcommand\aap{A\&A}
13: \newcommand\apj{ApJ}
14: \newcommand\apjl{ApJ}
15: \newcommand\apjs{ApJS}
16: \newcommand\mnras{MNRAS}
17: \newcommand\pasj{PASJ}
18: \newcommand\pasp{PASP}
19:
20: \journal{New Astronomy}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \begin{frontmatter}
25:
26: \title{The X-ray Pulse Profile of BG CMi}
27:
28: \author{Chul-Sung Choi}
29: \address{International Center for Astrophysics, Korea Astronomy and
30: Space Science Institute, 36-1 Hwaam, Yusong, Daejon 305-34, Korea}
31: \ead{cschoi@kasi.re.kr}
32:
33: \author{Tadayasu Dotani}
34: \address{Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan
35: Aerospace Exploration Agency, 3-1-1 Yoshinodai, Sagamihara,
36: kanagawa 229-8510, Japan}
37: \ead{dotani@astro.isas.jaxa.jp}
38:
39: \author{Yonggi Kim}
40: \address{University Observatory, Chungbuk National University,
41: Cheongju 361-763, Korea}
42: \ead{ykkim153@chungbuk.ac.kr}
43:
44: \author{Dongsu Ryu\corauthref{cor}}
45: \address{Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Chungnam
46: National University, Daejon 305-764, Korea}
47: \ead{ryu@canopus.cnu.ac.kr}
48: \corauth[cor]{Corresponding author.}
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: We present an analysis of the X-ray data of a magnetic cataclysmic variable,
53: BG CMi, obtained with ROSAT in March 1992 and with ASCA in April 1996.
54: We show that four peaks clearly exist in the X-ray pulse profile,
55: unlike a single peak found in the optical profile.
56: The fluxes of two major pulses are $\sim 2 - 5$ times larger than those
57: of two minor pulses.
58: The fraction of the total pulsed flux increases from 51\% to 85\% with
59: increasing energy in 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV, whereas it decreases from 96\% to
60: 22\% in 0.8 $-$ 10~keV.
61: We discuss the implications of our findings for the origin of the pulse
62: profile and its energy dependence.
63:
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \begin{keyword}
67:
68: cataclysmic variables : close binaries : individual stars (BG CMi) :
69: X-ray binaries
70:
71: \end{keyword}
72:
73: \end{frontmatter}
74:
75: \section{Introduction}
76:
77: BG CMi is a magnetic cataclysmic variable (mCV), known as an intermediate
78: polar (IP), with an orbital period of 3.235~hr
79: \citep[][for review of IPs, see, e.g., Patterson 1994]{mac84}.
80: The primary star, exhibiting pulsations of fluxes in the X-ray, optical, and
81: infrared bands, is a rotating magnetic white dwarf.
82: Its magnetic field strength has been inferred to be
83: ${\rm B} = (2-6) \times 10^6$~G \citep[]{cha90}, based on circular
84: polarization observations in the optical and infrared bands \citep[]{pen86, wes87}.
85: However, the fundamental properties of the secondary star are yet poorly known.
86: The system parameters as well as the distance to the binary system are
87: not well constrained.
88:
89: In the optical band, a quasi-sinusoidal pulse profile was clearly
90: seen at a period of 913.5~s, together with an orbital modulation of
91: brightness over a period of 3.235~hr \citep[e.g.,][]{mar95, kim05}.
92: The optical studies claimed that the 913.5~s period is that
93: of the white dwarf's spin.
94: According to the pulse period analysis, the primary is spinning up,
95: but the rate seems to change in time \citep[][and reference therein]{kim05}.
96: \citet[]{mar95} found that the fraction of the pulsed flux in the optical band
97: also varies with time and wavelength.
98:
99: The pulsation and the orbital modulation were also detected in X-ray
100: at the same periods \citep[]{ter04, par05}.
101: However, the X-ray pulse profile is non-sinusoidal and hinted possibly
102: multiple peaks.
103: \citet[]{mac87} reported that there are two emission components in the
104: X-ray of a medium energy range, one being pulsed and radiated from the magnetic
105: poles of the white dwarf and the other being unpulsed and radiated from the
106: regions where accretion streams impact the magnetosphere.
107: An iron K$\alpha$ fluorescence line was observed at $\sim 6.4$~keV with
108: no significant variations over the pulse period \citep[e.g.,][]{nor92, ezu99}.
109:
110: The study of this paper focuses on the X-ray pulse profile of BG CMi and its
111: energy dependence from the ROSAT and ASCA archival data.
112: Based on the analysis results, the geometry of X-ray emitting regions
113: is discussed.
114:
115: \section{Observation and Data Reduction}
116:
117: BG CMi was observed with ROSAT on March 28 to 29, 1992 with
118: on-source time of $8.4\times10^3$~s.
119: It was observed twice with ASCA with an interval of 2 days:
120: April 14 through 15, 1996 with on-source time of $3.7\times10^4$~s
121: and April 17 through 18, 1996 with on-source time of $3.6\times10^4$~s
122: \citep[see also][]{ezu99, ter04, par05}.
123:
124: The ROSAT observation was made with Position Sensitive Proportional
125: Counter (PSPC-B) mounted on the focal plane of the X-ray telescope.
126: The PSPC covers the energy range of 0.1 $-$ 2~keV and has a relatively
127: high spatial resolution of $\sim 25\arcsec$ at 1~keV over 2\arcdeg\ diameter
128: field of view.
129: The PSPC is known to have a very high rejection efficiency of particle
130: background events, 99.9\%, with a typical count rate of $4 \times 10^{-6}$
131: counts s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-2}$ keV$^{-1}$ \citep[]{plu93}.
132: We acquired the screened data of BG CMi from the HEASARC public archives.
133:
134: According to the second ROSAT source catalog of pointed observations
135: with PSPC\footnote{http://wave.xray.mpe.mpg.de/rosat/rra},
136: other X-ray sources may be present within a circular region of
137: radius 0.1\arcdeg\ from BG CMi (see Table~1).
138: For instance, an X-ray source which is relatively bright and has a count
139: rate of $1.25\times10^{-2}$ counts s$^{-1}$ is located near BG CMi
140: at the position of R.A. = 112.88126\arcdeg\ and DEC. = 10.06978$\arcdeg$
141: (J2000) with an angular separation of $7.8\arcmin$.
142: Caution therefore is needed in an analysis of X-ray data of BG CMi.
143: Considering this situation, we restrict a source extraction
144: region to a circle of radius 3\arcmin\ centered at the position
145: of BG CMi.
146:
147: ASCA is equipped with four thin-foil X-ray telescopes, focusing X-rays
148: onto four focal plane detectors, of which two are Solid-state Imaging
149: Spectrometers (SIS0 and SIS1) and two are Gas Imaging Spectrometers
150: (GIS2 and GIS3).
151: Each SIS consists of four CCD chips with an energy resolution of
152: $\sim\!50 - 160$~eV in the range of 0.4 $-$ 10.0~keV, while GISs have
153: an energy resolution of $\sim 200 - 600$~eV in 0.8 $-$ 10.0~keV\@.
154: The telescopes have a $\sim3\arcmin$ half-power diameter of the point
155: spread function (PSF), and the intrinsic PSF of GISs depends on the
156: incident X-ray energy and is Gaussian with a FWHM of
157: $0.5\times \sqrt{5.9\ {\rm keV} / E}$ arcmin (where $E$ is the X-ray
158: energy in keV).
159:
160: The ASCA observations were made with both SISs and GISs. SISs
161: were operated in the 2 CCD faint mode and GISs in the pulse-height (PH) mode.
162: The time resolution of SISs in the 2 CCD mode is 8~s and that
163: of GISs in the PH mode is 62.5/500~ms for high/medium telemetry bit rates.
164: SISs in the 2 CCD mode provide a $11\arcmin \times 23\arcmin$ rectangular
165: field of view, while GISs give a circular field of view with a
166: diameter of $50\arcmin$, regardless of their observational mode.
167:
168: We acquired raw ASCA data from public archives and applied
169: `strict' data screening criteria to the GIS and SIS data to reduce
170: possible contaminations from the Earth's bright limb and from the
171: regions of high particle background.
172: For example, the SIS data were rejected when the pointing direction of
173: the telescope is less than 40\arcdeg\ from the Earth's bright limb and
174: the upper-threshold of the radiation belt monitor was set to 50.
175: Hot and flickering pixels were removed from the SISs and
176: a grade-based selection criterion was applied to the data.
177: Other screening criteria were set to the recommended values
178: (we checked difference in the GIS data by applying different
179: screening criteria to the elevation angle, which is defined as the angle
180: between the source and the Earth's limb, e.g. 5\arcdeg\ and 10$\arcdeg$, but
181: found no significant difference; we therefore applied the recommended
182: value to the elevation angle).
183: After this screening, the source events were extracted from the
184: 3\arcmin\ radius region for both the GISs and SISs data.
185:
186: \section{Results}
187:
188: We extracted light curves after converting the X-ray arrival times to
189: the barycentric times of the solar system.
190: Therefore, all the dates or times described in this section are
191: based on the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB).
192: The extracted light curves have a time resolution of 0.1~s for the PSPC
193: data, 0.5~s for the GISs, and 8.0~s for the SISs.
194:
195: \subsection{Pulse Period}
196:
197: To confirm the presence of pulses in the current X-ray data,
198: we did a period search using an epoch folding method, e.g., `efsearch'
199: in FTOOLS (or XRONOS).
200: For this work, we focused on the PSPC and GIS data that have a better time
201: resolution than the SIS data.
202: In this search, we did not correct the Doppler effect due to the
203: binary motion, because it is negligible in the current data.
204: Figure~1 shows the result obtained from the GIS data.
205:
206: The best periods, which were determined by fitting a Gaussian function to
207: the centroid of $\chi^2$-peak, are $P = 913.6 \pm 0.3$~s for the PSPC data
208: and $P = 913.5 \pm 0.1$ ~s for the GIS data (where the errors in $\chi^2$
209: are included).
210: These periods are consistent with each other within the errors
211: as well as with those reported in previous X-ray and optical studies.
212: It is noted from the $\chi^2$-plot that there are higher harmonics of
213: the period $P$ and a beat between the orbital and pulse periods, marked with
214: vertical short-dashed lines, suggesting that $P$ is the fundamental period of
215: the source and is the spin period of the white dwarf.
216:
217: \subsection{Pulse Profile}
218:
219: Figure~2 and Figure~3 show the mean pulse profiles (crosses) obtained from
220: the ROSAT and ASCA data, respectively. The start and stop times of the
221: data are indicated in each figure.
222: The ROSAT data were folded at the period of 913.6~s from the epoch
223: MJD 48709.28492 and the ASCA data were folded at the period of 913.5~s from
224: the epoch MJD 50187.79824.
225: The epochs for pulse phase zero were taken at the centers of the highest
226: pulses (RP1 and AP2), which were determined independently for the ROSAT
227: and ASCA data through model fits to the profiles (see below).
228: For this we included the SIS data to increase the data statistics.
229: (Before we included the SIS data, we inspected visually the pulse
230: profiles of the four ASCA instruments. We found no significant
231: difference in, e.g., overall profile, peak positions, and relative pulse height.)
232:
233: As displayed in Figure~2, the ROSAT data in the 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV range exhibit two
234: peaks (or pulses), labeled `RP1' and `RP2', over one cycle of the pulse profile.
235: The two pulses are not separated by 0.5 in phase and their heights are
236: not equal. Furthermore, the widths seem to be different too.
237: The profile can be approximated by a model of two
238: Gaussians on the top of a constant base, as represented with the solid curve.
239: On the other hand, the ASCA data in the 0.8 $-$ 10.0~keV range exhibit four pulses
240: labeled `AP1' $-$ `AP4' in Figure~3, and the profile is reproducible by
241: a model of four Gaussians on the top of a constant base (see the following subsection for
242: the model function; we checked whether the profile can be fitted with other
243: models, e.g., sine plus two Gaussians, but found that none reproduces the
244: profile successfully).
245: From the figure, it is noted that the AP1 and AP3 pulses are separated
246: by $\sim\! 0.5$ in phase and the AP2 and AP4 pulses are separated also by
247: $\sim\! 0.5$.
248: However, the overall profiles of AP1/AP3 and AP2/AP4 are
249: different to each other.
250: The difference in the ROSAT and ASCA profiles will be described
251: in details in the following subsection.
252:
253: In order to identify which pulse is coincident with the optical pulse maximum,
254: we calculated the epoch that is near the start time of the X-ray data,
255: using the recently presented ephemerides by, e.g., \citet[]{kim05}\footnote{
256: They presented in the abstract a fourth-order polynomial ephemeris which
257: is statistically optimal for the optical pulse minimum.
258: However, the ephemeris should be for the pulse maximum, otherwise it
259: becomes inconsistent with the observed ephemeris presented in their paper
260: by a half phase.}, \citet[]{hel97}, and \citet[]{pyc96}.
261: The vertical short-dashed lines in Figures 2 and 3 represent
262: the optical pulse maxima calculated from the ephemerides. For the lines we did
263: not correct the difference between the heliocentric time and the TDB because the
264: difference is negligibly small ($\lesssim$ 3~s) compared to the pulse period.
265: Taking into account of the uncertainties in the optical ephemerides,
266: $\sim 0.02 - 0.03$ in phase, we conclude that RP1 and AP2 correspond to
267: the optical pulse maximum.
268: In what follows, we consider that the pulse phases, originally determined
269: independently for the ROSAT and ASCA data, are in fact coherently
270: connected with each other.
271:
272:
273: \subsection{Energy-Resolved Pulse Profiles}
274:
275: To understand the difference in the ROSAT and ASCA profiles and
276: also to see how the profiles vary with energy, we examine the energy-resolved
277: pulse profiles obtained in the four different energy bands, 0.1 $-$ 0.8~keV,
278: 0.8 $-$ 2.0~keV, 2.0 $-$ 4.0~keV, and 4.0 $-$ 10~keV.
279: Figure~4 shows the profiles, where the ROSAT and ASCA data were folded
280: independently using the epochs and periods described in the previous
281: subsection.
282: The backgrounds were not subtracted from the pulse profiles of Figure~4,
283: because it was difficult to acquire the appropriate background data
284: from the nearby annular region due to the presence of contamination
285: sources.
286: However, we note that the backgrounds are generally small compared to the
287: unpulsed fluxes in Table~2 as estimated below.
288:
289: The typical fluxes of a blank sky observed with ASCA GIS2 are
290: $1.3 \times 10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$ in 0.8 $-$ 2.0~keV, $1.1 \times 10^{-3}$
291: counts s$^{-1}$ in 2.0 $-$ 4.0~keV, and $5.1 \times 10^{-3}$ counts
292: s$^{-1}$ in 4.0 $-$ 10~keV for the same size as the source extraction region
293: in the data of cutoff rigidity greater than 4 GeV/c.
294: The SIS0 data show the fluxes of $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$
295: in 0.8 $-$ 2.0~keV, $1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$ in 2.0 $-$
296: 4.0~keV, and $1.7 \times 10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$ in 4.0 $-$ 10~keV for
297: the same size as the source extraction region in the data
298: of cutoff rigidity greater than 6 GeV/c.
299: Because BG CMi is located far from the galactic plane, we ignored the contribution
300: from the galactic ridge emission \citep[e.g., ][]{kan97}.
301: These mean fluxes of a blank sky are much smaller than the unpulsed fluxes
302: of the ASCA data in 2.0 $-$ 10~keV (Table~2).
303: However, they are significant in 0.8 $-$ 2.0~keV.
304: This means that we need to be careful in interpreting the unpulsed flux of the
305: ASCA data in this lowest energy band.
306: According to the ROSAT PSPC all-sky survey, the flux of the diffuse X-ray background
307: can be roughly estimated to $\sim 10^{-4}$ counts s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-2}$ in
308: 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV \citep[]{sno95}. It is much smaller than the unpulsed fluxes of
309: the ROSAT data (Table~2), even if we consider the size of the event extraction region.
310: We note that the contribution of nearby contamination sources is
311: also small compared to the unpulsed flux in the ROSAT band.
312: Therefore, below we argue that the energy-dependent behavior of the pulse
313: fraction\footnote{Defined as the ratio of the flux in
314: pulses to the total (pulsed + unpulsed) flux.}
315: as well as the presence of the unpulsed fluxes are intrinsic to the
316: source.
317:
318: To study the pulse parameters quantitatively we chose a model of
319: two or four Gaussians on the top of a constant base, as follows;
320: %
321: \begin{equation}
322: f(x) = C + \sum_{i=1}^{\rm 2\ or\ 4}\ N_i\ {\rm
323: exp}[-(x-P_{i})^2/2W_{i}^2],
324: \end{equation}
325: %
326: where $f(x)$ is the folded pulse profile, $x$ is the phase, $P$ is
327: the Gaussian center, $W$ is the width, $N$ is the height, and $C$ is
328: a constant that represents the unpulsed flux level.
329: In this model, all the parameters were allowed to be fitted.
330: The parameters of the best-fit model, represented as solid and
331: short-dashed curves in Figure~4, are summarized in Table~2.
332: The mean pulsed flux in each profile is also calculated in the table
333: using the best-fit parameters.
334:
335: Although the ROSAT and ASCA data were obtained with an interval of 4
336: years, their pulse profiles are surprisingly similar.
337: This means that BG CMi showed very little time variation in 4 years.
338: One may claim that the pulse profiles in the common energy
339: band of 0.8 - 2.0 keV look different in the ROSAT and ASCA data
340: (we checked the ROSAT profile by applying a different folding period,
341: e.g., 913.5~s, but found no significant difference).
342: That is, in the ROSAT data of Figure~4b, the two pulses that correspond to
343: AP1 \& AP4 in the ASCA data of Figure~4c seem to be absent.
344: We attribute the difference to the different energy
345: responses of ROSAT PSPC and ASCA SIS/GIS.
346: PSPC has a larger effective area for softer X-rays in this energy band,
347: whereas SIS/GIS has a larger effective area for harder X-rays.
348: In fact, if we check carefully the parameters in Table~2, there is a
349: hint of AP1 \& AP4 in the ROSAT profile.
350: For example, the width of RP1 is almost identical to the width of
351: AP2, whereas the width of RP2 is larger than that of AP3.
352: This broader pulse may be interpreted as a superposition of two
353: pulses AP3 and AP4 of the ASCA profile.
354: In addition, the possible existence of a broad hump above the unpulsed level, which
355: appears at the phase range $\sim 0.5 - 0.8$ in Figure~4a, may support this
356: interpretation.
357: Although we claim the similarity in the pulse profiles of ROSAT and ASCA, it
358: needs to be confirmed again through observations covering a wide energy range of
359: 0.1 $-$ 10 keV.
360:
361: By analyzing the energy-resolved pulse profiles together with the fit
362: parameters in Table~2, we obtained the following results:
363:
364: \begin{enumerate}
365:
366: \item The separation of the AP2 and AP4 pulses, from peak to peak, is sustained to be
367: consistent, $\sim 0.5$ in phase, irrespective of energy band.
368: The AP1 and AP3 pulses are basically separated by $\sim 0.5$, but the
369: separation tends to increase with increasing X-ray energy.
370:
371: \item The pulse widths for RP1 and AP2 increase clearly with increasing
372: energy, from 0.04 to 0.11 in phase.
373:
374: \item The pulsed fluxes for AP2 and AP3 (major pulses) are $\sim 2 - 5$
375: times larger than the fluxes for AP1 and AP4 (minor pulses) at all energies.
376: The flux ratios tend to be lower at higher X-ray energy.
377: The tendency explains the profile change in the ASCA data, seen in Figure~4c
378: through Figure~4e.
379:
380: \item The total pulse fraction
381: decreases with increasing energy, from 96\% to 22\% in the energy range of
382: 0.8 $-$ 10.0~keV.\footnote{When we calculated the pulse fraction, we
383: subtracted the backgrounds obtained from the blank sky observation data.}
384: On the other hand, the pulse fraction in RP1 and RP2 increases from
385: 51\% to 85\% with increasing energy in the energy range of 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV.
386: These energy-dependent behavior is mainly associated with the flux
387: variation of the unpulsed component.
388:
389: \end{enumerate}
390:
391: \section{Discussion}
392:
393: \subsection{Pulse Profile}
394:
395: As shown in \S3.2, multiple X-ray pulses exist consistently in
396: 0.1 $-$ 10~keV with relatively narrow widths and show no significant
397: phase shift over the selected energy bands.
398: These facts suggest that the pulsed radiation originates from
399: restricted regions of the rotating compact object.
400: The pulse profile in the ASCA data of 0.8 $-$ 10~keV in Figure~4
401: contains four pulses, which are particularly well separated in
402: the lower energy band of 0.8 $-$ 2.0~keV.
403: The ROSAT data in 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV also indicate possibly four
404: pulses.
405: The four pulse profile requires in general four X-ray emitting
406: regions on the surface of the white dwarf, if all the pulses are
407: considered to come from a single object.
408: In this sense, the postulate that a multipole geometry of magnetic field
409: exists in the primary star can not be excluded completely \citep[see e.g.,][]{beu07}.
410:
411: Nevertheless, if the primary star should have a dipole magnetic field geometry, two pulses need to be
412: generated from a single magnetic pole.
413: Then we argue that the major pulses (AP2 \& AP3) should be produced from one
414: magnetic pole, and the minor pulses (AP1\& AP4) from the opposite
415: pole, based on the following reasons:
416: A dipole magnetic field generally produces two pulses
417: separated by $\sim 0.5$ in phase, unless the dipole moment is severely distorted.
418: We note that the AP1 and AP3 pulses are separated by
419: $\sim 0.5$ in phase and the AP2 and AP4 pulses are also separated by
420: $\sim 0.5$ in phase.
421: Furthermore, if two pulses are produced by a single
422: pole, they would have a similar amplitude, because the amplitude is
423: determined in principle by the geometric effect, such as the occultation
424: of the emitting region.
425: However, the existence of deep troughs between the
426: major pulses and between the minor pulses in Figure~4 implies that the two emission
427: regions in a pole should be well separated. Such separation favors large magnetic pole
428: areas (or polar caps), unlike the conventional dipole field geometry of mCVs
429: that has two small-size polar caps \citep[see e.g.,][]{ros88}.
430: One interesting point is that the large polar cap hypothesis is also
431: required to explain the observations of circular polarization in BG CMi
432: \citep[e.g.,][]{wes87, cha90}.
433:
434: \subsection{Energy Dependence of Pulse Fraction}
435:
436: The total pulse fraction decreases clearly from 96\% to 22\%
437: with increasing X-ray energy in 0.8 $-$ 10.0~keV (\S3.3).
438: It is also worthwhile to mention that the pulse width
439: decreases from 0.11 to 0.04 in phase with decreasing energy in RP1 and AP2.
440: The energy dependence of the pulse fraction may reflect the temperature
441: distribution in the X-ray emitting regions.
442: That is, if a relatively hot plasma is formed at a large height above the
443: magnetic poles, the plasma may be little occulted by the white dwarf and
444: will contribute largely to the unpulsed X-ray flux.
445: On the other hand, if a relatively cool plasma is located just above the magnetic
446: poles, it may be occulted largely by the white dwarf and will contribute much
447: to the pulsed X-ray flux.
448: We therefore conjecture that the magnetically channeled accreting matter
449: cools down by radiative cooling processes while it travels toward the magnetic
450: pole areas.
451: This idea may also explain the energy dependence of the pulse width, if we
452: consider a finite opening angle of the magnetic field.
453: We leave this issue as a future study because the signal to noise ratios of
454: the spectral data are not good enough to test the idea.
455:
456: \subsection{Optical Profile}
457:
458: It is interesting to note that the optical profile has a
459: single, quasi-sinusoidal pulse, unlike the X-ray profile we studied.
460: The total pulse fraction in optical is relatively low, $\lesssim 30$\%,
461: and varies with wavelength \citep[]{mar95}.
462: The low pulse fraction as well as the quasi-sinusoidal profile suggest
463: that the pulsed flux originates from a relatively large area which is
464: occulted partly and periodically by the rotating white dwarf.
465:
466: As we showed in \S3.2, the expected optical pulse maximum matches well
467: with the RP1 and AP2 pulses.
468: Likewise, the fact that the pulsed flux of the major pulses is
469: larger by $\sim 5$ times than the flux of the minor pulses indicates that
470: there exists an appropriate geometrical condition for producing the
471: quasi-sinusoidal profile.
472: Therefore, the pulsed flux in the optical band may be suggested to come from
473: the pole area that was heated up by
474: the illumination of the X-rays emanating from the channeled accreting matter.
475: Alternatively, the pulsed flux may originate from the matter
476: that is cooling and spreading over the white dwarf surface after it
477: settled on the polar region as discussed by \citet[]{choi00}.
478:
479: \section{Summary}
480:
481: Our findings are summarized as follows:
482:
483: \begin{enumerate}
484:
485: \item BG CMi has an X-ray profile with four pulses over the period of
486: 913.5~s.
487:
488: \item The fluxes of the major pulses AP2 and AP3 are $\sim 2 - 5$
489: times larger than those of the minor pulses AP1 and AP4.
490:
491: \item The pulse fraction increases from 51\% to 85\% with increasing energy
492: in 0.1 $-$ 2.0~keV, whereas it decreases from 96\% to 22\% in 0.8 $-$ 10~keV.
493:
494: \item Unlike the X-ray profile, the optical profile has single, quasi-sinusoidal pulse.
495: Among the four X-ray pulses, the highest one coincides with the optical
496: pulse maximum.
497:
498: \end{enumerate}
499:
500: \ack
501:
502: C.S.C. and Y.G.K. thank Dr. I. Andronov for comments
503: and discussions on results of this work.
504: C.S.C. thanks Dr. H. Kim for discussions of magnetic field
505: configurations in compact stars.
506: This work was supported in part by the Korea Science \& Engineering Foundation
507: through the grant of the basic research program R01-2004-000-1005-0.
508: The work of D.R. was also supported in part by Korea
509: Foundation for International Cooperation of Science \& Technology
510: (KICOS) through the Cavendish-KAIST Research Cooperation Center.
511:
512: \begin{thebibliography}{}
513:
514: \bibitem[Beuermann et al.(2007)]{beu07}
515: Beuermann, K., Euchner, F., Reinsch, K., Jordan, S., \& Gansicke, B. T.
516: 2007, \aap, 463, 647
517:
518: \bibitem[Chanmugam et al.(1990)]{cha90}
519: Chanmugam, G., Frank, J., King, A. R., \& Lasota, J.-P. 1990, \apj, 350, L13
520:
521: \bibitem[Choi \& Yi(2000)]{choi00}
522: Choi, C. S., \& Yi, I. 2000, \apj, 538, 862
523:
524: \bibitem[De Martino et al.(1995)]{mar95}
525: De Martino, D., Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J. M., Vio, R., Rosen, S. R.,
526: Mukai, K., Augusteijn, T., \& Garlick, M. A. 1995, \aap, 298, 849
527:
528: \bibitem[Ezuka \& Ishida(1999)]{ezu99}
529: Ezuka, H., \& Ishida, M. 1999, \apjs, 120, 277
530:
531: \bibitem[Hellier(1997)]{hel97}
532: Hellier, C. 1997, \mnras, 288, 817
533:
534: \bibitem[Kaneda et al.(1997)]{kan97}
535: Kaneda, H., Makishima, K., Yamauchi, S., Koyama, K., Matsuzaki, K., \&
536: Yamasaki, N. Y. 1997, \apj, 491, 638
537:
538: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2005)]{kim05}
539: Kim, Y. G., Andronov, I. L., Park, S. S., \& Jeon, Y.-B. 2005, \aap,
540: 441, 663
541:
542: \bibitem[McHardy et al.(1987)]{mac87}
543: McHardy, I. M., Pye, J. P., Fairall, A. P., \& Menzies, J. W. 1987, \mnras,
544: 225, 355
545:
546: \bibitem[McHardy et al.(1984)]{mac84}
547: McHardy, I. M., Pye, J. P., Fairall, A. P., Warner, B., Cropper, M., \&
548: Allen, S. 1984, \mnras, 210, 663
549:
550: \bibitem[Norton et al.(1992)]{nor92}
551: Norton, A. J., McHardy, I. M., Lehto, H. J., \& Watson, M. G. 1992, \mnras,
552: 258, 697
553:
554: \bibitem[Parker, Norton, \& Mukai(2005)]{par05}
555: Parker, T. L., Norton, A. J., \& Mukai, K. 2005, \aap, 439, 213
556:
557: \bibitem[Patterson(1994)]{pat94}
558: Patterson, J. 1994, \pasp, 106, 209
559:
560: \bibitem[Penning, Schmidt, \& Liebert(1986)]{pen86}
561: Penning, W. R., Schmidt, G. D., \& Liebert, J. 1986, \apj, 301, 881
562:
563: \bibitem[Plucinsky et al.(1993)]{plu93}
564: Plucinsky, P. P., Snowden, S. L., Briel, U. G., Hasinger, G., \&
565: Pfeffermann, E. 1993, \apj, 418, 519
566:
567: \bibitem[Pych et al.(1996)]{pyc96}
568: Pych, W., Semeniuk, I., Olech, A., \& Ruszkowski, M. 1996, Acta Astronomica,
569: 46, 279
570:
571: \bibitem[Rosen, Mason, \& Cordova(1988)]{ros88}
572: Rosen, S. R., Mason, K. O., \& Cordova, F. A. 1988, \mnras, 231, 549
573:
574: \bibitem[Snowden et al.(1995)]{sno95}
575: Snowden, S. L., Freyberg, M. J., Plucinsky, P. P., Schmitt, J. H. M.,
576: Trumper, J., Voges, W., Edgar, R. J., McCammon, D., \& Sanders, W. T.
577: 1995, \apj, 454, 643
578:
579: \bibitem[Terada, Ishida, \& Makishima(2004)]{ter04}
580: Terada, Y., Ishida, M., \& Makishima, K. 2004, \pasj, 56, 533
581:
582: \bibitem[West, Berriman, \& Schmidt(1987)]{wes87}
583: West, S. C., Berriman, G., \& Schmidt, G. D. 1987, \apj, 322, L35
584:
585: \end{thebibliography}
586:
587: \clearpage
588:
589: \begin{table}
590: \caption{Possible Cataloged X-ray Sources near BG CMi$^a$}
591: \begin{tabular}{ccrc}
592: \hline\hline
593: Source Name & R.A.$^b$ & DEC.$^b$ & Count Rate\\
594: & & & (counts s$^{-1}$)\\
595: \hline
596: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
597: 2RXP J073138.1+100108 & 112.90876 & 10.01917 & (9.4$\pm$3.7)$\times10^{-4}$\\
598: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
599: 2RXP J073126.8+095959 & 112.86167 & 9.99972 & (1.0$\pm$0.4)$\times10^{-3}$\\
600: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
601: 2RXP J073148.2+095810 & 112.95084 & 9.96945 & (1.1$\pm$0.4)$\times10^{-3}$\\
602: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
603: BG CMi & 112.87084 & 9.94028 & (8.7$\pm$0.3)$\times10^{-2}$\\
604: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
605: 2RXP J073151.3+095430 & 112.96375 & 9.90833 & (2.0$\pm$0.6)$\times10^{-3}$\\
606: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
607: \hline
608: \end{tabular}
609: \\$^a$Within a circular region of radius 0.1\arcdeg\ which
610: is centered at BG CMi.
611: \\$^b$Equatorial coordinates are in equinox J2000.
612: \end{table}
613:
614: \clearpage
615:
616: \begin{table}
617: \begin{small}
618: \caption{Best-Fit Pulse Parameters and Calculated Pulsed fluxes}
619: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
620: \hline\hline
621: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Pulse or Peak} &
622: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Energy Band} \\ \cline{2-5}
623: & 0.1 $-$ 0.8 keV & 0.8 $-$ 2.0 keV & 2.0 - 4.0 keV & 4.0 $-$ 10 keV\\
624: \hline
625: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
626: RP1 & & & \\
627: $P$ (phase) & 0.995$^{+0.005}_{-0.006}$ &
628: 1.00$^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$
629: & \nodata & \nodata\\
630: $W$ (phase) & 0.036$^{+0.005}_{-0.006}$ &
631: 0.065$^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$
632: & \nodata & \nodata\\
633: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & 21.5$^{+8.3}_{-6.4}$ &
634: 18.3$^{+7.1}_{-5.5}$
635: & \nodata & \nodata\\
636: \hline
637: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
638: RP2 & & & \\
639: $P$ (phase) & 1.27$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &
640: 1.28$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
641: & \nodata & \nodata\\
642: $W$ (phase) & 0.06$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &
643: 0.10$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
644: & \nodata & \nodata\\
645: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & 15.0$^{+7.1}_{-5.3}$ &
646: 17.7$^{+9.1}_{-6.3}$
647: & \nodata & \nodata\\
648: \hline
649: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
650: $C^{*2}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & 34.9 & 6.4 & \nodata &
651: \nodata\\
652: \hline
653: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
654: AP1 & & & \\
655: $P$ (phase) & \nodata & 0.77$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &
656: 0.76$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$
657: & 0.76$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\\
658: $W$ (phase) & \nodata & 0.067$^{+0.013}_{-0.010}$ &
659: 0.055$^{+0.010}_{-0.007}$
660: & 0.06$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\\
661: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & \nodata &
662: 1.6$^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$
663: & 3.6$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ &
664: 2.4$^{+1.7}_{-1.0}$\\
665: \hline
666: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
667: AP2 & & & \\
668: $P$ (phase) & \nodata & 1.016$^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$ &
669: 1.009$^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$
670: & 1.01$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\\
671: $W$ (phase) & \nodata & 0.068$^{+0.006}_{-0.006}$ &
672: 0.088$^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$
673: & 0.11$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$\\
674: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & \nodata &
675: 5.2$^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$
676: & 10.5$^{+1.9}_{-1.7}$ &
677: 6.1$^{+3.3}_{-2.0}$\\
678: \hline
679: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
680: AP3 & & & \\
681: $P$ (phase) & \nodata & 1.282$^{+0.003}_{-0.013}$ &
682: 1.32$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$
683: & 1.36$^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ \\
684: $W$ (phase) & \nodata & 0.075$^{+0.012}_{-0.017}$ &
685: 0.09$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
686: & 0.09$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$\\
687: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & \nodata &
688: 4.8$^{+1.0}_{-2.5}$
689: & 9.8$^{+3.3}_{-3.6}$ &
690: 5.3$^{+2.4}_{-2.6}$\\
691: \hline
692: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
693: AP4 & & & \\
694: $P$ (phase) & \nodata & 1.50$^{+0.04}_{-0.16}$ &
695: 1.49$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$
696: & $1.50^{*3}$\\
697: $W$ (phase) & \nodata & 0.10$^{+0.10}_{-0.03}$ &
698: 0.06$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$
699: & $0.036^{*3}$\\
700: $Flux^{*1}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & \nodata &
701: 1.7$^{+2.3}_{-0.7}$
702: & 2.3$^{+2.9}_{-0.4}$ & 0.7\\
703:
704: \hline
705: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
706: $C^{*2}$ ($10^{-3}$ counts s$^{-1}$) & \nodata & 2.8 & 20.5 & 52.4\\
707:
708: \hline
709: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
710: \end{tabular}
711: \\Note - Models of two or four Gaussians on the top of a constant base were fitted to the pulse
712: profiles.
713: The full-width at half-maximum can be obtained by multiplying a constant,
714: i.e., $W_{\rm FWHM} = 2.354 \times W$.
715: All the attached errors are at 90\% confidence level.
716: \\$^{*1}$The
717: mean pulsed flux for each pulse was calculated using the best-fit parameters.
718: \\$^{*2}$A constant that represents the unpulsed flux level.
719: \\$^{*3}$Fixed in the fit.
720: \end{small}
721: \end{table}
722:
723: \clearpage
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.555]{f1.eps}
727: \caption{
728: $\chi^2$-plot as a function of trial period for the GIS data in the entire
729: energy range.
730: The harmonics of the period P, labeled with $1 \over 2$P (456.7~s),
731: $1 \over 3$P (304.5~s), and $1 \over 4$P (228.4~s), are clearly seen in
732: the figure.
733: The peak labeled with P$_{\rm b}$
734: ($\equiv$ ${\rm P_{orb}P}\over{\rm P_{orb} + P}$ = 847.5~s) is the beat between
735: orbital (3.235~hr) and pulse (913.5~s) periods.
736: }
737: \end{figure}
738:
739: \clearpage
740:
741: \begin{figure}
742: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f2.eps}
743: \caption{
744: Pulse profile of the ROSAT data folded at period 913.6~s from
745: the epoch MJD 48709.28492. The pulse phase has been repeated over two cycles.
746: A model of two Gaussians on the top of a constant base (solid curve) was fitted to the
747: profile (crosses) from the minimum to the minimum.
748: The vertical short-dashed lines represent the optical pulse maximum expected
749: from the recent ephemerides: the number 1 at the
750: top of the figure is from Kim et al. (2005), 2 is from Pych et al. (1996),
751: and 3 is from Hellier (1997).
752: }
753: \end{figure}
754:
755: \clearpage
756:
757: \begin{figure}
758: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f3.eps}
759: \caption{
760: Pulse profile of the ASCA data folded at period 913.5~s from
761: the epoch MJD 50187.79824.
762: The count rate is an average value detected by GISs and SISs.
763: A model of four Gaussians on the top of a constant base (solid curve) was fitted to
764: the profile (crosses) from the minimum to the minimum.
765: The vertical short-dashed lines are the same as in Figure~2.
766: }
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: \clearpage
770:
771: \begin{figure}
772: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.7]{f4.eps}
773: \caption{
774: Energy-resolved pulse profiles of BG CMi.
775: The folding epoch and period for the ROSAT and ASCA data are the same as
776: in Figures~2 and 3, respectively.
777: The short-dashed curves and horizontal lines represent each Gaussian
778: component and the unpulsed flux level, respectively.
779: Goodness of the model-fit is inserted in each figure.
780: The count rate in (c) through (e) is an average value
781: detected by GISs and SISs.
782: }
783: \end{figure}
784:
785: \end{document}
786: