1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{z}{}{,}
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5:
6: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
7:
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9:
10: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11:
12: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
13: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
14: %% the \begin{document} command.
15: %%
16: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
17: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
18: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
19: %% for information.
20:
21: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
22: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
23: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
24: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
25: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
26: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
27:
28: \shorttitle{NICMOS Observations of Shocked H$_2$ in Orion}
29: \shortauthors{Colgan et al.}
30:
31: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
32: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{NICMOS Observations of Shocked H$_2$ in Orion$^1$}
37: \author{Sean W.J. Colgan, A.S.B. Schultz\altaffilmark{2},
38: M.J. Kaufman\altaffilmark{3}, E.F. Erickson, D.J. Hollenbach}
39: \affil{NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035}
40:
41: \email{sean.colgan@nasa.gov}
42: \altaffiltext{1}{
43: Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space Telescope}
44: obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
45: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. }
46: \altaffiltext{2}{University New South Wales and SETI Institute}
47: \altaffiltext{3}{San Jose State University}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: HST NICMOS narrowband images of the shocked molecular hydrogen emission in OMC-1
52: % - obtained during the January 1998 camera 3 campaign -
53: are analyzed to reveal new information on the BN/KL outflow.
54: The outstanding morphological feature of this region is
55: the array of molecular hydrogen ``fingers'' emanating from
56: the general vicinity of IRc2 and the presence
57: of several Herbig-Haro objects.
58: The NICMOS images appear to resolve individual shock fronts.
59: This work is a more quantitative and detailed
60: analysis of our data from a previous paper
61: \citetext{Schultz et~al$.$}.
62:
63: Line strengths for the H$_2$ 1--0 S(4) plus 2--1 S(6) lines at 1.89 \micron\ are estimated
64: from measurements with the Paschen $\alpha$ continuum filter F190N
65: at 1.90 \micron, and continuum measurements at 1.66 and 2.15 \micron.
66: We compare the observed H$_2$ line strengths and ratios
67: of the 1.89 \micron\ and 2.12 \micron\ 1--0 S(1) lines with models for
68: molecular cloud shock waves.
69: Most of the data cannot be fit by J-shocks,
70: but are well matched by C-shocks
71: with shock velocities in the range of 20--45\,km\,s$^{-1}$
72: and preshock densities of $10^{4} - 10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$,
73: similiar to values obtained in larger beam studies which averaged over many shocks.
74: There is also some evidence that shocks with higher densities have lower velocities.
75:
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \keywords{\ion{H}{2} regions - infrared: ISM: lines and bands - ISM: individual (OMC-1) -
79: ISM: jets and outflows - stars:pre-main-sequence}
80:
81: \section{Introduction}
82:
83: At 450 pc, the Orion molecular cloud is the nearest and best-studied
84: region of massive star formation.
85: The Trapezium stars, formed within Orion Molecular Cloud 1,
86: have cleared a cavity at the near edge of the cloud.
87: The visible Orion Nebula is the thin layer of photo-ionized gas
88: on the cavity's surface facing the observer.
89: Behind M42, and further from the observer,
90: is a photodissociation region (PDR) also excited by the Trapezium.
91: The BN/KL region lies still deeper in the cloud,
92: beyond both the ionized gas and the PDR.
93: This region contains embedded sources
94: with one or more associated outflows;
95: the total luminosity of this region approaches $\sim 10^{5}L_{\sun}$ \citep{GS89}.
96: The mid-infrared source IRc2 had long been thought to be
97: the origin of these outflows;
98: but \citet{D93} resolved IRc2 into four sources,
99: raising the possibility that none of them is sufficiently powerful
100: to drive the observed outflows.
101: \citet{MR95} suggested
102: that the origin may be closer to the infrared source ``n'' \citep{LBLS82},
103: located $\approx$ 5\arcsec\ SW of IRc2.
104: \citet{GGDNMT} detected extended emission from source n
105: at wavelengths out to 22 \micron,
106: but estimate a luminosity of only 2000 $L_{\sun}$.
107: They also resolved IRc2 into $\sim5$ knots
108: and suggested that these sources together with radio source I
109: \citep{Ch87} comprise at least part of the core of
110: a high density star forming cluster.
111:
112: The most striking of the molecular hydrogen outflows is an $\sim3'$ (0.4 pc) sized,
113: butterfly-shaped region of H$_2$ emission, centered to the north of BN,
114: which exhibits line ratios typical of shock excitation \citep{B78}.
115: From \ion{O}{1} emission, \citet{AT84} identified
116: a number of optical HH objects in this vicinity.
117: \citet{Ta84} discovered peculiar linear H$_2$
118: structures in the outflow.
119: \citet[hereafter AB]{AB93} showed that these H$_2$ ``fingers''
120: and all the associated optical HH objects
121: at the far northern end of the outflow
122: (approximately 120\arcsec\ from BN)
123: terminated in knots of \ion{Fe}{2} emission.
124: \citet{S98} found additional H$_2$ fingers within 30\arcsec\ of BN.
125: %\citet[Paper 1]{Paper1}
126: Schultz et~al$.$ \citetext{1999, Paper 1},
127: found that only 2 of the 15 inner fingers seen by \citet{S98}
128: had bow shocks capped by \ion{Fe}{2} emission,
129: suggesting a lower excitation than in the outer fingers seen by AB.
130:
131: From offsets between the peak H$_2$ emission and the peak H$_2$ velocity,
132: \citet*{GKCFLPRL} suggested that the H$_2$ emission arises in part
133: from outflows from protostars within dense clumps of gas.
134: In contrast, based on proper motion studies of optical features,
135: \citet*{D02} found that both finger systems could have been created by an explosive event
136: close to the IRc2-BN complex which took place approximately 1000 years ago.
137: Interestingly, \citet*{R05} and \citet*{G05} suggested that BN and sources I and n were
138: originally part of a multiple massive stellar system that disintegrated about 500 years ago.
139: Explanations for the unique system of fingers have focused on two theories.
140: AB originally suggested that they are ``bullets''---ejected clumps leaving
141: a wake of shocked material behind them.
142: However, the observed morphology of the H$_2$ emission is inconsistent
143: with models for bullets (\citealp{SN92}, \citealp*{KMC94}, \citealp{XS95}, \citealp*{JYT96}).
144: These models predict that rapidly moving clumps are fragmented
145: and also predict that the tails should be pointing away from the ejection source,
146: which is not seen.
147: \citet*{SXM95} suggested the features
148: are produced when a faster wind collides with a slower, older outflow.
149: Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities from the collision form the clumps in situ,
150: moving at the speed of the older outflow.
151: The observed fingers then condense behind the slowly moving clumps.
152: This is similar to the mechanism thought to have produced the cometary knots
153: in the Helix Nebula \citep{OH96}.
154: One prediction of this model is that
155: a region of clumpy H$_2$ emission will form behind
156: (i.e. upstream of) the bullets.
157: \citet{MML97} claimed to have found
158: this clumpy emission in the central region of the H$_2$ outflow.
159: However, our previous work \citep{Paper1}
160: and that of \citep{S98}
161: shows that much of this \lq\lq clumpy" H$_2$ emission
162: is resolved into more discrete objects,
163: some resembling additional fingers.
164: The remaining, unresolved clumpy emission
165: is often mixed with the inner fingers.
166:
167: Here we discuss the interpretation
168: of our previously published NICMOS infrared images of a
169: 90\arcsec\ wide region centered on BN/KL,
170: focusing on the structure of the H$_2$ emission.
171: Examination of the F190N images,
172: originally obtained for subtracting continuum from
173: the P$\alpha$ 1.87 \micron\ images \citep{Paper1},
174: suggested that in many regions there was a strong correlation
175: with the H$_2$ 1--0~S(1) 2.12 \micron\ continuum-subtracted images.
176: In fact, the F190N filter bandpass includes both
177: the H$_2$ 1-0~S(4) and the 2-1~S(6) lines at 1.89 \micron.
178: This H$_2$ emission is likely produced in shocks
179: \citep{GFTL76}.
180: %either dissociative ($v_S \gtrsim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) or non-dissociative.
181: %($v_S\lesssim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) [or possibly $v_S \gtrsim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$
182: % in weakly-magnetized gas].
183: H$_2$ emission can also be produced through UV fluorescence,
184: but larger beam studies of multiple H$_2$ transitions by
185: \citet{U96}, \citet*{R00}, and many others
186: have shown that the measured line ratios
187: in this region are consistent only
188: with thermal excitation and not UV fluorescence.
189: In this paper, we focus on the finger-like structures and the HH
190: objects. Some of these objects have optical counterparts, which places
191: constraints on their position within the cloud/nebula interface.
192: In \S2 we discuss the observations and data reduction.
193: In \S3 we compare the
194: observed H$_2$ line brightnesses with several classes of shock models
195: in order to determine shock types, shock velocities, and gas densities.
196: In \S4 we discuss the morphology of,
197: and emission from, many of the more distinct, brighter features seen in our images.
198:
199: \section{Observations}
200:
201: Observations were made of H$_2$ 1--0~S(1) 2.12 \micron\ and
202: 1--0~S(4) plus 2--1~S(6) 1.89 \micron\ in the 1\% bandpass NICMOS filters.
203: The initial reduction of the NICMOS data was described in detail in Paper 1
204: and generally followed standard procedures.
205: Photometry was then performed on the reduced data from Paper 1
206: using the IRAF \citep{T93} task {\bf polyphot},
207: in which the average brightness is estimated inside a user-defined polygonal aperture.
208: The apertures were designed to closely follow the outline of each object we identified.
209: Sky subtraction was not performed with the {\bf polyphot} task,
210: but separately using a region or regions far from areas of obvious emission.
211: Regions selected for photometry are shown in Figure 1.
212: Knot designations, except for HH 208,
213: utilize the source identification scheme of \citet{OW94}.
214: Knot identifications for HH 208 are shown in Figure 11.
215: The features were selected for being distinct and fairly bright,
216: having detectable 1.66 \micron\ and 2.15 \micron\
217: continuum emission, and 2.12 \micron\ line emission.
218: Knot U was also included even though it had no detectable 1.66 \micron\ continuum.
219: The resulting photometry is listed in Columns 2-5 of Table 1.
220: The formal statistical errors are such that the signal-to-noise ratios of all the
221: measurements in Table 1 exceed 25 except for three:
222: i) the 1.66 \micron\ measurement of 128--248 (S/N $= 4$),
223: ii) the 1.66 \micron\ measurement of HH 208U (not detected),
224: and
225: iii) the 2.15 \micron\ measurement of HH 208U (S/N=15).
226:
227: There are no continuum observations for the H$_2$ 1.892 \micron\ 1--0~S(4) plus 2--1~S(6) images.
228: However, we did observe continua at 1.66 and 2.15 \micron,
229: intended as continua for the \ion{Fe}{2} and 1--0~S(1) lines respectively.
230: The 1.89 \micron\ continuum has been estimated from these
231: continuum measurements by linearly interpolating between
232: the 1.66 \micron\ and 2.15 \micron\ photometric measurements.
233: The continuum interpolation approach was checked by applying the same technique
234: to nine regions with no 2.12 \micron\ H$_2$ emission.
235: In these test regions, the interpolated continuum value was on average
236: $99\pm3$\% of the value actually measured in the F190N filter,
237: confirming that this is a reasonable approach.
238: As an example of the interpolation, the brightnesses for 128--248,
239: with the estimated continuum is shown in Figure 2.
240:
241: \clearpage
242: \begin{figure}
243: \figurenum{1}
244: \plotone{f1.eps}
245: \caption{H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) image of the Orion region with the selected features labelled.
246: North is up and east is to the left.
247: BN is located at $05^{\rm h}35^{\rm m}14.^{\rm s}12, -05^{\degr}22'23.''2$ (J2000)
248: and the location of IRc2 is noted by a cross.
249: \label{fig1}}
250: \end{figure}
251: \clearpage
252: %\placetable{table1}
253: %\clearpage
254: %\setcounter{table}{0}
255: \input{tab1}
256: \clearpage
257: \begin{figure}
258: \figurenum{2}
259: \plotone{f2.eps}
260: \caption{The estimation of H$_2$ line brightnesses for 128--248.
261: The boxes show the measured photometric points; errors are smaller than the boxes.
262: The X's show the estimated continuum at the wavelengths of the H$_2$ lines.
263: The 2.12 \micron\ continuum was set equal to the 2.15 \micron\ measurement.
264: \label{fig2}}
265: \end{figure}
266: \clearpage
267: The extinction corrections in this region are complex, and vary depending
268: upon the distribution of intervening dust,
269: which lies not only within the molecular cloud but also
270: in the PDR and in foreground material.
271: Extinction estimates are also complicated by reflection off the
272: back side of the nebula.
273: Most of our objects,
274: including two fingers and several more compact structures,
275: have some associated \ion{Fe}{2} (1.64 \micron) emission
276: \citep{Setal07}.
277: For these objects, the 2.12 \micron\ extinction can be estimated from
278: the results of \citet{Ch97},
279: who used measurements of the \ion{Fe}{2} 1.257 and 1.644 \micron\ transitions,
280: and the extinction curve of \citet*{C89},
281: to obtain the extinction values of 0.6 shown in column 6 of Table 1.
282: For five regions, no \ion{Fe}{2} emission is seen, possibly because of larger extinction.
283: The extinction for these particular objects hasn't been estimated
284: by \citet{Ch97}, or others.
285: The best references are large beam extinction studies
286: of the H$_2$ Peak 1 source.
287: The largest and most recent such study is that of
288: \citet{R00},
289: based on the ISO measurement of
290: 56 H$_2$ transitions covering wavelengths of 2-17 \micron.
291: They find A$_K=1.0\pm0.1$, a value we adopt here for
292: 128--248, 137--239, 137--240, 143--225, and 145--204.
293: For wavelengths other than 2.12 \micron, the brightnesses have been extinction
294: corrected using A$_{\lambda} =$ A$_{2.12}\{{{\lambda}\over{2.12}}\}^{-1.61}$ \citep*{C89},
295: who also found that the shape of the extinction curve in the IR
296: is independent of the value assumed for R$_V$.
297: Usage of different plausible extinction corrections,
298: within the uncertainties, does not appreciably alter our conclusions.
299: For reference, we show in column 7 the approximate visual extinctions, A$_V=4.5$
300: and A$_V\sim8$, based upon R$_V=$A$_V$/E$_{(B-V)}=3.1$, and \citet{C89}.
301: The final 1.89 \micron\ H$_2$ line-to-continuum ratios
302: range from 0.25 to 1.1, with a median of 0.7.
303:
304: \section{Shocked Emission Features: Line Ratio Analysis}
305:
306: Early shock models of the Orion outflow invoked planar C-type shock models
307: to explain the emission from species such as H$_2$ and CO
308: (e.g.~\citealp{DR82}, \citealp*{CMH82}).
309: C-type or ``continuous'' shocks occur at relatively low shock speeds ($V_{shock}
310: \lesssim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$)
311: in the presence of magnetic fields.
312: A low ionization fraction allows ionized gas
313: to cushion the shock in the neutral gas,
314: limiting the neutral gas temperature to
315: less than several thousand Kelvin and preventing
316: significant dissociation.
317: J-type or ``jump'' shocks generally occur
318: at relatively high shock speeds ($V_{shock} \gtrsim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$)
319: and usually dissociate molecular gas in
320: the high temperature ($T \sim 10^4-10^5$ K) post-shock region.
321: Molecules reform in the cooling post-shock gas at T$\sim$500~K.
322: For pre-shock densities $\gtrsim10^5\,\rm cm^{-3}$,
323: H$_2$ line ratios produced in the
324: reforming molecular gas may reach values higher than thermal values since
325: H$_2$ reforms in excited states, leading to a non-thermal
326: cascade through rovibrational states \citep{HM89}.
327:
328: Observations of shocked
329: H$_2$O emission in Orion \citep[e.g.][]{HNMK98}
330: seem to confirm the general picture
331: that C-type shocks are responsible for the molecular emission in the outflow.
332: These studies converge on preshock conditions
333: $n(\rm H_2)\sim 10^5\,\rm cm^{-3}$ and
334: $V_{shock}\sim 35$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep[e.g.][]{CMH82}.
335: It should be noted,
336: however, that these studies fit data collected from a beam area
337: covering an entire outflow lobe ($\sim 1\arcmin \sim 0.1$ pc at Orion).
338: Images of the shocked emission on sub-arcsecond
339: scales \citep[AB,][]{S98}
340: show many emission features,
341: each of which presumably has its own shock conditions.
342: What is unique about the NICMOS observations of the inner region
343: is that the 0.\arcsec 2 ($\sim 1.4\times10^{15}\,\rm cm$) resolution
344: allows the isolation of individual shock fronts on the length scales
345: expected for such shocks.
346: These scales are expected to be $\sim 10^{15}\,\rm cm$,
347: depending on the preshock density but with only
348: a weak dependence on the shock velocity \citep{KN96}.
349: This means that our deduced shock parameters are more
350: likely to represent the local physical conditions,
351: rather than an average over a number of shocks.
352:
353: H$_2$ adaptive optics observations of the ambient molecular cloud
354: to the south-east of BN/KL
355: have been carried out with $0.''15$ angular resolution \citep{V01,kgfclvp}.
356: The observed H$_2$ 1-0 S(1) brightness is
357: well matched by C-shock models with shock velocities of 30\,km\,s$^{-1}$
358: and pre-shock densities of $10^6\,\rm cm^{-3}$,
359: but the same models fall short
360: of matching the 2-1 S(1) brightness by a factor $\sim$2 \citep{V01}.
361: Higher shock velocity models improve the 2-1 S(1) brightness prediction,
362: but provide a worse fit to the 1-0 S(1) brightness.
363: J-shock models produce the observed 2-1 S(1)/1-0 S(1) brightness ratio but have
364: trouble reproducing the individual line brightnesses.
365: \citet{P01} suggested that non-stationary C-shocks can reproduce the high brightness
366: and the large observed 2-1 S(1)/1-0 S(1) brightness ratios.
367: However, non-stationary C-shocks have difficulty accounting for
368: the proper motion velocity measurements of \citet{D02},
369: who found that over the velocity range of 20 -- 400\,km\,s$^{-1}$,
370: different emission lines from the same object have similar velocities.
371: From comparison with the higher excitation H$_2$ 2-1 S(1) line,
372: \citet*{kgfclvp} found H$_2$ clumps to have abrupt, south-facing edges
373: exhibiting high excitation temperatures.
374: Even C-shocks propagating into high density material can't account for
375: the excitation temperature maxima and the line fluxes.
376: This led \citet*{kgfclvp} to suggest that J-shocks propagating into
377: material with a pre-shock density $\ge 10^6\,\rm cm^{-3}$,
378: plus an additional contribution from photo-dissociated material,
379: are required to explain these measurements.
380: Emission from bow-shaped shock fronts \citep{S91},
381: in which both C-shocks and
382: J-shocks are responsible for the overall emission,
383: may also help explain these observed brightnesses and line ratios.
384:
385: For our study,
386: we use the ratio of the H$_2$ line fluxes at 2.12 and 1.89 \micron\
387: as a diagnostic of conditions in the emitting gas.
388: The Camera 3 F190N filter transmission plot was examined to determine
389: the relative throughput of the 1-0 S(4) (1.892 \micron ) and
390: 2-1 S(6) (1.8947 \micron ) rovibrational transitions.
391: From the transmission plot, we estimate the NICMOS filter transmissions
392: at the H$_2$ wavelengths to be 64\% and 98\% respectively.
393: Hence, we compare the measurements with
394: model predictions for $0.64\times$B[1-0 S(4)]$+ 0.98\times$B[2-1 S(6)].
395: All three transitions require gas temperatures in excess
396: of 1000 K in order to produce significant emission.
397: Such high temperatures imply that shock excitation
398: is responsible for the H$_2$ emission.
399: A difficulty with interpreting the 2.12 and 1.89 \micron\ lines is that
400: the transitions are relatively close together in excitation:
401: the upper state of the S(1) line is at 6956K,
402: and that of the S(4) and S(6) lines are at 9286K and 16880K,
403: which can be a rather small baseline to fit.
404:
405: In an effort to characterize the shocked H$_2$ emission,
406: we have compared our observed line brightnesses and line ratios
407: with standard models of shock emission:
408: the C-shock model of \citet{KN96}
409: and the J-shock model of \citet{HM89}.
410: We first consider 128--248, a well-isolated source
411: for which we obtain the highest signal-to-noise ratio
412: at 1.89 and 2.12 \micron.
413: Because the large beam studies suggest shocked gas with densities near $10^5\,\rm cm^{-3}$,
414: we computed the brightnesses of the 1-0~S(1) and $0.64\times$B[1-0 S(4)]$+ 0.98\times$B[2-1 S(6)]
415: transitions in C-shocks with preshock densities of $10^4,\,10^5$ and $10^6\,\rm cm^{-3}$ and
416: shock speeds up to 50\,km\,s$^{-1}$;
417: and in J-shocks with preshock densities of $10^5,\,10^6$ and $10^7\,\rm cm^{-3}$ and
418: shock speeds up to 100\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
419: In line with current practice, the models assume
420: a) a planar shock,
421: b) a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the shock, and
422: c) the magnetic field strength in microgauss equals the square root
423: of the density in cm$^{-3}$ \citep{TH86}.
424: The precise structure of the C-shocks depends on the field strength,
425: as well as the ionization fraction, the grain size distribution, and
426: the details of gas cooling.
427: We have previously explored the effects of varying these parameters
428: on shock structure \citep{KN96}.
429: We find that while the precise value of shock velocity and density determined
430: from a line ratio may vary from those presented here,
431: the range of intensities and line ratios possible in C-shock models
432: is essentially limited by the temperature at which H$_2$ dissociates.
433: Thus our conclusion that C-shocks can explain the emission in most of the observed features
434: is robust even if the precise shock parameters are different from those we have assumed.
435:
436: At this assumed magnetic field strength, low velocity shocks are C-shocks and
437: not the lower magnetic field strength, non-dissociative, molecular J-shocks discussed by \citet{W00}.
438: Typically, molecular J-shocks produce a factor of 10-1000 times fainter H$_2$ emission
439: in the lines discussed here than C-shocks \citep{W00}.
440: Since these line fluxes would be undetectable,
441: we have not included non-dissociative, molecular J-shocks in our grid of models.
442: Higher velocity shocks would be dissociative J-shocks, which we do consider.
443: C-shocks are also known to be unstable to the Wardle instability \citep{W90}
444: arising from perturbations in the magnetic field direction,
445: an effect which is not taken into account in the steady-state C-shock models presented here.
446: The effects of this instability on the strengths of H$_2$ emission lines
447: has been explored by \citet{MS97} and \citet{NS97}.
448: Both studies reached the conclusion that, for shocks over the range
449: of densities and shock velocities we consider
450: (i.e. shocks for which H$_2$ is the dominant coolant),
451: the instability has little effect on the predicted intensities of H$_2$ lines.
452: Thus our steady-state models should be sufficient for modeling the emission presented here.
453: Clearly, changing the assumptions in the shock models -
454: bowshocks instead of plane-parallel shocks,
455: stronger or weaker magnetic fields,
456: a different orientation of the magnetic field with respect to the shock, etc. -
457: will result in different predictions for the H$_2$ line strengths,
458: perhaps resulting in better (or worse) agreement with our data.
459: A complete exploration of this parameter space is beyond the scope of this paper,
460: but we can show that for some commonly-assumed magnetic field properties,
461: plane-parallel C-shock models provide a reasonable fit to the data,
462: while plane-parallel J-shock models generally do not.
463:
464: The predicted brightness ratio \{$0.64\times$B[1-0 S(4)]$+ 0.98\times$B[2-1 S(6)]\}/B[1-0 S(1)]
465: from each model calculation is shown in Figure 3 as a function of shock velocity.
466: Also shown is the measured ratio, 0.19, for 128--248.
467: The line ratio is consistent with either C- or J-shocks.
468: However, the line ratio and brightness from this feature is best fit
469: by a C-shock model with velocity 36\,km\,s$^{-1}$
470: and preshock density of $6\times 10^4\,\rm cm^{-3}$.
471: The brightnesses, line ratio, and model predictions
472: for 128--248 are listed in Table 2.
473: The model values are well within
474: the systematic measurement uncertainties.
475: {\it J-shocks produce absolute intensities which are too low to match the observed values.}
476:
477: \clearpage
478: %\placetable{table2}
479: \input{tab2}
480: \clearpage
481: \begin{figure}
482: \figurenum{3}
483: \plotone{f3.eps}
484: \caption{Predicted \{$0.64\times$B[1-0 S(4)]$+ 0.98\times$B[2-1 S(6)]\}/1-0 S(1) line ratio
485: from C-shock and J-shock models
486: with magnetic fields oriented perpendicular to the shock propagation direction
487: and strengths in microgauss equal to the square root of the density
488: in cm$^{-3}$ \citep{TH86}.
489: Results are shown for C-shock models with $n(\rm H_2)=10^4,\,10^5$ and $10^6
490: \,\rm cm^{-3}$ and $V_{shock}=15-50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, and
491: J-shock models with $n(\rm H_2)=10^5,\,10^6$ and
492: $10^7\,\rm cm^{-3}$ and $V_{shock}=30-100$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
493: Also shown is the measured value of the line ratio for
494: the Orion feature 128--248 (horizontal solid line),
495: with the statistical uncertainty in the
496: ratio indicated by the dashed lines.
497: \label{fig3}}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500: \clearpage
501: The extinction-corrected line flux ratio for each of
502: ten locations in HH 208 and thirteen other features
503: is plotted versus their 2.12 \micron\ H$_2$ line brightness in Figure 4.
504: The shock model curves are overlain.
505: Within the systematic measurement uncertainties,
506: all but one of the observed line ratios
507: are consistent with C-shocks having preshock densities $10^4\,-\,10^6\,\rm cm^{-3}$ and
508: shock velocities of 20 to 45\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
509: The narrow range of shock velocities is not surprising.
510: Slower C-shocks produce much weaker H$_2$ emission and would not have been detected.
511: Faster C-shocks break down into J-shocks,
512: again with much fainter H$_2$ emission because the H$_2$ is dissociated.
513: The consistency with larger beam studies does suggest that these studies
514: yield reasonable average shock parameters.
515: Table 3 lists shock velocities and pre-shock densities for all the objects.
516: These values were estimated by interpolating within
517: the grid of calculated C-shock models at
518: densities of $10^4$, $10^5$, $10^6$
519: and shock velocities of 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 \,km\,s$^{-1}$,
520: whose curves are plotted in Figure 4.
521: Extrapolations for those objects just outside the grid were made using
522: a few additional models with shock velocities of 45 \,km\,s$^{-1}$.
523: Two objects - 143--239 and HH208A - are clearly outside the C-shock grid.
524:
525: Examination of Figure 4 suggests that higher shock velocities
526: may be correlated with lower pre-shock densities.
527: A variety of statistical tests show that this correlation is significant at the 3-4$\sigma$ level.
528: The log of the pre-shock density falls by $\sim 0.6$
529: for each shock velocity increase of 10 \,km\,s$^{-1}$.
530: In order to search for structure
531: such as the ``hot edges'' found by \citet*{kgfclvp},
532: we have constructed and examined images of the line flux ratio
533: for all twenty three of the features included in Figure 4.
534: We find no significant structure in the ratio images except for 145--204 and 159--242,
535: where there is a peak in the line ratio offset by 1-2\arcsec\
536: from the peak H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) emission.
537:
538: \clearpage
539: \begin{figure}
540: \figurenum{4}
541: %\plotone{f4.eps}
542: \includegraphics[clip, scale=0.75] {f4.eps}
543: \caption{The log of the \{$0.64\times$B[1--0 S(4)]$+ 0.98\times$B[2--1 S(6)]\}/[1--0 S(1)]
544: brightness ratio plotted versus the log of the 1--0 S(1) brightness.
545: Measured values for each of the shocked fingers with both 1.89 \micron\
546: and 2.12 \micron\ emission are given by the pentagons.
547: The symbols for the HH 208 positions are hollow.
548: The error bars in the data are smaller than the data symbols.
549: A trend arrow indicating the direction and magnitude
550: of the change in the observed ratio and brightness
551: if the 2.12 \micron\ extinction was increased from 0.6 to 2.4 mag,
552: is given by the solid arrow.
553: The symbol outlined by a box represents source 128--248.
554: Model curves are shown for C-shocks
555: (solid curves, labeled with log[$n(\rm H_2)$/cm$^{-3}]=$4, 5, 6 and
556: shock velocity of 25--40\,km\,s$^{-1}$)
557: and J-shocks (solid, dotted, and dashed curves,
558: labeled with log[density/cm$^{-3}]=$5, 6, 7 and
559: shock velocity of 30--100\,km\,s$^{-1}$).
560: For both C- and J-shocks,
561: the magnetic fields are oriented perpendicular to the shock propagation direction
562: with strengths in microgauss equal to the square root of the density
563: in cm$^{-3}$ \citep{TH86}.
564: Factors contributing to uncertainties in the model predictions are discussed in \S3.
565: \label{fig4}}
566: \end{figure}
567:
568: \clearpage
569: %\placetable{table3}
570: \input{tab3}
571:
572: \clearpage
573: \section{Results and Discussion}
574:
575: In this section, we outline the morphological and emission characteristics
576: of the H$_2$ features. We categorize the features into fingers -
577: structures which either exhibit a clear bow shock morphology
578: or features we believe to be bow shocks approaching us at a low angle -
579: and knots - mostly including a variety of clumps in HH 208.
580:
581: \subsection{Fingers}
582:
583: The array of inner fingers which comprises the butterfly-shaped H$_2$ emission
584: first found by \citet{B78}, extends over a 90\arcsec\ broad region.
585: Most of the northern H$_2$ fingers (AB) are outside of our field to the north,
586: but there are additional fingers to the south, east of the
587: Trapezium \citep{MML97}.
588: The velocity measurements of \citet{Ch97}
589: found that in addition to strong, broad H$_2$ emission over the entire source,
590: there are high velocity components confined to discrete condensations.
591: The high velocity components are ascribed to additional `bullets'
592: similar to those imaged in the northern fingers by AB.
593: At our higher angular resolution,
594: the morphology of the inner fingers (Finger 1) is quite varied.
595: Some of the objects are revealed to be bright, well-defined
596: bow shocks; others do not display distinct bows of any kind.
597: Most of the objects are found to have complex structure,
598: with what appear to be internal shocks.
599:
600: \subsubsection{128--248 and 135--246}
601:
602: 128--248 is a bright, well-defined bow-shock in the southwestern portion of the finger array.
603: Because it is so bright, and well-separated from the main array by dark dust lanes,
604: 128--248 is an excellent candidate for many studies.
605: \citet{SB07} found a FWHM of 30 km\,s$^{-1}$,
606: while \citet[their object 10]{Ch97} found it to have a FWZI of 150 km\,s$^{-1}$ .
607: \citet{SB07} and \citet[their region 11]{GKCFLPRL}
608: found that its line profile has no secondary line peaks,
609: which is suprising for a bow shock,
610: and almost unique among the inner fingers.
611: From its peak velocity of 0 km\,s$^{-1}$, \citet{GKCFLPRL} concluded that 128--248
612: is moving in the plane of the sky,
613: but were unable to determine in what direction.
614: The H$_2$ emission morphology is shown in Figure 5 -
615: a classic bow-shock shape which appears to be moving to the southwest.
616: From the line fluxes, we deduce a shock velocity and pre-shock density of
617: 36 km\,s$^{-1}$ and $10^{4.8}$ cm$^{-3}$ for 128--248.
618:
619: \clearpage
620: \begin{figure}
621: \figurenum{5}
622: \plotone{f5.eps}
623: \caption{H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) image of 128--248 and 135--246. North is up and east is to the left.
624: The maximum brightness is 8.9$\times10^{-3}$ ergs s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$.
625: \label{fig5}}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: \clearpage
629: \begin{figure}
630: \figurenum{6}
631: \plotone{f6.eps}
632: \caption{2.12 \micron\ continuum plus H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) line map showing the locations
633: of 128--248, 135--246, 137--239, and 137--240
634: relative to the dust lanes and BN. The Trapezium is off the bottom of the image.
635: North is up and east is to the left.
636: \label{fig6}}
637: \end{figure}
638: \clearpage
639:
640: 135--246 is a bright bow shock at the end of a faint finger
641: emerging from a extended continuum ``tail'' of IRc4 (cf. Figure 1).
642: It is prominent in H$_2$ 1-0~S(1),
643: \ion{Fe}{2} \citep{Setal07}, and the F190N and F215N continuum bandpasses.
644: The object also appears in \ion{O}{1} and possibly in \ion{S}{2} emission \citep{Setal07}.
645: Our H$_2$ image is shown in Figure 5 - from the line ratios
646: we deduce a shock velocity and pre-shock density of
647: 45 km\,s$^{-1}$ and $10^{4.0}$ cm$^{-3}$.
648: The northeast boundary of the bright tip of the 135--246 bow shock is very sharp.
649: We suggest this is probably due to the emergence of the finger from behind a
650: region of high extinction:
651: Figure 6 shows that the southwestern extent of
652: the H$_2$ finger is partially obscured by
653: the same dark, curving dust lanes which are near 128-248 and the region south of BN.
654:
655: \subsubsection{137--239, 137--240, and 140--239}
656:
657: The H$_2$ emission from 137--239, 137--240, and 140--239 is shown in Figure 7.
658: From our analysis, 137--239, 137--240, and 140--239 are all fit by shock velocities of
659: 32 to 33 km\,s$^{-1}$ and pre-shock densities of $10^{4.7-4.8}$ cm$^{-3}$.
660: 140--239 is a small knot 3$''$ south of IRc4.
661: NICMOS H$_2$ images \citep{S98} suggest that this object may be a bow shock,
662: perhaps coming towards us at a low angle
663: because of its relatively large blue-shift \citep{Setal07}.
664: The lower spatial resolution of \citet{Ch97} combined 137--239 and 137--240
665: into a single feature,
666: which they identified as a high-velocity ``bullet'' (\#5 in their list) with a FWZI of 100 km\,s$^{-1}$.
667: The two features were also observed together in H$_2$ 1-0 S(0) as object b of \citet{L04}.
668: The morphology in that line was essentially identical to the morphology in 1-0 S(1).
669: \citet{GKCFLPRL} found these objects to have a peak velocity of -25 km\,s$^{-1}$,
670: although they do not indicate whether they were able to distinguish between the two bow-shocks.
671: \citet{SB07} find a velocity closer to -50 km\,s$^{-1}$ for 137--239.
672: From Figure 6, we suggest 137--239 and 137--240 may also be emerging from a dust lane,
673: like 135--246.
674: \clearpage
675: \begin{figure}
676: \figurenum{7}
677: \plotone{f7.eps}
678: \caption{H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) image of 137--239, 137--240, and 140--239.
679: The maximum brightness in these features is 1.1$\times10^{-2}$ ergs s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$.
680: North is up and east is to the left.
681: \label{fig7}}
682: \end{figure}
683: \clearpage
684: \subsubsection{142--240, 143--239, and 144--237}
685:
686: These three objects are shown in H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) emission in Figure 8.
687: 142--240 is a blunt, bow-shaped object southeast of the star at the head of IRc4.
688: It is bright in H$_2$ and \ion{Fe}{2}, and much fainter in \ion{S}{2} and
689: \ion{O}{1} \citep{Setal07}.
690: The \ion{Fe}{2} emission \citep{Setal07} is more extended than the H$_2$,
691: suggesting these transitions sample different regions.
692: For 142--240, we deduce a C shock velocity of 42 km\,s$^{-1}$
693: and a pre-shock density of $10^{4.3}$ cm$^{-3}$.
694: 142--240 is accompanied on its eastern side by a fainter,
695: larger bow-shaped region of \ion{Fe}{2} emission - 143--239 -
696: which is not seen in \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{1} \citep{Setal07}.
697: From its H$_2$ emission, which is blue-shifted \citep{SB07},
698: 143--239 appears to arise from a J-shock:
699: from Figure 4, the velocity and density would be in excess of 100 km\,s$^{-1}$
700: and $10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$ respectively.
701: A density this high might be expected to produce water masers,
702: and indeed \citet{GWVJS} find a water maser
703: within the error box of 143--239.
704: 143--239 connects to 144--237 -
705: a bright knot of \ion{Fe}{2} \citep{Setal07} and H$_2$ emission
706: 4.\arcsec 4 to the northeast of 142--240.
707: Similar to 143--239, 144--237 exhibits blue-shifted emission \citep{SB07}, with
708: a deduced shock velocity of 38 km\,s$^{-1}$ and a pre-shock density of $10^{4.3}$ cm$^{-3}$.
709: There is also faint \ion{Fe}{2} emission slightly ($\sim 0.''6$) north
710: of the H$_2$ emission \citep{Setal07}.
711: If this \ion{Fe}{2} is associated with 144--237,
712: it may be that 144--237 is moving in the direction of BN
713: or that the bow shock is asymmetric.
714: \clearpage
715: \begin{figure}
716: \figurenum{8}
717: \plotone{f8.eps}
718: \caption{H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) image of 142--240, 143--239, and 144--237.
719: The maximum brightness in these features is 5.5$\times10^{-3}$ ergs s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$.
720: North is up and east is to the left.
721: \label{fig8}}
722: \end{figure}
723: \clearpage
724: \subsubsection{152--229 and 143-225}
725:
726: \citet{Ch97} identified 152--229 as a bow shock - their bullet \#6.
727: Our H$_2$, \ion{Fe}{2}, and 2.15 \micron\ continuum emission is shown in Figure 9.
728: \citet{OHBM97} found that \ion{S}{2} emission
729: in this region is blue-shifted.
730: \citet{GKCFLPRL} found a peak velocity of -21 km\,s$^{-1}$
731: and a displacement of 0.\arcsec 2 between the emission peak
732: and the location of the maximum velocity.
733: From the direction of this displacement,
734: they deduced that the shock is propagating towards BN
735: (roughly between 2 and 3 o'clock in Figure 9).
736: In disagreement with \citet{GKCFLPRL},
737: \citet{D02} found from the proper motion of the \ion{S}{2} emission,
738: that 152--229 is moving slightly north of east - away from BN/IRc2 -
739: with a transverse velocity of 50 km\,s$^{-1}$.
740: \citet{Ch97} found 152--229 to have a FWZI of 110 km\,s$^{-1}$.
741: The estimated shock velocity and pre-shock density are
742: 27 km\,s$^{-1}$ and $10^{5.0}$ cm$^{-3}$.
743: \citet{Paper1} noted that the H$_2$ knot has a pointed cap of \ion{Fe}{2} emission
744: on the southeast side of the object (the blue arc in Figure 9),
745: away from the putative exciting source (BN/IRc2) of the outflow.
746: The positioning and morphology strongly suggests a bow shock in which
747: strong shocks producing the \ion{Fe}{2} emission form on the leading surface of the bow
748: while weaker shocks producing H$_2$ emission form behind it.
749: The cap is also seen in the \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{1} images of \citet{OHBM97}
750: and is possibly also visible in high-velocity \ion{S}{2} emission
751: \citep{OHLWBRA97}; this may be the unlabelled \ion{S}{2} knot northeast of 147--234.
752:
753: \citet{Ch97} also identified 143--225 as a bow shock - their bullet \#8,
754: with a a FWZI of 140 km\,s$^{-1}$.
755: 143--225 is among the most blue-shifted features in the outflow \citep{SB07} and
756: may be a bow shock approaching us at a low angle.
757: The H$_2$ emission is shown in Figure 10.
758: The deduced shock velocity and pre-shock density are
759: 27 km\,s$^{-1}$ and $10^{5.8}$ cm$^{-3}$.
760: The shape suggests that it is a bow shock pointed slightly north-northwest,
761: which would mean the origin of the feature would be somewhere to the south-southeast -
762: roughly opposite to the direction of BN.
763:
764: \clearpage
765: \begin{figure}
766: \figurenum{9}
767: \plotone{f9.eps}
768: \caption{False color image of 152--229.
769: Red is H$_2$ 1--0 S(1), green is the 2.15 \micron\ continum, and blue is \ion{Fe}{2}.
770: North is up and east is to the left.
771: \label{fig9}}
772: \end{figure}
773: \clearpage
774:
775: \begin{figure}
776: \figurenum{10}
777: \plotone{f10.eps}
778: \caption{H$_2$ 1--0 S(1) image of 143--225, 152--229, 159--242 and 161--246.
779: The maximum brightness in these features is 1.8$\times10^{-2}$ ergs s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$.
780: North is up and east is to the left.
781: \label{fig10}}
782: \end{figure}
783: \clearpage
784:
785: \subsection{Knots}
786:
787: \subsubsection{HH 208}
788:
789: HH 208, approximately $7''$ west of BN,
790: was first discovered by \citet{AT84}.
791: The \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{1} HST images of \citet{OHLWBRA97}
792: clearly show a number of small features.
793: Based on \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{3} images,
794: \citet{OHBM97} identified three knots in HH 208.
795: The detection of optical features suggests that
796: the extinction to HH 208 is lower than to other H$_2$ features,
797: implying it lies more in the foreground.
798: Figure 11 shows our H$_2$, \ion{Fe}{2}, and continuum images,
799: along with our knot identifications.
800: The HH 208 H$_2$ emission takes the form of discrete clumps,
801: whereas the adjacent H$_2$ emission has a more fingerlike appearance.
802: It is difficult to discern what process has created this collection of features.
803:
804: Knot A is the faintest of the 2.12 \micron\ H$_2$ knots,
805: but is the original HH 208 - seen in both \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{1}.
806: \citet{OHLWBRA97} showed images of knot A in several filters, and
807: noted that a line drawn
808: through HH 208 and HH 208NW terminates near the proplyd 154--240.
809: They suggested that 154--240 may be the source of HH~208, but the line drawn
810: (which is symmetric through HH 208NW but not through the rest of the object)
811: also falls near IRc2 and radio sources ``I'' and ``n''.
812: \citet{D02} found no net proper motion of knot A.
813: The structure of the bright core of knot A did change
814: in a disorganized fashion between 1995 and 2000,
815: which corresponds to motions over a range of about 50 km\,s$^{-1}$.
816: Based on the high-velocity, blue-shifted emission lines,
817: they further suggested that HH 208 is moving almost directly at us,
818: rather than being connected to 154--240.
819: In our data, knot A is the most extreme position - being beyond our grid of C-shock models.
820: It is certainly higher velocity than any other HH 208 location,
821: but may either be a high density ($>10^7$ cm$^{-3}$) J-shock,
822: or a low density ($<10^4$ cm$^{-3}$) C-shock.
823: The position of knot B,
824: serving as a bridge between knot A and the rest of the object,
825: is suggestive of a relationship between the forbidden-line and H$_2$ emission.
826: At 42 km\,s$^{-1}$ and $10^{4.5}$ cm$^{-3}$,
827: knot B has the second lowest density after knot U.
828:
829: \clearpage
830: \begin{figure}
831: \figurenum{11}
832: \plotone{f11.eps}
833: \caption{False color image of HH 208 with features
834: discussed in this paper labelled.
835: Red is H$_2$ 1--0 S(1), green is the 2.15 \micron\ continum,
836: and blue is \ion{Fe}{2} 1.64 \micron.
837: The gold star symbols denote stars.
838: North is up and east is to the left.
839: \label{fig11}}
840: \end{figure}
841: \clearpage
842:
843: The arrangement of knots D-E-P-N-J-F is suggestive of
844: the ``ring'' that \citet*{SMT97} pointed out
845: in the northeastern edge of the Orion H$_2$ emission.
846: The HH208 knots have deduced shock parameters in the 27--40 km\,s$^{-1}$ and
847: $10^{4.5}$ -- $10^{5.2}$ cm$^{-3}$ ranges, with no clear pattern.
848: However, there may be some excitation gradient with distance from B.
849: Around knots B-D-E, the purple features show
850: where the H$_2$ and the \ion{Fe}{2} emission coincide
851: and the purple disappears beyond E.
852: Since forbidden line emission arises from fast J-shocks,
853: in these regions at least,
854: the spatial coincidence of H$_2$ and \ion{Fe}{2} emission
855: may be inconsistent with our general result that
856: the H$_2$ emission in HH 208 arises in C-shocks.
857: The knot of high-velocity \ion{S}{2} emission designated HH 208NNW by
858: \citet{OHBM97} corresponds to the \ion{Fe}{2} emission
859: we find accompanying H$_2$ knots D-E-F;
860: this emission can also be seen in combined \ion{S}{2} and \ion{O}{1} emission in Figure 2
861: of \citet{OHLWBRA97}.
862: Farther away, knots J and N together form Object \#11 of \citet{Ch97},
863: one of the regions from which they detected discrete high velocity H$_2$ emission.
864: Knot P shows neither forbidden line emission nor high-velocity H$_2$ emission.
865:
866: Knots R and U together form HH 208NW \citep{OHBM97}.
867: Knot R shows optical forbidden line emission, including
868: high-velocity, blue-shifted \ion{S}{2} emission \citep{OHBM97}.
869: The motion of R (129--216) in the plane of the sky is 49 km\,s$^{-1}$,
870: and of U (126--214) is 65 km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{D02}, both roughly to the west on a path
871: that would have recently traversed the B-D-E-N-J-F ring.
872: These proper motions put both these objects in the vicinity of BN/I/n
873: around 1000 years ago \citep{D02},
874: consistent with many other H$_2$ features in the BN region,
875: but significantly earlier than the 500 year old BN/I/n break-up \citep{R05, G05}.
876: In our data, knot R shows the highest pre-shock density ($10^{5.5}$ cm$^{-3}$)
877: but the lowest shock velocity (26 km\,s$^{-1}$) in HH 208 -
878: suggesting the H$_2$ is not in the same region which produces
879: the high velocity \ion{S}{2} emission.
880: Knot U ties with B for the second highest velocity (42 km\,s$^{-1}$) and
881: has the lowest density ($10^{4.0}$ cm$^{-3}$).
882: Although they may be unrelated to the B-D-E-N-J-F ring,
883: knot U (or perhaps knot R) may be faster-moving material - a wind or knot -
884: that impacted the ambient material to create the ring.
885: Knot A could be a faster moving section of the expanding ring which is moving towards us.
886: The ambient material would then have been a local H$_2$ clump
887: or even the core of a single, low mass star forming region.
888:
889: \subsubsection{159--242 and 161--246}
890:
891: 159--242 and 161--246 - in the southwestern lobe of the outflow -
892: are part of OMC Pk2 \citep{B78}.
893: \citet{GKCFLPRL} found 159--242 (their object 6) to have
894: a peak velocity of +11 km\,s$^{-1}$ and 161--246 (the western half of this knot
895: is their object 19) to have a peak velocity of -15 km\,s$^{-1}$.
896: Applying shock models to their 2.12 \micron\ 1--0 S(1) flux measurements,
897: \citet{V01} derived a pre-shock density of $\sim 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$,
898: yielding a mass in 161--246 of 0.1 to 0.15 M$_\odot$,
899: making it the most massive clump in their field.
900: This led them to suggest that the
901: clump is a candidate site for low-mass star formation.
902: \citet{kgfclvp} expanded upon that work by including 2-1 S(1) images;
903: revising their shock models in light of the new data led them to conclude
904: that the density is an order of magnitude {\it greater} than \citet{V01} calculated.
905: \citet{kgfclvp} also concluded that the 2-1 S(1)/1-0 S(1) flux ratio
906: included a contribution due to radiative excitation from $\theta^1$C Ori,
907: as well as to shocks.
908: They were unable to reproduce both brightness and line ratios
909: with a single type of shock,
910: and therefore suggested that the shock contribution to the emission is composed of
911: C-shocks in the interior of the clump, with J-shocks on the exterior.
912: Our H$_2$ emission is shown in Figure 10.
913: From our analysis, 159--242 and 161--246 are well fit by shock velocities of
914: 41 and 42 km\,s$^{-1}$ and much lower pre-shock densities
915: of $10^{4.5}$ and $10^{4.4}$ cm$^{-3}$.
916: This suggests that the material producing the 2.12 \micron\ 1--0 S(1) emission
917: is insufficient to support even low mass star formation.
918: We do find that the line ratio is about 50\% higher
919: in a small region 0.9\arcsec\ east of the maximum H$_2$ emission in 159--242,
920: implying a higher shock velocity and lower density there,
921: consistent with the exterior J-shock proposed by \citet{kgfclvp}.
922:
923: \section{Summary}
924:
925: From 0.\arcsec 2 (90 AU) angular resolution HST NICMOS narrowband images of OMC-1,
926: which resolve individual shocks,
927: we estimate the brightnesses of H$_2$ transitions at 1.89 and 2.12 \micron\ for 23 features.
928: A comparison of the data with shock models shows
929: that most of the data cannot be fitted by J-shocks,
930: but are well matched by C-shocks
931: with shock velocities in the range of 20--45\,km\,s$^{-1}$
932: and preshock densities of $10^{4} - 10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$.
933: The narrow range of shock velocities is not surprising since both
934: slower C-shocks and faster J-shocks produce weaker H$_2$ emission
935: and would not have been detected.
936: Although there are many shock features in the OMC-1 region,
937: most of the features appear to be well-characterized
938: by a limited range of shock velocities and preshock densities,
939: supporting the possibility of a common origin.
940: Additionally, these values confirm the findings of larger beam studies,
941: which averaged over a number of individual shocks.
942: Two objects - 143--239 and HH208A - are possibly due to J-shocks
943: and the former does coincide with a known water maser.
944: Optical forbidden line measurements of some features in HH 208
945: require fast J-shocks for excitation;
946: we cannot explain this apparent discrepancy.
947:
948: \acknowledgements
949:
950: We wish to thank Janet Simpson, Robert Rubin, and an anonymous referee for careful readings of
951: and helpful comments on the manuscript.
952: A.S.B.S. acknowledges support from NASA/Ames Research Center Research Interchange
953: grants NCC2-647 and NCC2-1134 to the SETI Institute.
954:
955: \begin{thebibliography}{}
956: \bibitem[Allen \& Burton(1993)]{AB93} Allen, D.A. and Burton, M.G. 1993 \nat, 363, 54 (AB)
957: \bibitem[Axon \& Taylor(1984)]{AT84} Axon, D.J. and Taylor, K. 1984 \mnras\ 207 241
958: \bibitem[Beckwith et~al.(1978)]{B78} Beckwith, S., Persson, S.E., Neugebauer, G., and Becklin, E.E. 1978 \apj\ 223 464
959: \bibitem[Beckwith et~al.(1983)]{B83} Beckwith, S., Evans II, N.J., Gatley, I., Gull, G., and Russell, R.W. 1983 \apj\ 264 152
960: \bibitem[Cardelli et~al.(1989)]{C89} Cardelli, J.A., Clayton, G.C., and Mathis, J.S. 1989 \apj\ 345 245
961: \bibitem[Chernoff et~al.(1982)]{CMH82} Chernoff, D.F., McKee, C.F., and Hollenbach, D.J. 1982 \apj\ 259 L7
962: \bibitem[Chrysostomou et~al.(1997)]{Ch97} Chrysostomou, A., Burton, M.G., Axon, D.J., Brand, P.W.J.L., Hough, J.H., Bland-Hawthorn, J., and Geballe, T.R. 1997 \mnras\ 289 605
963: \bibitem[Churchwell et~al.(1987)]{Ch87} Churchwell, E., Felli, M., Wood, D.O.S., and Massi, M. 1987 \apj\ 321 516
964: \bibitem[Dougados et~al.(1993)]{D93} Dougados, C., Lena, P., Ridgway, S.T., Christou, J.C., and Probst, R.G. 1993 \apj\ 406 112
965: \bibitem[Doi et~al.(2002)]{D02} Doi, T., O'Dell, C.R., and Hartigan, P. 2002 \aj\ 124 445
966: \bibitem[Draine \& Roberge(1982)]{DR82} Draine, B.T., and Roberge, W.G. 1982 \apj\ 259 L91
967: \bibitem[Gautier et~al.(1976)]{GFTL76} Gautier, T.N., Fink, U., Treffers, R.R., and Larson, H.P. 1976 \apj\ 207 L129
968: \bibitem[Gaume et~al.(1998)] {GWVJS} Gaume, R.A., Wilson, T.L., Vrba, R.J., Johnston, K.J., and Schmid-Burgk, J. 1998 \apj\ 493 940
969: \bibitem[Genzel \& Stutzki(1989)] {GS89} Genzel, R., and Stutzki, J. 1989 \araa\ 27 41
970: \bibitem[G\'omez et~al.(2005)] {G05} G\'omez, L., Rodr\'iguez, L. F., Loinard, L., Lizano, S., Poveda, A., and Allen, C. 2005 \apj\ 635 1166
971: \bibitem[Greenhill et~al.(2004)] {GGDNMT} Greenhill, L.J., Gezari, D.Y., Danchi, W.C., Najita, J., Monnier, J.D., and Tuthill, P.G. 2004 \apj\ 605 L57
972: \bibitem[Gustafsson et~al.(2003)] {GKCFLPRL} Gustafsson, M., et~al. 2003 \aap\ 411 437
973: \bibitem[Harwit et~al.(1998)]{HNMK98} Harwit, M., Neufeld, D.A., Melnick, G.J., and Kaufman, M.J. 1998 \apj\ 497 L105
974: \bibitem[Hollenbach \& McKee(1989)]{HM89} Hollenbach, D.H., and McKee, C. 1989 \apj\ 342 306
975: \bibitem[Jones et~al.(1996)]{JYT96} Jones, T.W., Ryu, D., and Tregillis, I.L. 1996 \apj\ 473 365
976: \bibitem[Kaufman \& Neufeld(1996)]{KN96} Kaufman, M.J., and Neufeld, D.A. 1996 \apj\ 456 250
977: \bibitem[Klein et~al.(1994)]{KMC94} Klein, R., McKee, C.F., and Colella, P. 1994 \apj\ 420 213
978: \bibitem[Kristensen et~al.(2003)]{kgfclvp} Kristensen, L.E., et~al. 2003 \aap\ 412 727
979: \bibitem[Lacombe et~al.(2004)]{L04} Lacombe, F., et~al$.$ 2004 \aap\ 417 L5
980: \bibitem[Lonsdale et~al.(1982)]{LBLS82} Lonsdale, C.J., Becklin, E.E., Lee, T.J., and Stewart, J.M. 1982 \aj\ 87 1819
981: \bibitem[McCaughrean \& Mac Low(1997)]{MML97} McCaughrean, M.J., and Mac Low, M.-M. 1997 \aj\ 113 391
982: \bibitem[Mac Low \& Smith (1997)]{MS97} Mac Low, M.-M., and Smith, M.D. 1997 \apj\ 491 596
983: \bibitem[Menten \& Reid (1995)]{MR95} Menten, K.M., and Reid, M.J. 1995 \apj\ 445 L157
984: \bibitem[Neufeld \& Stone (1997)]{NS97} Neufeld, D.A., and Stone, J.M. 1997 \apj\ 487 283
985: \bibitem[O'Dell \& Handron(1996)]{OH96} O'Dell, C.R., and Handron, K. 1996 \aj\ 111 1630
986: \bibitem[O'Dell et~al.(1997a)]{OHBM97} O'Dell, C.R., Hartigan, P., Bally, J., and Morse, J.A. 1997a \aj\ 114 2016
987: \bibitem[O'Dell et~al.(1997b)]{OHLWBRA97} O'Dell, C.R., Hartigan, P., Lane, W.M., Wong, S.K., Burton, M.G., Raymond, J., and Axon, D.J. 1997b \aj\ 114 730
988: \bibitem[O'Dell \& Wen (1994)]{OW94} O'Dell, C.R., and Wen, Z. 1994 \apj\ 436 194
989: \bibitem[Pineau des For{\^e}ts \& Flower(2001)]{P01}Pineau des For\^ets, G. \& Flower, D.R. 2001, in {\it Molecular Hydrogen in Space}, ed. F. Combes \& G. Pineau des For{\^e}ts, p. 117
990: \bibitem[Rodr\'iguez et~al.(2005)] {R05} Rodr\'iguez, L. F., Poveda, A., Lizano, S., and Allen, C. 2005 \apj\ 627 L65
991: \bibitem[Rosenthal et~al.(2000)]{R00} Rosenthal, D., Bertoldi, F., and Drapatz, S. 2000 \aap\ 356 705
992: \bibitem[Salas et~al.(1999)]{Sa99} Salas, L., et~al$.$ 1999 \apj\ 511 822
993: \bibitem[Schild et~al.(1997)]{SMT97} Schild, H., Miller, S., and Tennyson, J. 1997 \aap\ 318 608
994: \bibitem[Paper 1()]{Paper1} Schultz, A.S.B., et~al$.$ 1999 \apj\ 511 282 (Paper 1)
995: \bibitem[Schultz \& Burton (2007)]{SB07} Schultz, A.S.B., and Burton, M.G. 2007 in preparation
996: \bibitem[Schultz et~al.(2007)]{Setal07} Schultz, A.S.B., et~al$.$ 2007 in preparation
997: \bibitem[Scoville et~al.(1982)]{S82} Scoville, N.Z., Hall, D.N.B., Kleinmann, S.G., and Ridgway, S.T. 1982 \apj\ 253 136
998: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1991)]{S91}Smith, M.D., Brand, P.W.J.L., \& Morehouse, A. 1991 MNRAS 248 730
999: \bibitem[Stolovy et~al.(1998)]{S98} Stolovy, S.R., et~al$.$ 1998 \apj\ 492 L151
1000: \bibitem[Stone \& Norman(1992)]{SN92} Stone, J.M., and Norman, M.L. 1992 \apj\ 390 L17
1001: \bibitem[Stone et~al.(1995)]{SXM95} Stone, J.M., Xu, J., and Mundy, L.G. 1995 \nat\ 377 315
1002: \bibitem[Taylor et~al.(1984)]{Ta84} Taylor, K.N.R., Storey, J.W.V., Sandell, G., Williams, P.M., and Zealey, W.J. 1984 \nat\ 311 236
1003: \bibitem[Tody(1993)]{T93} Tody, D. 1993,``IRAF in the Nineties'' in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, A.S.P. Conference Ser., Vol 52, eds. R.J. Hanisch, R.J.V. Brissenden, and J. Barnes, 173.
1004: \bibitem[Troland \& Heiles(1986)]{TH86} Troland, T.H. \& Heiles, C. 1986 \apj\ 301 339
1005: \bibitem[Usuda et~al.(1996)]{U96} Usuda, T., Sugai, H., Kawabata, H., Inoue, M. Y., Kataza, H., and Tanaka, M. 1996 \apj\ 464 818
1006: \bibitem[Vannier et~al.(2001)]{V01} Vannier, L., Lemaire, J.L., Field, D., Pineau des Forets, G., Pijpers, F.P., and Rouan, D. 2001 \aap\ 366 651
1007: \bibitem[Wardle (1990)]{W90} Wardle, M. 1990 MNRAS 246 98
1008: \bibitem[Wilgenbus et~al.(2000)]{W00} Wilgenbus, D., Cabrit, S., Pineau des Forets, G., \& Flower, D.R. 2000 \aap\ 356 1010
1009: \bibitem[Xu \& Stone(1995)]{XS95} Xu, J., and Stone, J.M. 1995 \apj\ 454 172
1010: \end{thebibliography}
1011:
1012: \end{document}
1013:
1014: