1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex} % 1-column single-spaced--for elec subm
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex} % 1-column double-spaced
3: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex} % 1-column single-spaced 11pt
4: %\documentclass[preprint2,10pt]{aastex} % 2-column single-spaced
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: % 10pt is default
7: %\singlespace
8: %\doublespace
9:
10: \usepackage{color}
11: %\usepackage{graphics}
12:
13:
14: \slugcomment{Accepted by the {\it Astrophysical Journal--expected publication
15: April 1, 2008}}
16: \shorttitle{Ross 154 X-Ray Flares}
17: \shortauthors{Wargelin et al.}
18:
19: % \newcommand definitions go here, in the preamble (before \begin{document})
20:
21: \newcommand{\Msun}{$M_{\odot}$}
22: \newcommand{\Mdot}{$\dot{M}$}
23: \newcommand{\Mdotsun}{$\dot{M}_{\odot}$}
24: \newcommand{\Msunper}{${M}_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$}
25:
26: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\it Chandra}}
27: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM-Newton}}
28: \newcommand{\rosat}{{\it ROSAT\,}}
29: \newcommand{\asca}{{\it ASCA}}
30: \newcommand{\euve}{{\it EUVE}}
31: \newcommand{\exosat}{{\it EXOSAT}}
32: \newcommand{\einstein}{{\it Einstein}}
33: \newcommand{\astroe}{{\it ASTRO-E2/Suzaku}}
34:
35: \newcommand{\lyalpha}{Ly$\alpha$}
36: \newcommand{\kalpha}{K$\alpha$}
37:
38: % \newcommand cannot use numbers unless they stand alone (see page 192)
39: \newcommand{\ch}{\ion{C}{6}}
40: \newcommand{\che}{\ion{C}{5}}
41: \newcommand{\nh}{\ion{N}{7}}
42: \newcommand{\nhe}{\ion{N}{6}}
43: \newcommand{\oh}{\ion{O}{8}}
44: \newcommand{\ohe}{\ion{O}{7}}
45: \newcommand{\oli}{\ion{O}{6}}
46: \newcommand{\neh}{\ion{Ne}{10}}
47: \newcommand{\nehe}{\ion{Ne}{9}}
48: \newcommand{\neli}{\ion{Ne}{8}}
49: \newcommand{\mgh}{\ion{Mg}{12}}
50: \newcommand{\mghe}{\ion{Mg}{11}}
51: \newcommand{\mgli}{\ion{Mg}{10}}
52:
53: %%\definecolor{gray7}{gray}{0.70}
54:
55:
56: %% See instructions at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/ApJInstruct.html
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: \begin{document}
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: %% ORIGINAL
61: %\title{A \chandra\ Observation of the dMe Star, Ross 154:\\
62: % Flares and Abundance Anomalies}
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64: %\title{X-Ray Flares, Large and Small, on Ross 154}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \title{X-Ray Flaring on the dMe Star, Ross 154}
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: %\title{Chandra Observations of X-Ray Flares on Ross 154}
69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70: %\title{Chandra Observations of the Flare Star, Ross 154}
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: \author{B.~J.\ Wargelin,
73: V.~L.\ Kashyap,
74: J.~J.\ Drake,
75: D.\ Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez,
76: and P.~W.\ Ratzlaff}
77: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
78: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
79: %\altaffiltext{1}{bwargelin@cfa.harvard.edu}
80:
81: %\author{B.\ J.\ Wargelin\altaffilmark{1},
82: %M.\ Markevitch,
83: %M.\ Juda,
84: %V.\ Kharchenko,
85: %R.\ Edgar,
86: %and A.\ Dalgarno}
87: %\affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,\\
88: %60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
89: %\altaffiltext{1}{bwargelin@cfa.harvard.edu}
90:
91:
92: \begin{abstract}
93:
94: We present results from two {\it Chandra} imaging observations of Ross 154,
95: a nearby flaring M dwarf star. During a 61-ks ACIS-S exposure,
96: a very large flare occurred (the equivalent of a solar X3400 event,
97: with $L_{X}=1.8 \times 10^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$)
98: in which the count rate increased by a factor of over 100.
99: The early phase of the flare shows evidence for the
100: Neupert effect, followed by a further rise and then
101: a two-component exponential decay.
102: %The rise time of the flare was energy dependent, with a faster
103: %rise at higher energies,
104: %and simultaneous optical-monitor data showed a brightness increase of
105: %0.15 magnitudes.
106: A large flare was also observed at the end of a later
107: 48-ks HRC-I observation.
108: Emission from the non-flaring phases of both observations was analyzed
109: %We also analyze photon arrival times during the preceding quiescent phase
110: %of the observation for evidence of low level flaring.
111: for evidence of low level flaring.
112: From these temporal studies we find that
113: microflaring probably accounts for most of the `quiescent' emission,
114: and that, unlike for the Sun and the handful of other stars that
115: have been studied, the distribution of flare intensities does not
116: appear to follow a power-law with a single index.
117: Analysis of the ACIS spectra, which was complicated by
118: exclusion of the heavily piled-up source core, suggests that
119: the quiescent Ne/O abundance ratio is enhanced by a factor of $\sim2.5$
120: compared to the commonly adopted solar abundance ratio,
121: and that the Ne/O ratio and overall coronal metallicity
122: during the flare appear to be enhanced relative to quiescent abundances.
123: Based on the temperatures and emission measures derived from the
124: spectral fits, we estimate the length scales and plasma densities
125: in the flaring volume
126: %and conclude that the flare reaches a height of
127: %roughly 3 times the stellar radius.
128: % and the post-flare arcade covers $\sim$8\%
129: % of the surface area of the star.
130: and also track the evolution of the flare in color-intensity space.
131: %We track the evolution of the
132: %flare in color-intensity space and find that it goes through a
133: %cycle where first the temperature increases rapidly, then the
134: %emission measure, followed by the correlated decay of
135: %emission measure and temperature.
136: Lastly, we searched for a stellar-wind charge-exchange X-ray halo around
137: the star but without success; because of the relationship between
138: mass-loss rate and the halo surface brightness, not even an upper limit on
139: the stellar mass-loss rate can be determined.
140:
141: \end{abstract}
142:
143: \keywords{stars: coronae---stars: individual (Ross 154)---stars: late-type---stars: mass loss---X-rays: stars}
144:
145:
146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
147: \section{INTRODUCTION}
148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
149:
150: Apart from the Sun,
151: the best opportunities to study stellar magnetic phenomena
152: at extremely low levels are provided by nearby stars.
153: Of particular interest
154: are the M dwarfs, whose lower photospheric temperatures
155: and often higher coronal temperatures
156: represent significantly different conditions from
157: those of the solar atmosphere.
158:
159: M dwarfs tend to be
160: more active than F-G dwarfs,
161: with approximately half of
162: the former (the dMe stars)
163: showing emission in H$\alpha$, the hallmark of flaring activity.
164: Despite having surface areas only several percent as large as the Sun's,
165: dMe stars have X-ray emission that is usually comparable to or larger
166: than the solar X-ray luminosity;
167: the flaring coronae of M dwarfs would
168: thus appear to present a much more dynamic environment than offered to
169: us by the Sun. These conditions provide a means for determining how
170: stellar activity differs from the solar analogy, with the ultimate
171: goal of underpinning observational similarities and differences with
172: the fundamental physics needed to describe the various activity
173: phenomena on display.
174:
175: Here we present analyses of two {\it Chandra} X-ray Observatory
176: observations of the M3.5 dwarf Ross~154, which (counting
177: Proxima Cen as part of the $\alpha$ Cen system \citep{cit:wertheimer2006})
178: is the seventh
179: nearest stellar system to the Sun. The original motivation for our
180: primary observation, with the ACIS-S detector,
181: was to constrain the stellar mass-loss rate by searching for
182: X-ray emission from charge-exchange collisions of its ionized wind
183: with the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM);
184: Ross~154 is one of the few stars with a combination of
185: distance and mass-loss rate that might be amenable to this technique
186: using current observing capabilities (see \S\ref{sec:wind}).
187: During the observation, the star underwent an enormous flare during which the
188: X-ray photon count rate rose two orders of magnitude above the
189: quiescent value. These X-ray data offer a rare glimpse of the
190: time evolution of flaring plasma while simultaneous optical monitoring
191: observations using the {\it Chandra} Aspect Camera Assembly provide
192: insights into the response of the chromosphere and photosphere during
193: the event.
194: A second observation using the HRC-I detector provides only temporal
195: information, but with superior statistical quality.
196:
197: In \S\ref{sec:target} we summarize what is known about Ross~154.
198: Sections \ref{sec:obs} and \ref{sec:extract} describe the X-ray
199: and optical observations and data reduction. The analysis of the
200: ACIS X-ray spectra is described in \S\ref{sec:spectra}, and temporal
201: analyses of the photon event lists and large flare light curve are presented
202: in \S\ref{sec:microflaring} and \S\ref{sec:flare}, respectively.
203: Finally, we discuss our attempts to deduce
204: the mass-loss rate of Ross~154 in
205: \S\ref{sec:wind} before summarizing our findings in
206: \S\ref{sec:summary}.
207:
208:
209:
210:
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: % \subsection{Flares}
213: %
214: % During stellar flares fresh material is brought up from the chromosphere
215: % into the corona. X-ray spectra are therefore expected to reflect abundances
216: % closer to the photospheric composition. However, a wide range of behavior is
217: % reported such as an increase of low-FIP elements only
218: % \citep{cit:Guedel1999,cit:Osten2000},
219: % no FIP-related bias in which all elements increase
220: % \citep{cit:Osten2003,cit:Testa2006},
221: % or no evidence of abundance increase
222: % \citep{cit:Huenemoerder2001}.
223: %
224: % {\it *** Work in other stuff from Audard and references therein as necessary,
225: % and/or discuss in more detail in the Flare Abundances discussion section.}
226: %
227: % As noted by Audard ***, some of this confusion is likely due to
228: % relatively poor statistics in many flare spectra, as well
229: % as the previously mentioned paucity of photospheric abundance data.
230: % Another contributor, however, is that flares come in many sizes;
231: % weaker flares must logically have abundances closer to quiescent
232: % values than large flares. Indeed,
233: % much of a star's quiescent X-ray emission may come from the
234: % superposition of a continuous range of many small flares **REFS ***.
235:
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: \section{THE TARGET}
239: \label{sec:target}
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241:
242: Ross 154 (Gleise 729, V 1216 Sgr) is a flaring M3.5 dwarf
243: and lies at a distance of 2.97 pc
244: \citep{cit:perryman1997} towards
245: the Galactic Center ($l=11.31^{\circ}$, $b=-10.28^{\circ}$;
246: RA $=$ 18:49:49, Dec.\ $= -$23:50:10).
247: % Counting Proxima Centauri as part of the $\alpha$ Cen system,
248: % this makes Ross 154 the seventh nearest stellar system.
249: %%% Its spectral classification varies somewhat in the literature
250: %%% (we use the SIMBAD value), but
251: %%% EV Lac (Gl 873; M3.5 Ve),
252: %%% AD Leo (Gl 388; M3.5 Ve),
253: %%% EQ Peg (Gl 896A,B; M3.5 Ve, M4.5 Ve),
254: %%% and AT Mic (Gl 799A,B; M4.5 Ve, M4 Ve)
255: %%% are all similar stars.
256: %%% \citet{cit:robrade2005} provide a detailed comparison of the
257: %%% latter four systems based on \xmm\ observations.
258: Its X-ray luminosity,
259: estimated at $6.0\times 10^{27}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
260: based on {\it R\"{o}ntgen Satellite} (\rosat)
261: measurements \citep{cit:hunsch1999},
262: is modest for active M dwarfs, which
263: range up to nearly $10^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
264: in quiescence.
265: Its $\log (L_{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}})$ value is -3.5
266: \citep{cit:krull1996},
267: somewhat below the saturation limit
268: of $\sim -3.0$
269: for active late-type stars
270: \citep{cit:agrawal1986,cit:fleming1993}.
271: RS~CVn stars, which are
272: close binary systems---often tidally locked---with
273: high rotation rotation rates and flaring activity,
274: have luminosities up to $\sim10^{32}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
275: \citep{cit:kellett1997}.
276:
277: Ross 154 is a moderately fast rotator, with
278: $v \: \sin i =3.5\pm0.5$ km s$^{-1}$ measured by
279: \citet{cit:krull1996},
280: indicating an age of less than 1 Gyr.
281: Those authors also estimate a magnetic field strength of
282: $2.6\pm0.3$ kG with a filling factor $f = 50\pm13$\%,
283: somewhat weaker than the $\sim$4-kG fields with $f\ga 50$\%
284: measured for three other
285: more X-ray-luminous and faster-rotating
286: dMe stars:
287: AD Leo (Saar \& Linsky 1985),
288: % {cit:saar1985}
289: EV Lac (Johns-Krull \& Valenti 1996),
290: % {cit:krull1996}
291: and AU Mic (Saar 1994; all three stars).
292: % {cit:saar1994}
293: Its photospheric metallicity is roughly half-solar based
294: on the estimated iron abundance of [Fe/H]$\sim -0.25$ reported by
295: \citet{cit:eggen1996},
296: and the presence of optical emission lines from
297: \ion{Fe}{1}, \ion{Si}{1}, and \ion{Ca}{1} indicates
298: a surprisingly cool chromosphere \citep{cit:wallerstein2004}.
299:
300:
301: Ross 154 has been detected by a number of high-energy observatories---
302: \einstein\
303: (Agrawal et al.\ 1986;
304: % {cit:agrawal1986}
305: Schmitt et al.\ 1990),
306: % {cit:schmitt1990}
307: \rosat\
308: (Wood et al.\ 1994;
309: % {cit:wood1994}
310: H\"{u}nsch et al.\ 1999),
311: % {cit:hunsch1999}
312: and the {\it Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer} (\euve;
313: Bowyer et al.\ 1996;
314: % {cit:bowyer1996}
315: Lampton et al.\ 1997;
316: % {cit:lampton1997}
317: Christian et al.\ 1999)
318: % {cit:christian1999}
319: %12 ks of EUVE exposure during Right Angle Program survey scans.
320: ---but was never studied in any detail, and no significant flares
321: were seen in the relatively short exposures obtained by
322: those missions.
323:
324:
325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
326: \section{THE OBSERVATIONS}
327: \label{sec:obs}
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329:
330: Two sets of \chandra\ data were analyzed.
331: The first observation was conducted
332: for 60625 s beginning on
333: 2002 September 9 at 00:01:20 UT (\chandra\ time 147916880).
334: The primary objective was to look for a faint stellar-wind halo
335: around the star
336: so no grating was used, despite the brightness of the coronal emission
337: and the expectation of severe pileup in the source core.
338: This measurement
339: (\dataset [ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/02561] {ObsId 2561})
340: used the ACIS-S3 backside-illuminated CCD chip
341: in Very Faint (VF) mode with a subarray of 206 rows that allowed
342: a short 0.6-s frame time to be used, thus reducing the
343: degree of event pileup.
344:
345: Standard {\it Chandra} X-ray Center pipeline products were
346: reprocessed to level 2 using the {\it Chandra} Interactive Analysis of
347: Observations (CIAO\footnote{
348: {\tt http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/}})
349: software version 3.4 with calibration data from CALDB 3.3.0.1,
350: which applies corrections for charge-transfer inefficiency in
351: {\em all} ACIS CCDs and for contamination
352: build-up on the ACIS array.
353: %and also uses the more accurate
354: %ACIS quantum efficiencies released in CALDB
355: %version 2.28 in August 2004.
356: Eight weak secondary sources were then removed from the source field
357: (Fig.~\ref{fig:extract}a)
358: and VF-mode filtering\footnote{
359: See A.\ Vikhlinin (2001), at
360: {\tt http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/aciscleanvf/}.
361: }
362: was applied to reduce the background,
363: except near the core of the primary source as explained in \S\ref{sec:extract}.
364: No background flares were observed in the data.
365: %{\it What about time-dep gain and new QE uniformity tables?}
366:
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: %% FIGURE 1
369: %% {fig:extract}
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: %\clearpage
372: \begin{figure}
373: \centering
374: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
375: \hline
376: {\includegraphics*[height=3.0in]{f1a.eps}}
377: & {\includegraphics*[height=3.0in]{f1b.eps}} \\
378: \hline
379: \end{tabular}
380: \caption{
381: ACIS data extraction regions. Panel (a) shows the annulus used for
382: Quiescent spectra data around the primary source, small circles around
383: weak secondary sources, and two rectangular background regions;
384: also note the bright readout streak running approximately horizontally
385: through the primary source. Panel (b) shows the spectral extraction
386: regions for the Quiescent, Flare, and Decay phases;
387: the spatial scale is twice that of panel (a).
388: Spectral extractions exclude the piled-up core and the readout streak,
389: the latter of which may have
390: a slightly different detector gain from non-streak regions.
391: Streak data, however, are included in temporal analyses.
392: }
393: \label{fig:extract}
394: \end{figure}
395: %\clearpage
396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
397:
398:
399: Examination of the X-ray light curve (Fig.~\ref{fig:lcfull})
400: after excluding the piled-up
401: core of the target reveals three temporal phases in our observation:
402: a quiescent phase; a very large flare;
403: and the flare decay.
404: We also obtained a simultaneous optical light curve using
405: data from the \chandra\ aspect camera.
406:
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: %% FIGURE 2
409: %% {fig:lcfull}
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411: %\clearpage
412: \begin{figure}
413: \centering
414: \epsscale{1.00}
415: \rotatebox{0}{
416: \plotone{f2.eps}}
417: \caption{
418: Optical and X-ray light curves from the ACIS observation,
419: with time bins of 20.5 and
420: 100 s, respectively (500 s in X-ray detail).
421: Zero time corresponds to the beginning of the observation
422: at 2002 September 9 at 00:01:20 UT.
423: X-ray light curve is for $E=250-6000$ eV with
424: a spatial filter comprising an annulus of radii
425: 6 and 60 pixels (to exclude the piled-up core)
426: plus a 6-pixel-wide box along the readout streak.
427: The annulus used for the Quiescent Detail light curve
428: had radii of 4 and 40 pixels.
429: In the absence of pileup, so that core events could also be used,
430: the counting rate would be $\sim$25 times higher.
431: Note the small optical flare at the very beginning
432: of the X-ray flare.
433: %, and also the vertical offset in the optical Counts axis.
434: }
435: \label{fig:lcfull}
436: \end{figure}
437: %\clearpage
438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
439:
440:
441:
442: The second observation (\dataset [ADS/Sa.CXO#obs/08356] {ObsId 8356})
443: occurred on 2007 May 28 beginning at 4:19:18 UT
444: (\chandra\ time 296713158) and ran for 48511 s, excluding two
445: 32.8-s periods that did not meet Good Time Interval criteria.
446: This HRC-I calibration measurement was made in parallel with a
447: measurement of the ACIS background, in which
448: ACIS is placed in a ``stowed'' position
449: where it is
450: both shielded from the sky and removed from the
451: radioactive calibration source in its normal off-duty position.
452: With ACIS in the stowed position, the HRC-I is 75 mm
453: away from its nominal on-axis position but can
454: be used for off-axis observations to calibrate
455: the \chandra\ point spread function (PSF) and measure
456: small-scale gain uniformity.
457: When ACIS is collecting data in its standard telemetry mode
458: the HRC can operate simultaneously,
459: albeit with severe telemetry restrictions,
460: in its Next-In-Line (NIL) mode with
461: a limit of $\sim$3.5 counts s$^{-1}$.
462: Ross 154 is one of a handful of isolated sources with a counting rate
463: and other parameters suitable for such NIL-mode calibration observations.
464:
465:
466: The HRC-I observation was made $25.62^{\prime}$ off axis
467: (Y offset = $-11.83^{\prime}$, Z offset = $22.73^{\prime}$) using
468: a 10-tap$\times$10-tap ($5.61^{\prime} \times 5.61^{\prime}$ )
469: window of the detector,
470: large enough to encompass the out-of-focus source image and
471: also provide a suitably large region to determine the background level
472: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:hrcimage}).
473: Within the windowed detector region the background accounted for
474: $\sim$2.6 counts s$^{-1}$ and the total rate during source
475: quiescence was $\sim$3.0 counts s$^{-1}$.
476: At least one large flare exceeded the telemetry limit.
477: The HRC-I has essentially no spectral information and so these
478: data were used only for the microflaring study
479: presented in \S\ref{sec:microflaring}.
480: %we defer further discussion of the HRC observation to \S\ref{sec:microflaring}.
481: %Because the HRC-I data were used only for microflaring studies,
482: %we defer further discussion of these data to \S\ref{sec:microflaring}.
483: Until then our discussion will refer exclusively to the ACIS observation.
484:
485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
486: %% FIGURE 3
487: %% {fig:hrcimage}
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
489: %\clearpage
490: \begin{figure}
491: \centering
492: \epsscale{1.10}
493: \rotatebox{0}{
494: \plotone{f3.ps}}
495: \caption{
496: Image of the HRC-I off-axis observation. The inner ellipse marks the source
497: region used for microflaring analysis. The background region used to
498: construct the light curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:lchrc} lies outside
499: the larger ellipse.
500: }
501: \label{fig:hrcimage}
502: \end{figure}
503: %\clearpage
504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
505:
506:
507:
508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
509: \section{ACIS DATA EXTRACTION}
510: \label{sec:extract}
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512:
513:
514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
515: \subsection{Optical Monitor Data}
516: \label{sec:extract_optical}
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518:
519: Although the capability is rarely used, one or
520: more of the eight \chandra\ Aspect Camera Assembly (ACA)
521: ``image slots'' can be assigned
522: to monitor selected sky locations, with a practical faint limit
523: of roughly $V=12$. For comparison,
524: the guide stars used for aspect determination
525: and to correct for spacecraft dither generally have magnitudes
526: between $V=6$ and 10, and Ross 154 has a magnitude of $V=10.95$.
527: The faint limit is largely determined by pixel-to-pixel
528: changes in the optical CCD dark current, with temporal variations
529: on scales of typically a few ks.\footnote{
530: {\it Chandra} Proposers' Observatory Guide, section 5.8.3,
531: at {\tt http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/}.}
532: The effects of these background variations are significant in our observation,
533: but were largely removed by averaging
534: data collected when the source centroid dithered more than $\sim$3.5 pixels
535: away from the pixel under consideration and then
536: subtracting the average bias within each pixel.
537: Quantum efficiency nonuniformity was mapped by analyzing data
538: from times when the source centroid was within 0.1 pixels of
539: the center of the peak pixel;
540: the flat field corrections thus derived were never more than 3\%.
541:
542:
543: %With negligible degradation of aspect correction accuracy, one or
544: %more of the eight \chandra\ Aspect Camera Assembly (ACA)
545: %``image slots'' can be assigned
546: %to monitor selected sky locations, with a practical faint limit
547: %of roughly $V=12$. For comparison,
548: %the guide stars used for aspect correction generally have magnitudes
549: %between 6 and 10, and Ross 154 has a magnitude of $V=10.95$.
550: %The faint limit is largely determined by pixel-to-pixel
551: %changes in the optical CCD dark current, with temporal variations
552: %on scales of typically a few ks. **REF POG 5.8.3***
553: %We corrected for these variations by averaging
554: %data collected when the source centroid was more than *** pixels
555: %away from the pixel under consideration,
556: %using rolling averages over **** seconds.
557:
558:
559: In addition to having a low signal level,
560: the optical monitoring of Ross 154 suffered a loss
561: of tracking halfway through the quiescent phase of the observation, causing
562: the star to wander within its 8$\times$8-pixel ACA window
563: (with integration time of 4.1 s per frame) as
564: the spacecraft dithered with a period of 707.1 s in pitch and
565: 1000.0 s in yaw, causing semi-periodic dips of up to 14\% in the
566: light curve as some of the source flux was lost near the edges of
567: the window.
568: Various flux correction schemes were tried, but the best results
569: were obtained by summing
570: the background-subtracted counts within a $5\times5$ box centered on the
571: highest-count pixel and discarding all data from cases where the
572: $5\times5$ box did not fit within the $8\times8$ ACA window.
573: The resulting optical light curve is shown in the top panel
574: of Figure~\ref{fig:lcfull}, revealing a 0.15-magnitude flare
575: and a smaller precursor; these are discussed in more detail
576: in the context of the X-ray flare behavior
577: in \S\ref{sec:flare}.
578:
579: %By assuming that the source optical brightness was
580: %constant during quiescence, we derived a brightness-correction
581: %algorithm based on source position within the $8\times8$ window
582: %that largely compensated for the dither-induced losses.
583: %Adjustments when the source was very near the window edges
584: %were not sufficiently reliable, however, and data from those
585: %time periods are excluded from the corrected light curve,
586: %which will be discussed in the context of the flare behavior
587: %in \S\ref{sec:flare}.
588:
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: \subsection{X-Ray Data}
592: \label{sec:extract_xray}
593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
594:
595: After removing secondary sources from the X-ray data,
596: a background region was obtained by excluding
597: the dithered edges of the
598: %202$\times$1020-pixel
599: field and
600: a 300-pixel-wide ($147^{\prime\prime}$) region around the source
601: (Fig.~\ref{fig:extract}a).
602: Even with the large exclusion region around the main source,
603: the flare was so intense that excess counts could
604: still be seen in the background light curve so we excluded 2000 s
605: around the flare peak. The remaining background data show
606: no evidence for temporal variability.
607:
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609: %% TABLE 1
610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
611: %% TABLE 1
612: %% {table:extractions}
613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
614: %\clearpage
615: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
616: \tablecaption{ACIS Spectral Data Extraction Parameters \label{table:extractions}}
617: \tablewidth{0pt}
618: \tablehead{
619: {\color{white}I} & & & & & \\
620: &
621: % & \colhead{\chandra}
622: & \colhead{Gross}
623: & \colhead{Excluded}
624: & \colhead{Outer}
625: & \colhead{Streak} \\
626: & \colhead{Time}
627: & \colhead{Exposure\tablenotemark{a}}
628: & \colhead{Core Radius\tablenotemark{b}}
629: & \colhead{Boundary}
630: & \colhead{Width\tablenotemark{c}} \\
631: \colhead{Phase}
632: & \colhead{(2002 Sep 9 UT)}
633: & \colhead{(s)}
634: & \colhead{(pixels)}
635: & \colhead{(pixels)}
636: & \colhead{(pixels)}
637: }
638: \startdata
639: {\color{white}I} & & & & & \\
640: Quiescent & 00:01:20 -- 11:51:40 & 42620 &4 & 40 (radius) & 4 \\
641: Flare & 11:51:40 -- 12:38:20 & 2800 &8 &202 (box height)& 6\\
642: Decay & 12:38:20 -- 16:51:45 & 15205 &5 & 80 (radius) & 5 \\
643: %Quiescent & 147916880:147959500 & 42620 &4 & 40 (radius) & 4 \\
644: %Flare & 147959500:147962300 & 2800 &8 &202 (box height)& 6\\
645: %Decay & 147962300:147977505 & 15205 &5 & 80 (radius) & 5 \\
646: \enddata
647: %%%%% Next line to adjust spacing for emulateapj
648: \vspace{5mm}
649: \tablenotetext{a}{
650: The effective area corrections we apply during spectral analysis also
651: account for detector deadtime (i.e., for exclusion of streak events).
652: }
653: \tablenotetext{b}{
654: The source core is excluded because of pileup; core radii
655: are listed for annular extractions.
656: Streak extractions excluded pixels within 20 pixels of the
657: source to avoid contamination by annular events.
658: %VF-mode filtering is applied to most of the extraction region, but
659: %not to the outer core because some valid events would be removed.
660: }
661: \tablenotetext{c}{
662: Streak data are only included for temporal analyses, with the listed
663: box widths.
664: Spectral extractions exclude a 3-pixel-wide box around the streak.
665: }
666: \end{deluxetable*}
667: %\clearpage
668:
669:
670: Ross 154 is such a bright X-ray source that even during quiescence
671: it produced a strong CCD readout streak and the core was
672: very heavily piled-up.
673: To obtain undistorted spectra we excluded the core, with a different
674: radius for the quiescent, flare, and decay phases of our observation
675: (see Table~\ref{table:extractions}),
676: based on studies of spectral hardness ratios and VF-filtering losses
677: as a function of radius.
678: The hardness ratio method is based on the fact that piled-up spectra
679: shift lower energy flux to higher energies;
680: hardness ratios of spectra from events near the core can therefore
681: be compared with hardness ratios at larger radii where
682: pileup is known not to occur.
683: This effect is masked to some extent by the energy dependence of
684: the \chandra\ PSF, which becomes broader
685: as energy increases, so a more effective means
686: of detecting pileup is to study the distribution of
687: events that are removed by VF filtering.
688:
689: In ACIS Faint (F) mode data, the distribution of charge within a
690: $3\times3$-pixel `island' is measured to determine if a valid X-ray
691: event has been detected. VF filtering uses $5\times5$-pixel islands
692: and discards events that have significant charge in the outer pixels.
693: It is therefore much more sensitive to event pileup than F mode, and
694: if an event is {\em not} removed by VF filtering it is almost
695: guaranteed to be a single unpiled event. We studied the distribution
696: of events discarded by VF filtering as a function of radius for
697: each observation phase and chose the excluded-core radii listed
698: in Table~\ref{table:extractions}
699: such that no more than 1.3\%
700: of the total flare-phase events outside that radius
701: (0.7\% for the quiescent phase and 0.8\% for the decay)
702: would be excluded by VF filtering.
703: The net pileup fraction of the extracted events
704: is estimated to be less than 0.5\%.
705: Close to the core but still within the extraction region,
706: nearly all the `bad VF' events are in fact valid and unpiled.
707: To keep those events, and since the number of background events
708: is negligible within such a small region, VF filtering was not
709: applied out to a radius of twice the excluded core radius.
710: %In the region very near the core nearly all the `bad VF' events
711: %are in fact valid and unpiled,
712: %so to keep those events we did not apply VF filtering out to a radius of
713: %twice the excluded core radius.
714:
715: The outer boundaries of the spectral extraction regions for
716: each phase were chosen to keep the fraction of background events
717: small ($<4$\% for the Quiescent phase and less for the others)
718: while including as many X-ray source events as possible.
719: The readout streaks, which do not suffer from pileup because of their
720: very short effective exposure times, were included in temporal
721: analyses but excluded from spectral analyses
722: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:extract} and Table~\ref{table:extractions})
723: because of concerns that the effective detector gain
724: might be sufficiently different from that of non-streak events
725: to distort the spectra. A gain increase of $\sim$7\% has been reported
726: by \citet{cit:heinke2003}
727: in streak spectra from the front-illuminated ACIS-I3 chip
728: at the Ir-M absorption edge (a spectral feature
729: near 2 keV arising from the \chandra\ mirrors),
730: and an increase of $\sim$2.5\% was measured in
731: the back-illuminated ACIS-S3 chip\footnote{
732: See T.~J.\ Gaetz (2004), at
733: {\tt http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Hrma/psf/wing\_analysis.ps}.
734: }.
735: It is not yet clear if this effect is energy dependent
736: (private communication, R.~J.\ Edgar), and our streak spectra had too
737: few counts to measure a gain shift, other than to say that it must
738: be no more than a few percent at the Ir-M edge and no more than 10\%
739: at energies down to $\sim$500 eV.
740:
741: Response matrices (RMFs) and effective area files (ARFs) were
742: created for each extraction region according to the
743: {\tt psextract} script, which uses the {\tt mkacisrmf} tool.
744: ARF correction functions were then created to account for
745: exclusion of the source core as described below.
746:
747:
748:
749:
750: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
751: \subsubsection{Effective Area Corrections}
752: \label{sec:extract_xray_arfcorr}
753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
754:
755: Although exclusion of the source core eliminates the spectrum-distorting
756: effects of pileup, which are so severe in this case that they cannot be
757: modeled, it introduces other modifications to the source
758: spectrum because of the energy dependence of the telescope
759: point spread function (PSF); low energy X-rays are more tightly
760: focused than those with high energy.
761:
762: We modeled the PSF using the \chandra\ Ray Tracer
763: %(ChaRT; \citet{cit:ChaRT}) tool
764: (ChaRT; Carter et al.\ 2003) tool
765: using 22 million rays and then projected them onto the ACIS
766: detector using the MARX\footnote{
767: {\tt http://space.mit.edu/CXC/MARX/}}
768: simulator, producing 7.5 million detected
769: events ranging from 0.1 to 8 keV with half of them below 3 keV.
770: The MARX parameter {\tt DitherBlur} was changed from the default
771: value of 0.35$^{\prime\prime}$ to 0.28$^{\prime\prime}$
772: to properly model the effects of
773: turning pixel randomization off during reprocessing of
774: the observation with {\tt acis\_process\_events}.
775: The data extraction regions
776: listed in Table~\ref{table:extractions} were then applied to
777: the simulated data, and extracted spectra were compared to
778: the full-detector spectrum in order to derive effective area
779: correction functions for each phase (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}a).
780: Near the peak of the detected source spectra around 1 keV, only 2 or 3\% of
781: the potential event detections are extracted.
782: The average Quiescent count rate after correcting for the
783: extraction efficiency is 2.0 cts s$^{-1}$.
784:
785:
786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
787: %% FIGURE 4
788: %% {fig:ARFcorr}
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790: %\clearpage
791: \begin{figure}
792: \centering
793: \epsscale{1.09}
794: \rotatebox{0}{
795: \plotone{f4.eps}}
796: \caption{
797: Simulated and observed results on data extraction efficiency.
798: Bins are 100 eV below 1 keV, and logarithmic (25 per decade) above 1 keV.
799: ($a$): Only a small fraction of the total source flux is extracted using
800: annular regions that exclude the source core,
801: particularly at low energies where focusing is best. Extractions
802: along the readout streak (excluding the core) have much less
803: energy dependence.
804: ($b$,$c$,$d$): Ratio of counts in annular and streak extraction regions
805: for Quiet, Flare, and Decay phases, for simulated and observed data.
806: ($e$): Ratio of observed and simulated results from ($b$,$c$,$d$)
807: for each phase.
808: The observed ratio is larger than the simulated ratio at low energies,
809: suggesting the simulated annular extraction efficiencies are too low.
810: ($f$): Adjusted annular extraction efficiencies, after applying the
811: smooth correction functions in ($e$) to results in ($a$).
812: % and assuming that
813: %the simulated streak extraction efficiencies are correct.
814: }
815: \label{fig:ARFcorr}
816: \end{figure}
817: %\clearpage
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819:
820: Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}a also shows the extraction efficiency for
821: the readout streak during the Flare phase, using a 6-pixel-wide
822: box and excluding a 20-pixel-radius around the source core.
823: Readout-streak efficiencies are
824: very similar for all three phases
825: and nearly flat as a function of energy since
826: the streak primarily comprises events from the core of the source,
827: where energy dependent PSF effects are relatively minor.
828: %and its effective area correction curve
829: %is nearly flat with a value of $\sim$0.012 for all three phases.
830: Some adjustments to the model streak results were required
831: because MARX simulates
832: full-chip (1024-row, 3.2-s frametime) ACIS operation while the
833: observation used 206 rows with a 0.6-s frametime. The
834: effective exposure time for the full-length streak
835: is 7\% larger in the observation than
836: in the simulation\footnote{
837: The streak is an artifact of the CCD readout process,
838: with a net exposure time per frame equal to
839: the number of CCD rows (206) multiplied by the time required to
840: shift the image by one row during readout (40 $\mu$sec),
841: or 0.00824 sec. The readout-streak exposure efficiency when using
842: a 0.6-sec frame-time is therefore $0.00824/(0.6+0.00824)=1.35$\%,
843: and pileup is completely negligible.
844: With the full array, 3.2 readout, the streak fraction is
845: $(1024 \times (40 \times 10^{-6}))/
846: (3.2+(1024 \times (40 \times 10^{-6})))=1.26$\%.
847: }
848: but less of the streak is extracted
849: (162 of 206 rows versus 988 of 1024, a relative difference of 23\%),
850: yielding a net adjustment of $\sim$14\% to the extraction efficiency
851: (observed lower than simulated).
852:
853: %The streak is an artifact of the CCD readout process,
854: %with a net exposure time per frame equal to
855: %the number of CCD rows (206) multiplied by the time required to
856: %shift the image by one row during readout (40 $\mu$sec),
857: %or 0.00824 sec. The readout-streak exposure efficiency when using
858: %a 0.6-sec frame-time is therefore $0.00824/(0.6+0.00824)=1.35$\%,
859: %and pileup is completely negligible.
860: %
861: % With the full array, 3.2 readout, the streak fraction is
862: % $(1024*40e-6)/(3.2+(1024*40e-6))=1.26$\%.
863: %
864: % The exposure of the as-used streaks, with exclusion zones around
865: % the source, is less than calc'd above.
866:
867: ChaRT simulations of the PSF are known to have small errors,
868: and when excluding the core
869: such errors may be relatively large compared to the remaining
870: fraction of source flux.
871: We therefore compared the simulation's predictions of the {\em ratio} of
872: annular and streak events versus the observed ratio for each
873: observation phase.
874: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}b, c, and d,
875: uncertainties are dominated by observational statistics and are especially
876: large at high energies where there are few counts,
877: but the simulations match observation
878: reasonably well except at low energies. These discrepancies are presumably due
879: to underprediction of the enclosed count fraction in the outer core
880: of the PSF at low energies where focusing is best.
881: As noted in \S\ref{sec:extract_xray}
882: there may be small gain shifts in the streak spectra,
883: but the effects on apparent streak extraction efficiency would be much
884: smaller than the discrepancies seen.
885: %The discrepancy could conceivably be caused by very large gain shifts in
886: %the streak events at low energies, but there is no evidence for
887: %such large shifts.
888: Further evidence
889: that the simulation's effective area corrections are suspect
890: below $\sim$600 eV is provided by varying the energy range of
891: spectral fits, as explained in \S\ref{sec:spectra}.
892:
893: Based on the data points in Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}b--d,
894: Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}e plots the ratio of simulated and observational
895: results, along with smooth curves that approximately follow the results for each
896: phase. Each curve shows how the ratio of simulated extraction efficiencies
897: for annular and streak data regions would have to be adjusted to bring
898: it into accord with the observed ratio. If one assumes that the
899: simulated streak extraction efficiency is correct, as one would
900: expect since the PSF (or rather, line spread function) of the readout streak
901: has so little energy dependence,
902: % than for an annular extraction,
903: then the smooth curve can be used as a correction factor for the
904: annular-region extraction efficiency derived from the ChaRT/MARX simulation.
905: Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}f shows the simulation extraction efficiencies
906: from Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}a multiplied by those empirical correction factors,
907: yielding what we will refer to as ``adjusted extraction efficiencies''.
908: Uncertainties in the adjusted efficiencies are relatively large
909: at higher energies, but this is because of the small number of
910: counts and the effect on spectral fits is modest.
911:
912:
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914: \section{SPECTRAL ANALYSIS}
915: \label{sec:spectra}
916: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
917:
918:
919: Spectral analysis was performed with the CIAO {\it Sherpa} fitting
920: engine \citep{cit:freeman2001}. First,
921: the adjusted extraction efficiency curves (Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}f)
922: were fitted with smooth functions (the sum of five Gaussians)
923: to be used in conjunction with the ARFs (as multiplicative factors)
924: during spectral fitting.
925: The coronal emission itself was modeled
926: using {\tt xsvapec} models based on
927: the plasma emission code APEC
928: \citep{cit:apec2001}.
929: % MEKAL (Kaastra 1992; Liedahl, Osterheld, \& Goldstein 1995).
930: Parameter estimation was performed using the
931: modified $\chi^2$ statistic
932: \citep{cit:gehrels1986},
933: with some rebinning at higher energies to ensure at
934: least 20 counts per bin.
935:
936:
937: Fits extended down to 350 eV,
938: below which the ACIS-S response becomes increasingly uncertain,
939: with upper energy limits for each phase
940: determined by the level
941: of source emission versus background (see Table~\ref{table:fits}).
942: Different energy ranges were also tried, with variable
943: effects on the fitting results.
944: Fits of the Quiescent spectrum
945: down to 200 eV led to overpredictions of $\sim$20\% in the
946: flux below 500 eV, while fits using a lower limit of 500 eV yielded
947: poor constraints on the O abundance.
948: Fits to the Flare and Decay spectra were less sensitive to the
949: lower limit, and in all cases varying the upper limit of the fit
950: range had relatively little effect.
951:
952:
953: %Note that observational data below $\sim$350 eV
954: %should be viewed skeptically because
955: %the ACIS response is not well calibrated. Data
956: %below that energy are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}
957: %only for completeness and were not used
958: %in subsequent analyses.
959:
960: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
961: %% TABLE 2
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963: %% TABLE 2
964: %% \label{table:fits}
965: %Q 0.4-3.0 keV
966: %F 0.4-8.5
967: %T 0.4-8.1
968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
969: %\clearpage
970: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
971: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
972: \tablecaption{Spectral Fitting Results \label{table:fits}}
973: \tablewidth{0pt}
974: \tablehead{
975: {\color{white}I} & & & & & \\
976: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{{Quiescent}} & \colhead{}
977: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{{Flare\tablenotemark{a}}} & \colhead{}
978: & {Decay\tablenotemark{a}} \\
979: \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6} \cline{8-8}
980: {Parameter}
981: & {1-$T$}
982: & {2-$T$} &
983: & {1-$T$}
984: & {2-$T$} &
985: & {2-$T$}
986: }
987: \startdata
988: {\color{white}I} & & & & & \\
989: Fit range (keV)
990: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.35--3.0} &
991: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.35--8.0} &
992: & 0.35--8.0 \\
993: \vspace{1mm}
994: Counts in fit
995: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1802} &
996: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{4829} &
997: & 4891 \\
998: Est. background
999: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{74} &
1000: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{65} &
1001: & 172 \\
1002: Deg. of freedom
1003: & 63
1004: & 61 &
1005: & 164
1006: & 162 &
1007: & 125 \\
1008: Reduced $\chi^{2}$
1009: & 0.61
1010: & 0.53 &
1011: & 0.99
1012: & 0.78 &
1013: & 0.71 \\
1014: $kT_{1}$ (keV)
1015: & $0.46 _{-0.05} ^{+0.03}$
1016: & $0.98 _{-0.41} ^{+0.21}$ &
1017: & $2.95 _{-0.20} ^{+0.27}$
1018: & $3.71 _{-0.26} ^{+4.30}$ &
1019: & $1.91 _{-0.12} ^{+0.12}$ \\
1020: $kT_{2}$ (keV)
1021: & $\cdots$
1022: & $0.29 _{-0.04} ^{+0.05}$ &
1023: & $\cdots$
1024: & $0.41 _{-0.07} ^{+1.17}$ &
1025: & $0.37 _{-0.05} ^{+0.04}$ \\
1026: EM$_{1}$\tablenotemark{b} ($10^{50}$ cm$^{-3}$)
1027: & $19.8 _{-2.4} ^{+2.5}$
1028: & $4.1 _{-1.4} ^{+5.8}$ &
1029: & $341 _{-26} ^{+36}$
1030: & $271 _{-20} ^{+20}$ &
1031: & $12.7 _{-2.4} ^{+2.8}$ \\
1032: EM$_{2}$\tablenotemark{b} ($10^{50}$ cm$^{-3}$)
1033: & $\cdots$
1034: & $10.8 _{-7.6} ^{+3.4}$ &
1035: & $\cdots$
1036: & $26 _{-6} ^{+306}$ &
1037: & $27.3 _{-3.0} ^{+3.0}$ \\
1038: Lum.\tablenotemark{c} ($10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
1039: & 9.35
1040: & 8.66 &
1041: & 449
1042: & 464 &
1043: & 51.1 \\
1044: OCNS abundance\tablenotemark{d}
1045: & $0.12 _{-0.04} ^{+0.05}$
1046: & $0.13 _{-0.05} ^{+0.07}$ &
1047: & $0.21 _{-0.21} ^{+0.47}$
1048: & $0.38 _{-0.20} ^{+0.26}$ &
1049: & $0.42 _{-0.13} ^{+0.17}$ \\
1050: NeAr abundance\tablenotemark{d}
1051: & $0.29 _{-0.05} ^{+0.07}$
1052: & $0.34 _{-0.21} ^{+0.24}$ &
1053: & $1.39 _{-0.89} ^{+0.90}$
1054: & $2.15 _{-0.59} ^{+0.71}$ &
1055: & $1.65 _{-0.36} ^{+0.48}$ \\
1056: MgNaAlSi abund.\tablenotemark{d}
1057: & $0.10 _{-0.06} ^{+0.06}$
1058: & $0.15 _{-0.13} ^{+0.20}$ &
1059: & $0.00 _{-0.00} ^{+0.10}$
1060: & $0.44 _{-0.44} ^{+0.54}$ &
1061: & $0.56 _{-0.25} ^{+0.32}$ \\
1062: FeCaNi abund.\tablenotemark{d}
1063: & $0.04 _{-0.01} ^{+0.01}$
1064: & $0.19 _{-0.11} ^{+0.10}$ &
1065: & $0.27 _{-0.13} ^{+0.14}$
1066: & $0.41 _{-0.38} ^{+0.18}$ &
1067: & $0.40 _{-0.10} ^{+0.13}$ \\
1068: \enddata
1069: %%%%% Next line to adjust spacing for emulateapj
1070: \vspace{5mm}
1071: \tablenotetext{a}{
1072: Underlying quiescent emission (1-$T$ model) is included in the
1073: flare and decay fits.}
1074: \tablenotetext{b}{
1075: Emission measure is defined as $\int n_{e} n_{H}\,dV$ and is equal
1076: to the {\it Sherpa} fit {\tt normalization} (adjusted for pileup)
1077: $\times 10^{14} \times 4\pi D^{2}$ where $D$ is the source
1078: distance (2.97 pc) in cm.}
1079: \tablenotetext{c}{
1080: {Luminosities} (averages over each phase) are for the 0.25--11 keV
1081: band. Flare and tail
1082: luminosities are in addition to the underlying quiescent emission.}
1083: % Uncertainties are dominated by errors in the spectral extraction
1084: % efficiencies and are estimated to be roughly 20\% *** ?????.}
1085: \tablenotetext{d}{
1086: Dominant element within each grouping is listed first.
1087: Abundances are relative to solar photospheric values
1088: listed by Anders \& Grevesse 1989.}
1089: %\protect\cite{cit:anders1989}.}
1090: \tablecomments{
1091: Quoted uncertainties are formal 68\% confidence intervals for
1092: the fits and do not include systematic uncertainties, such as
1093: those for the effective area of a data extraction region.
1094: }
1095: % Preferred fits are 1-$T$ for the quiescent phase,
1096: % and 2-$T$ for the flare and decay.}
1097: \end{deluxetable*}
1098: %\clearpage
1099:
1100: Because of the modest resolution and statistical quality of our spectra,
1101: we grouped elements with similar first ionization potential (FIP; in
1102: parentheses) as follows
1103: (see \S\ref{sec:spectra_discussion} for the reasoning behind FIP grouping):
1104: %C (11.3 eV), N (14.5), O (13.6), and S (10.4);
1105: C, N, O, and S (11.3, 14.5, 13.6, and 10.4 eV);
1106: Na, Mg, Al, and Si (5.1, 7.6, 6.0, 8.2 eV);
1107: Ca, Fe, and Ni (6.1, 7.4, 7.6 eV);
1108: Ne and Ar (21.6, 15.8 eV).
1109: Element abundances were determined relative to
1110: the solar photospheric abundances of
1111: \citet{cit:anders1989}, which is the {\it Sherpa} default.
1112: More recent photospheric abundance tabulations are available
1113: \citep[e.g.,][]{cit:grevesse1998,cit:asplund2005},
1114: but the effect on our fit results (in terms of abundances
1115: relative to H) of using different assumptions is negligible,
1116: as confirmed by trials using
1117: the
1118: Asplund et al.\ (2005)
1119: %\citet{cit:asplund2005}
1120: abundances,
1121: and as expected since each element grouping typically
1122: has one dominant species.
1123: O emission dominates that from N and C because the ACIS
1124: effective area decreases rapidly toward lower energies,
1125: and there is virtually
1126: no S emission in the quiescent spectrum.
1127: Ne emission similarly dominates that from Ar.
1128: Abundances for Mg and Si, which have very similar FIP,
1129: are roughly an order of magnitude larger than those
1130: for Na and Al, and Fe likewise dominates Ca and Ni.
1131: Abundance linkages were studied in more detail for the flare spectrum,
1132: as described in \S\ref{sec:spectra_flare}.
1133:
1134:
1135: Our analysis assumes that quiescent-phase emission is
1136: always present at a constant level, with added components
1137: for the flare and decay phases representing localized emission.
1138: Quiescent fit parameters are therefore frozen during flare and decay
1139: fitting, with the normalization adjusted for the differing
1140: exposure time and
1141: extraction region efficiency of each phase.
1142: The quiescent emission is completely
1143: overshadowed by higher-temperature components during the
1144: flare and decay, however, so its inclusion has little effect
1145: on those fits.
1146: The background is scaled and subtracted and contributes $\sim$4\%
1147: of the counts in the fits' energy ranges (less for the flare).
1148: Abundances are free to vary
1149: for each phase, subject to the FIP grouping described above.
1150: Interstellar absorption to this nearby source
1151: is completely negligible at the energies of relevance here
1152: ($N_{H} \la 1 \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{2}$; Wood et al.\ 2005).
1153: Fit results are summarized in Table~\ref{table:fits} and
1154: described in detail below, and the spectra are shown
1155: in Figure~\ref{fig:fits}.
1156:
1157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1158: %% FIGURE 5
1159: %% {fig:fits}
1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1161: %\clearpage
1162: \begin{figure}
1163: \centering
1164: \epsscale{1.11}
1165: \rotatebox{0}{
1166: \plotone{f5.eps}}
1167: \caption{
1168: Fits to spectral data, using the Quiescent ``1-$T$,''
1169: Flare ``2-$T$,'' and Decay models
1170: listed in Table~\ref{table:fits}.
1171: Data are background-subtracted.
1172: }
1173: \label{fig:fits}
1174: \end{figure}
1175: %\clearpage
1176:
1177:
1178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1179: \subsection{Quiescent Spectrum}
1180: \label{sec:spectra_quiet}
1181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1182:
1183:
1184: As can be seen in Table~\ref{table:fits},
1185: results for one- and two-temperature fits to the quiescent spectrum
1186: are quite similar, apart from a marginally significant difference
1187: in Fe abundances. Using two temperatures reduces the $\chi^{2}$
1188: slightly, but the $F$-test significance of the second component is
1189: 0.29, much larger than the typical threshold of 0.05 for using a more
1190: complex model. We therefore refer to the 1-$T$ fit in all subsequent
1191: discussions unless otherwise noted. The fact that the reduced $\chi^2$
1192: is significantly less than 1 (0.61) is likely a reflection of the
1193: modest number of counts. The similarity of abundances from the 1-$T$ and
1194: 2-$T$ fits, however, suggests that the derived values are
1195: realistic.
1196:
1197: The total X-ray luminosity is $\sim 9 \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$,
1198: somewhat higher than the value of $6 \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$
1199: estimated from \rosat\ observations \citep{cit:hunsch1999}.
1200: The difference is probably due to a combination of real source variability
1201: and uncertainties in spectral modeling; uncertainties in
1202: spectral extraction efficiencies (Fig.~\ref{fig:ARFcorr}e)
1203: are largest the low energies, leading to relatively larger uncertainties
1204: in luminosity during quiescence than in the flare and decay phases.
1205:
1206: %As noted in \S***, photospheric observations of Ross 154 indicate
1207: %a metallicity of [Fe/H]=-0.24, and so....***.
1208:
1209: The best-fit temperature is $T=5.0\times10^{6}$ K ($kT=0.43$ keV) and
1210: %Given the active nature of this star one would expect an
1211: %inverse-FIP effect.
1212: the 68\% confidence intervals for the
1213: abundances are
1214: $0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ for Ne (and Ar),
1215: $0.12^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ for O (and C, N, S),
1216: $0.10^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ for Mg (and Na, Al, Si), and
1217: $0.04^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ for Fe (and Ca, Ni; the 2-$T$ fit had higher
1218: Fe abundance but with large uncertainties).
1219: % Thus, the quiescent spectrum indeed shows that the lowest-FIP elements
1220: % (particularly Fe) have lower abundance than higher-FIP species, although the
1221: % highest-FIP element, Ne, is no more abundant than O.
1222: Abundance-FIP correlations are discussed in detail
1223: in \S\ref{sec:spectra_discussion} but we note that in quiescence,
1224: the derived element abundances correlate (with modest significance) with FIP.
1225:
1226: To study relative abundances in more detail and
1227: aid comparisons of quiescent and flare abundances,
1228: we studied $\chi^{2}$ as a function of the Ne/O abundance ratio by
1229: freezing Ne/O and refitting the data
1230: (see Figure~\ref{fig:chi2abund}).
1231: The result is a best-fit ratio of 2.4 with a
1232: $2\sigma$ confidence range (95.5\%, $\Delta \chi^{2}=4.0$)
1233: for between 1.3 and 4.1,
1234: somewhat less than the value found from the flare spectrum
1235: (see \S\ref{sec:spectra_flare}).
1236: A study of the Fe/O ratio
1237: shows a similar enhancement during the flare,
1238: but the significance of this result vanishes
1239: if the quiescent Fe abundance from the 2-$T$ fit is
1240: used instead of that from the 1-$T$ fit.
1241: Uncertainties on the flare Mg abundance are too
1242: large to draw any conclusions regarding
1243: a difference from the quiescent abundance.
1244:
1245:
1246: % Similar studies done for Mg/O and Fe/O
1247: % confirm that during quiescence the low-FIP elements are
1248: % significantly depleted relative to O,
1249: % with 95\% confidence ranges of
1250: % $0.42^{+0.40}_{-0.26}$ for Mg/O
1251: % and
1252: % $0.21^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ for Fe/O.
1253:
1254:
1255: %The relative abundance of Ne versus O in the Sun and other
1256: %late-type stars has lately become a topic of great interest,
1257: %as will be discussed in \S\ref{sec:spectra_discussion}.
1258: %To better compare quiescent and flare abundances,
1259: %we studied $\chi^{2}$ as a function of Ne/O by
1260: %we freezing the Ne/O abundance ratio and refitting the data,
1261: %and obtained the results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:chi2abund}.
1262: %As can be seen, the $2\sigma$ (95.5\%, $\Delta \chi^{2}=4.0$)
1263: %confidence range for Ne/O lies between 0.24 and 1.30,
1264: %Similar studies done for Mg/O and Fe/O
1265: %%% (see Figure~\ref{fig:chi2abund})
1266: %confirm that during quiescence the low-FIP elements are
1267: %significantly depleted relative to O,
1268: %with 95\% confidence ranges of
1269: %$0.42^{0.40}_{0.26}$ for Mg/O
1270: %and
1271: %$0.21^{0.08}_{0.06}$ for Fe/O
1272:
1273: %% Also tried unlinking Si from MgNaAl, but no
1274: %% change other than Si abund went from 0.33 to 0.24, with large uncerts.
1275:
1276: \subsection{Flare Spectrum}
1277: \label{sec:spectra_flare}
1278:
1279: One- and two-temperature models were also employed to fit
1280: the flare spectrum with, as noted above, an underlying fixed quiescent
1281: component.
1282: While the 1-$T$ fit gives a formally adequate fit with reduced $\chi^2=0.99$,
1283: the 2-$T$ model provides a visibly much better fit at low and high energies.
1284: We therefore used the 2-$T$ model,
1285: although both fits yield consistent results
1286: with respect to element abundances.
1287: Note that the upper limits on the two components' temperatures
1288: are not well constrained, leading to a large uncertainty on the
1289: cooler component's emission measure.
1290: %As was the case for the fit to the quiescent spectrum, the small
1291: %$\chi^2$ value is a consequence of the modest number of counts.
1292:
1293: The power of this flare is remarkable. At its peak (approximately 3.8
1294: times the average power during the flare phase we defined),
1295: the energy flux that would be observed 1 AU from the star
1296: reached 0.34 W m$^{-2}$ in the {\it GOES} solar flare energy
1297: band (1--8 \AA, or 1.55--12.4 keV), corresponding to
1298: an X3400 solar flare. Over the full X-ray band (0.25--11 keV),
1299: the peak luminosity is $\sim1.8 \times 10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$
1300: (13\% of the $L_{bol}$ listed by Fleming, Schmitt, \& Giampapa 1995), and
1301: the total radiated energy including the extrapolated decay phase is
1302: $\sim2.3 \times 10^{33}$ erg. The only flares from
1303: isolated M stars significantly more energetic
1304: than this were observed on EV Lac by the
1305: {\it Advanced Satellite for Cosmology} \citep[\asca;][]{cit:favata2000}
1306: and EQ1839.6+8002 by {\it Ginga} \citep{cit:pan1997}.
1307: Both those events were roughly ten times more powerful than the
1308: Ross 154 flare.
1309: %It is also worth noting that we observe evidence of the Fe XXV structure at
1310: %6.7 keV (1.85A) during the flare phase, which indicates the presence of
1311: %very hot plasma (up to $10^{8}$ K).
1312:
1313: In addition to its power and high temperature---note the
1314: \ion{Fe}{25} emission feature at 6.7 keV in Figure~\ref{fig:fits}---an
1315: %which indicates the presence of plasma as hot as $10^{8}$ K---an
1316: interesting aspect of the flare is
1317: the large enhancement of Ne relative to its
1318: quiescent value.
1319: While all the abundances rise during the flare
1320: (uncertainties for Mg are too large to draw any conclusions),
1321: the increase for Ne is the most significant.
1322: %As was done for the quiescent spectrum,
1323: Because abundance ratios are often more reliable than
1324: absolute values, we again
1325: applied the analysis procedure described
1326: in \S\ref{sec:spectra_quiet}
1327: to study the significance of the Ne/O ratio
1328: (see Figure~\ref{fig:chi2abund}). We conclude that
1329: there is roughly a 90\% statistical likelihood that Ne is
1330: relatively more abundant during the flare than during quiescence,
1331: with a best-fit Ne/O ratio of 5.7, compared to the quiescent ratio of 2.4.
1332: The 90\% statistical likelihood, however, does not
1333: take into account systematic uncertainties from our
1334: extraction efficiency modeling.
1335: %These uncertainties are
1336: %difficult to estimate, and although sensitivity analyses
1337: %suggest the resulting errors are not large,
1338: %this apparent Ne/O enhancement should be viewed with at least some skepticism.
1339:
1340:
1341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1342: %% FIGURE 6
1343: %% fig:chi2abund
1344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1345: %\clearpage
1346: \begin{figure}
1347: \centering
1348: \epsscale{1.0}
1349: \rotatebox{0}{
1350: \plotone{f6.eps}}
1351: \caption{
1352: Confidence intervals for the Ne/O abundance ratio
1353: (normalized to solar photospheric abundances) in
1354: fits to quiescent (solid curves) and flare (dashes) spectra.
1355: %Confidence levels (dotted lines) are only accurate when
1356: %the $\chi^{2}$ curves are parabolic and the best-fit
1357: %point is not too close to parameter-space boundaries.
1358: The 1-$T$ model was used for the quiescent fits
1359: and the 2-$T$ model for the flare (see Table 2).
1360: %Fe and perhaps Mg are significantly depleted relative to O during
1361: %quiescence, and the Ne/O and Fe/O ratios are much
1362: %larger during the flare than in quiescence.
1363: }
1364: \label{fig:chi2abund}
1365: \end{figure}
1366: %\clearpage
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368:
1369:
1370: The flare was hot enough to
1371: generate substantial emission from H-like and He-like Ar,
1372: unlike during the quiescent phase, so we unlinked the Ar and
1373: Ne abundances in an alternative fit.
1374: The best-fit results yielded very large uncertainties for Ar
1375: with negligible effect
1376: on the Ne abundance or any other parameters.
1377: Fits that unlinked S (from O, C, and N)
1378: and Si (from Mg, Na, and Al)
1379: provided similarly uninformative results.
1380:
1381: As noted above, the interstellar column density to Ross 154 is
1382: so low ($N_{H} < 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$) that X-ray absorption is negligible.
1383: There has been one report, however, of a large increase in
1384: absorbing column density (to $\sim2.7\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$)
1385: during a large flare observed
1386: on Algol (B8 V + K2 IV) by {\it BeppoSAX},
1387: presumably the result of a coronal mass ejection from the K2 secondary
1388: in association with the flare onset \citep{cit:favata1999}.
1389: We therefore added an absorption term to our flare model, but
1390: the fit drives $N_{H}$ to zero. Freezing $N_{H}$ has no
1391: significant effect on the fit for values up to a few times
1392: $10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, but fits with $N_{H}$ much beyond
1393: $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ are noticeably poor.
1394: %When studied on shorter time scales, there are indications
1395: %that absorption may be significant during portions of the flare
1396: %(see \S\ref{sec:flare_hr}).
1397: %The flare column density is studied on shorter time scales
1398: %in \S\ref{sec:flare_hr} with some interesting results.
1399:
1400:
1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1402: \subsection{Decay Spectrum}
1403: \label{sec:spectra_decay}
1404:
1405: One-temperature models give unacceptable fits to the decay spectrum and
1406: Table~\ref{table:fits} therefore lists results only from 2-$T$ models.
1407: Physically, one would expect temperatures and
1408: abundances to be intermediate between the quiescent and flare values,
1409: and probably closer to the latter since we observe the
1410: portion of the long-lived decay immediately following the flare.
1411: The fit therefore
1412: gives sensible results, but the model and fit uncertainties
1413: are too large to draw any firm conclusions regarding
1414: element depletions or enhancements.
1415:
1416: Before discussing implications of the fit results, it is worth
1417: recalling that the real uncertainty in any physical parameter
1418: is always larger than the formal fitting error.
1419: Although the fit results in Table~\ref{table:fits} are
1420: fairly insensitive to the choice of model,
1421: model assumptions inevitably affect the values of derived parameters,
1422: as do many other factors such as
1423: atomic data uncertainties,
1424: limited energy resolution, and calibration errors.
1425: %% particularly at energies where instrument effective areas are
1426: %% relatively small.
1427: %% Figure~\ref{fig:chi2abund}.
1428: The latter can be especially important with regard to the
1429: interdependence of derived emission measures and element abundances,
1430: as illustrated by \citet{cit:robrade2005} in
1431: fits to \xmm\ data from several instruments; much of
1432: the (modest) disagreement between results
1433: from fits to the MOS and other instruments
1434: %(which gave quite consistent results among themselves)
1435: can likely be attributed to recently discovered spatially dependent
1436: response function variations in the MOS detectors caused by cumulative
1437: radiation exposure
1438: \citep{cit:stuhlinger2006,cit:read2006}.
1439: Although calibration errors in ACIS should not be a significant issue here,
1440: exclusion of the piled-up source core and attendant
1441: energy-dependent modifications to the effective area
1442: have introduced difficult-to-estimate uncertainties
1443: into our fits.
1444: Uncertainties in atomic data used in the fits are relatively small
1445: and, as described above, we have taken some care to study the
1446: sensitivity of our model assumptions and parameters, but
1447: the uncertainties on the fit values listed in
1448: Table~\ref{table:fits} should be viewed as lower limits.
1449:
1450: %Calibration errors in ACIS should not be a significant issue here, however,
1451: %and as described above we have taken some care to study the
1452: %sensitivity of our model assumptions and parameters.
1453:
1454:
1455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1456: \subsection{Abundances Discussion}
1457: \label{sec:spectra_discussion}
1458: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1459:
1460: Coronal abundance patterns seen in stars with solar-like to very high
1461: activity levels currently appear to deviate from expected photospheric
1462: values according to element first ionization potentials. In the solar
1463: case, low-FIP elements ($\la 10$~eV, e.g., Si, Fe, and Mg) appear
1464: enhanced by typical factors of 2-4 compared with high-FIP elements
1465: ($\ga 10$~eV, e.g, O, Ne, Ar) which have roughly photospheric values
1466: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{cit:Feldman92}. In stars, there
1467: appears to be a steady transition from a solar-like FIP effect to
1468: ``inverse-FIP effect'' as activity level rises
1469: \citep[e.g.,][]{cit:Drake95,cit:White94,cit:telleschi2005,cit:Audard03,
1470: cit:Guedel02}.
1471:
1472: Several abundance studies of active M dwarfs suggest they share a
1473: pattern similar to that of higher mass active stars. \citet[][see
1474: also \citealt{cit:raassen2003}]{cit:robrade2005} analyzed {\it
1475: XMM-Newton} observations of four M dwarfs with spectral types
1476: similar to that of Ross~154, namely EQ~Peg (GJ 896AB; a wide binary
1477: with M3.5Ve and M4.5Ve components), AT~Mic (GJ 799AB; a
1478: tidally-interacting M4.5Ve+M4V binary), EV~Lac (GJ 873; M3.5Ve), and
1479: AD~Leo (GJ 388; M3.5e). They conclude that all these stars exhibit a
1480: similar abundance pattern: a remarkably flat abundance-versus-FIP
1481: relationship (roughly half-solar photospheric) from Si (8.15~eV) to N
1482: (14.53~eV), with only Ne (21.56~eV) showing a conspicuous enhancement.
1483: This pattern is also reminiscent of that found for Proxima Cen (GJ
1484: 551) by \citet{cit:Guedel2004} and for the dMe active spectroscopic
1485: binary YY~Gem (Castor C) by \citet{cit:Guedel2001} from {\it
1486: XMM-Newton} observations.
1487:
1488:
1489: %The abundances found by \citet{cit:robrade2005} are similar to those
1490: %estimated from {\it XMM-Newton} observations for the dMe active
1491: %spectroscopic binary YY~Gem (Castor C) by \citet{cit:Guedel2001}, and
1492: %for Proxima Cen (GJ 551) by \citet{cit:Guedel2004}, although the
1493: %latter appeared more metal-rich with a solar-like composition.
1494:
1495:
1496: %There are also indications of a general increase in element
1497: %abundances during a large
1498: %flare on Proxima Cen \citep{cit:Guedel2004}, a star similar
1499: %to Ross 154 in size with somewhat lower activity
1500: %($L_{X} \sim 2 \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$).
1501:
1502: Adopting the 2-$T$ abundance results in Table~\ref{table:fits}, we
1503: find Ross~154 is broadly consistent in relative abundances with those
1504: from the earlier studies of M~dwarfs. We find no significant
1505: deviation from a solar mixture in terms of the relative abundances of
1506: the OCNS, MgNaAlSi, and FeCaNi groups, but a significantly larger
1507: relative abundance of the NeAr group in quiescent, flare and decay
1508: spectra. There is some indication that the coronal metallicity
1509: (i.e.\ all metals scaled together) differs between
1510: quiescent and flare/decay phases: both FeCaNi and OCNS groups appear
1511: more consistent with a value of 0.4 times that of \citet{cit:anders1989}
1512: during the decay, compared with $\sim 0.15$ during quiescence. This
1513: is confirmed by 2-$T$ model fits in which all elements were tied to
1514: their relative solar values (except for the Ne/O ratio which was fixed
1515: at 2.4) and only the overall metallicity was
1516: allowed to vary. The metallicity rises from the quiescent value of
1517: $\sim 0.15$ to $\sim 0.55$ in the flare, with a best-fit value of
1518: $\sim 0.45$ during the decay (but statistically consistent with the
1519: flare value). The flare and decay metal abundances are essentially
1520: the same as the photospheric estimate of \citet{cit:eggen1996}.
1521:
1522: %We note that the flare (and decay) abundance pattern is very similar
1523: %to that found by \citet{cit:robrade2005} for more active M~dwarfs:
1524: %enhanced Ne and a global metallicity of about half solar, although the
1525: %quiescent
1526:
1527: The Ross~154 abundance pattern and Ne/O abundance ratio is similar to
1528: those of the \citet{cit:robrade2005} sample, although during the flare
1529: there is a suggestion at the $1.5\sigma$--$2\sigma$ level of a Ne/O
1530: increase (see \S\ref{sec:spectra_flare} and Table~\ref{table:fits}).
1531: The Ne/O ratio is interesting in the context of understanding
1532: solar structure and its distribution in the coronae stars of different
1533: activity level
1534: \citep[e.g.,][]{Basu.Antia:04,Bahcall.etal:05,Drake.Testa:05}.
1535: \citet{Drake.Testa:05} found a remarkably constant Ne/O abundance
1536: ratio that is $\sim$2.4 times higher than the currently favored solar
1537: ratio of 0.15 by number
1538: \citep[e.g.,][]{cit:anders1989,cit:asplund2005,
1539: Young:05,Schmelz:05,Landi.etal:07}
1540: in a sample of mostly active stars over a wide range of spectral type
1541: (and as seen in Ross 154). They argue that a FIP-based fractionation
1542: mechanism is unlikely to result in such consistent Ne/O ratios when
1543: the Fe/O ratio in the same stars varies over an order of magnitude
1544: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Gudel:04}, and suggest instead that the higher
1545: ratio---including that found for the M dwarfs analyzed by
1546: \citet{cit:robrade2005}---represents underlying photospheric values.
1547: In this scenario, the M dwarfs appear to exhibit coronal abundances
1548: that reflect their relative photospheric values but that differ in terms of a
1549: global metal depletion factor.
1550:
1551:
1552: The quiescent coronal metallicity of Ross~154 is somewhat lower than
1553: the \citet{cit:robrade2005} sample, and the difference in quiescent
1554: activity level between Ross~154 and the other dMe's may be important
1555: here. The X-ray luminosities of stars in the latter group range from a few
1556: $10^{28}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ up to several $10^{29}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, on
1557: average roughly a factor of 10 higher than that of Ross~154. Ross~154
1558: might then be probing a lower activity regime that has
1559: a characteristically larger coronal metal depletion. At face value,
1560: it would appear from Ross~154 that the degree of depletion increases with
1561: decreasing activity. However, Proxima Cen is a star similar to
1562: Ross~154 in size but with somewhat lower activity ($L_{X} \sim 2
1563: \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and an essentially photospheric
1564: (solar-like) coronal composition \citep{cit:Guedel2004}. Similarly,
1565: YY~Gem is a very active system but appears to have slightly lower
1566: abundances than the \citet{cit:robrade2005} sample. Both stars
1567: thus suggest the opposite trend: increasing coronal metal depletion with
1568: increasing activity, as is observed for higher mass dwarfs.
1569:
1570: What, then, is the underlying explanation for the different M dwarf
1571: coronal abundances? The \citet{cit:robrade2005} sample includes active
1572: single stars that must be relatively young and compositionally
1573: representative of the local cosmos. Since the observed coronal
1574: metal abundances a factor of two lower than the local cosmic
1575: (essentially solar) values, it seems likely that the more active M dwarf
1576: coronae are depleted in metals relative to photospheric values by
1577: factors of $\sim 2$. This view is supported by the increase in coronal
1578: metals seen in the Ross~154 flare:
1579: such a large flare probably introduced fresh material from the chromosphere or
1580: photosphere into the corona via chromospheric evaporation, as
1581: conjectured to explain similar abundance changes seen during large flares on
1582: other M dwarfs \citep[e.g.][]{cit:favata2000} and interacting binaries
1583: \citep[e.g.,][]{cit:favata1999,Guedel.etal:99}. Other differences from
1584: the expected coronal metallicity-activity trend are likely to be
1585: present simply due to scatter in photospheric metallicity of the
1586: young, active stellar population \citep[e.g.,][]{Bensby.etal:03}. The
1587: slightly sub-solar photospheric metallicity of Ross~154 found by
1588: \cite{cit:eggen1996} supports this conjecture: its corona is metal
1589: poor as a result of both low photospheric metallicity
1590: and some degree of coronal metal depletion.
1591:
1592: Such an abundance pattern is difficult to confirm in M~dwarfs.
1593: There are few low-activity/low-luminosity dMe
1594: stars nearby enough for detailed study and thus nearly all well-studied dMe
1595: stars are highly active. Nevertheless, these intriguing results
1596: suggest that more detailed observations of Ross~154 and other more inactive
1597: stars would be highly worthwhile.
1598:
1599: %but quite similar to that found for YY~Gem by \citet{cit:Guedel2001}.
1600: %The impulsive phase of a flare was caught by the \citet{XMM-Newton}
1601: %Castor observation, in which the X-ray count rate of YY~Gem was
1602: %observed to peak at $\sim 4$ times its quiescent value. There is some
1603: %weak evidence in the Fe and Ne abundances derived for this period
1604: %suggesting an abundance increase in the flare, perhaps similar to that
1605: %we observe for Ross~154.
1606:
1607: %The differences in coronal abundances between stars like Ross~154 and
1608: %Proxima, and YY~Gem and the \citet{cit:robrade2005} sample are perhaps
1609: %puzzling. In the latter case, YY~Gem is by association with Castor a
1610: %young object, an attribute we can also surmise with confidence applies
1611: %to the active single stars AD~Leo and EV~Lac, together with the wide
1612: %binary EQ~Peg. These stars are unlikely to have large deviations from
1613: %a present day cosmic (essentially solar) composition. However,
1614: %factors of 2 difference in global metallicity are not
1615:
1616:
1617:
1618:
1619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1620: \section{QUIESCENT MICROFLARING}
1621: \label{sec:microflaring}
1622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1623:
1624: %Because of the differing degrees of element fractionation in
1625: %quiescent and flaring plasma, the question of whether or not
1626: %quiescent emission includes substantial contributions from many small flares
1627: %is vital to the Ross 154 coronal abundance anomaly question, in
1628: %addition to being of key interest for understanding the basic
1629: %heating mechanism of M dwarf coronae.
1630: Although the origin of coronal heating remains one of the great unsolved
1631: problems of modern astrophysics,
1632: it has been well established
1633: that solar flares are distributed
1634: as a power law in energy with the form
1635: $\frac{dN}{dE} \propto E^{-\alpha}$
1636: \citep{cit:lin1984,cit:hudson1991}.
1637: %(Lin et al.\ 1984, Hudson 1991),
1638: The index $\alpha$ is approximately 1.8 for high-energy flares, possibly
1639: increasing to $\sim$2.6 for low-energy flares
1640: \citep{cit:krucker1998,cit:winebarger2002},
1641: %(Krucker \& Benz 1998,
1642: %Winebarger et al.\ 2002)
1643: although this latter measurement is disputed
1644: \citep{cit:aschwanden2002}.
1645: %(Aschwanden \& Parnell 2002).
1646: The precise value of
1647: $\alpha$ is of fundamental importance because if $\alpha>2$
1648: then it is theoretically possible to attribute the entire
1649: coronal heating budget to energy deposited into the corona
1650: during flares.
1651:
1652: Several authors
1653: \citep{cit:butler1986,cit:ambruster1987,cit:robinson1995,cit:audard2000,
1654: cit:kashyap2002,cit:guedel2003,cit:Guedel2004}
1655: %(Butler et al.\ 1986;
1656: %Ambruster, Sciortino, \& Golub 1987;
1657: %Robinson et al.\ 1995;
1658: %Audard et al.\ 2000;
1659: %Kashyap et al.\ 2002;
1660: %Guedel et al.\ 2003, 2004)
1661: have therefore suggested that the apparently quiescent
1662: emission in other stellar coronae may be due to the
1663: continuous eruption of small flares, commonly referred
1664: to as ``microflaring,'' although the flares involved
1665: extend well into the range of solar X-class events.
1666: The luminosity of these microflares is roughly
1667: $10^{26}$--$10^{29}$ ergs s$^{-1}$; for comparison, a solar X1 flare
1668: corresponds to a few times $10^{26}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ over the full
1669: X-ray band.
1670: %, varying somewhat depending on the flare spectrum.
1671: Currently, the detectability limit for flares
1672: on stars other than the Sun is a luminosity
1673: of roughly $2 \times 10^{26}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
1674: \citep[for Proxima Cen;][]{cit:Guedel2002a}.
1675: %% (Note that the `M-class' flares on Proxima Cen observed by
1676: %% \citet{haisch1995} using \asca\ are in fact X-class events
1677: %% due to a factor of 10 luminosity error.)
1678:
1679:
1680:
1681: %{\it *** Need we say more about arrival time differences, or however this
1682: %model works?}
1683:
1684: For large flares observed with {\it EUVE}, Audard et al.\ (2000)
1685: found that the majority of cool stars they analyzed had $\alpha>2$.
1686: Using a more sophisticated method that directly analyzes
1687: photon arrival times and thus extends quantitative modeling
1688: to weaker flares,
1689: Kashyap et al.\ (2002) found that
1690: low-mass active stars such as FK\,Aqr, V1054\,Oph, and
1691: AD\,Leo all have $\alpha>2$, and that a large fraction
1692: of the observed emission (generally $>50$\%) can be
1693: attributed to the influence of numerous small overlapping
1694: flares. Their method analyzes the distribution of arrival time
1695: distributions that would be realized for different flare
1696: distributions, with the flares themselves modeled as
1697: randomly occuring in time with instantaneous rises and
1698: exponential decays. The intensities of individual
1699: flares are sampled from the aforementioned power law.
1700:
1701: %In microflaring analyses, photon arrival times are modeled
1702: %as being from a set
1703: %of randomly timed flares whose number and intensities are
1704: %sampled from the aforementioned power law.
1705: Because the
1706: model is stochastic in nature, Monte Carlo methods
1707: are used to obtain best-fit values and errors of the flare
1708: intensity and the power-law slope index $\alpha$.
1709: For a given X-ray microflaring luminosity,
1710: smaller values of $\alpha$ yield light curves
1711: dominated by occasional large flares, whereas
1712: light curves characterized by larger values of $\alpha$ are dominated
1713: by numerous smaller flares. This difference in the
1714: general characteristics of light curves can be exploited
1715: to determine how the flares are distributed on the star.
1716: Naturally,
1717: better constraints are obtained on $\alpha$ when
1718: photon arrival times are known to higher accuracy,
1719: especially for smaller values of $\alpha$ since such
1720: models contain flares with larger peak count rates and
1721: therefore less time between events.
1722:
1723: %In the following, we analyze the events from both ACIS
1724: %and HRC-I data during the apparent quiescent times to
1725: %determine the possible flare distribution index. We
1726: %exclude times of the large flare in ACIS data because
1727: %it is clearly of a double exponential form and will
1728: %interfere with the exponential decay model used for
1729: %the microflaring analysis.
1730:
1731:
1732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1733: \label{subsec:microflaring_acis}
1734: \subsection{ACIS Observation Results}
1735:
1736: The analyses described above model flares with single-exponential
1737: decays. We use the same flare model with
1738: the decay time constant set to 1000 s, a value
1739: characteristic of flares at typical coronal densities;
1740: the actual value of the decay time has little effect
1741: on our results for the relatively small flares analyzed here.
1742: Because the large flare in the
1743: ACIS observation clearly decays with double-exponential behavior
1744: (see \S\ref{sec:flare}),
1745: we restrict our analysis to the quiescent phase.
1746:
1747: The resultant two-dimensional joint posterior probability density
1748: $p(\alpha,r_F)$ of the parameters $r_F$, the event rate due to flares,
1749: and $\alpha$, the flare distribution index, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}.
1750: The 1-dimensional probability density on $\alpha$ can be obtained by
1751: integrating over $r_F$,\footnote{
1752: The joint posterior probability density function (pdf) is technically
1753: written as $p(\alpha,r_F|D)$, where the notation indicates the
1754: probability of the parameter values {\sl given} the data, $D$.
1755: For the sake of notational simplicity, we drop the explicit
1756: conditional in all references to the posterior pdf. Thus, the
1757: posterior pdf of $\alpha$ marginalized over $r_F$ is referred
1758: to as $p(\alpha) \equiv p(\alpha|D)
1759: = \int p(\alpha,r_F|D)~d\,r_F$.
1760: % \equiv \int p(\alpha|r_F,D)~\pi(r_F) d\,r_F$
1761: % where $\pi(r_F)$ is the prior probability of $r_F$, for which
1762: % we consider all values below the total observed rate $r_T$ to
1763: % be equally plausible.
1764: }
1765: and we find that $\alpha$ lies between 1.96 and 2.86 (90\% confidence level)
1766: with a mean of 2.45. Note that $p(\alpha,r_F)$ is not well localized,
1767: and the flare distribution is only poorly characterized by crude summaries
1768: such as the means and variances of $r_F$ and $\alpha$.
1769: % The resultant two-dimensional joint probability
1770: % distribution in the event rate due to flares, $r_F$, and
1771: % the flare distribution index, $\alpha$,
1772: % is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}. We find that
1773: % $\alpha$ lies between 1.96 and 2.86 (90\% confidence level)
1774: % with a mean of 2.45.
1775: %Recall that the flare rate
1776: %is correlated with $\alpha$, with small values of $\alpha$
1777: %corresponding to a small flare rate.
1778: The figure shows that smaller values
1779: of $\alpha$ (corresponding to relatively
1780: fewer but larger flares) are consistent with a smaller $r_F$, i.e.,
1781: the contribution of flares to the total emission is smaller.
1782: %Thus, infrequent large flares are energetically less important
1783: %to this system.
1784: In contrast, for larger $\alpha$, when the
1785: light curve is
1786: %expected to be
1787: dominated by more frequent but
1788: less energetic flares, the contribution of flares to the total
1789: count rate becomes more significant.
1790: %Although these data are insufficient to determine confidently
1791: %whether or not $\alpha$ is greater than 2, it appears likely
1792: %that roughly half the total quiescent emission arises
1793: %from microflaring.
1794:
1795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1796: \label{subsec:microflaring_hrc}
1797: \subsection{HRC Observation Results}
1798:
1799: The complex probability distribution from the ACIS analysis
1800: is revealed more
1801: clearly by the HRC data, which have more counts
1802: (20500 X-ray events plus $\sim$10000 background events in
1803: 46776 s for the HRC observation, excluding flares;
1804: $\sim4400$ X-ray events in 42620 s for the quiescent ACIS data)
1805: and better temporal resolution ($\sim3.5$ ms versus 0.6 s).
1806: The relationship between temporal resolution and
1807: the accuracy of $\alpha$ is complex and has not been investigated here
1808: because of the extreme computational demands of such an analysis,
1809: but some of the differences between the ACIS and HRC results discussed below
1810: are likely due to differences in the accuracy of event timing.
1811: In particular, the HRC's superior timing permits
1812: better characterization of $p(\alpha,r_F)$ at smaller values of $\alpha$.
1813: %which corresponding to a larger fraction of
1814: %larger flares (see \S\ref{sec:microflaring}).
1815:
1816: As described in \S\ref{sec:obs}, the HRC-I data were collected
1817: far off-axis, so that the source image was spread out over a large
1818: area.
1819: % and event pileup was not a concern.
1820: Detector background was steady at 2.55 cts s$^{-1}$
1821: over the full field (1.86 cts s$^{-1}$ after standard filtering)
1822: and the background-subtracted quiescent X-ray rate was 0.3--0.5 cts s$^{-1}$
1823: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lchrc}).
1824: A large source extraction region
1825: (an ellipse with major and minor axes of 400 and 600 pixels;
1826: see Fig.~\ref{fig:hrcimage})
1827: was required to collect the X-ray events, but
1828: because the background is steady,
1829: the microflaring analysis is not sensitive to
1830: background contamination.
1831: Indeed, the
1832: events are modeled with a constant non-flaring base event rate
1833: that includes the background rate.
1834: % Timing resolution is much better than the 0.6 s of the ACIS observation,
1835: % with event times accurate to
1836: % $\sim$3.5 ms.
1837:
1838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1839: %% FIGURE 7
1840: %% fig:alpha
1841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1842: %\clearpage
1843: \begin{figure}
1844: \centering
1845: \epsscale{1.1}
1846: \rotatebox{0}{
1847: \plotone{f7.eps}}
1848: \caption{
1849: Joint probability distributions $p(\alpha,r_F)$ of the power-law
1850: flare-activity index $\alpha$ and the average contribution of flares
1851: to the observed event rate, $r_F$, for quiescent emission during the
1852: ACIS-S and HRC-I observations.
1853: The horizontal (blue) line near the top of each plot marks the total quiescent
1854: event rate
1855: %($r_{tot}=0.107$ ct s$^{-1}$ for ACIS)
1856: with its $1\sigma$
1857: uncertainty range denoted by the dashed lines.
1858: The complex contours below that enclose 68\%, 90\%, and 95\% probabilities
1859: for $p(\alpha,r_F)$,
1860: with the large cross locating the mean values of $\alpha$ and $r_F$
1861: and the arms signifying the $1\sigma$ confidence ranges.
1862: Although it can be seen that the probability distributions
1863: are more complex than simple ellipses,
1864: %the formal 95\% confidence interval for $\alpha$ is 1.64--3.0, and
1865: on average roughly half the total quiescent emission
1866: can be ascribed to microflaring based on the ratio of $r_{F}$ and $r_{tot}$.
1867: }
1868: \label{fig:alpha}
1869: \end{figure}
1870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1871:
1872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1873: %% FIGURE 8
1874: %% {fig:lchrc}
1875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1876: \begin{figure}
1877: \centering
1878: \epsscale{1.10}
1879: \rotatebox{0}{
1880: \plotone{f8.eps}}
1881: \caption{
1882: Light curves of the HRC observation, with 100-s binning.
1883: Zero time corresponds to the beginning of the observation
1884: on 2007 May 28 at 4:19:18 UT. Thin vertical lines
1885: mark flare intervals, and the red traces within those
1886: intervals denote event rates after approximate corrections
1887: for deadtime due to telemetry saturation.
1888: The lowest curve is from the background region in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrcimage}
1889: and is scaled for the area of the source region.
1890: The microflaring analysis excludes the large flare at the end
1891: (after time=46842 s). Exclusion of the small flare between
1892: times 16642 and 18042 s has little effect on the analysis.
1893: }
1894: \label{fig:lchrc}
1895: \end{figure}
1896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1897: %\clearpage
1898:
1899: A large flare occurred near the very end of the observation,
1900: exceeding the telemetry limit of $\sim$3.5 cts s$^{-1}$ and leading
1901: to a loss of events despite some buffering capability.
1902: Because of the limitations of the Next-In-Line mode,
1903: the deadtime can not be determined directly, but the flare
1904: intensity was at least a factor of 4 higher than the quiescent rate
1905: and probably close to a factor of 10 (see below).
1906: Some lesser flaring at 3 or more times the quiescent rate
1907: was observed earlier in the observation, and
1908: a coincidental dip in the telemetered background rate indicates that
1909: the total event rate exceeded telemetry capacity during that time.
1910: Telemetry buffering appears to have preserved all the events
1911: during a few prior periods (between $\sim t = 12$ and 14 ks)
1912: when the rate briefly exceeded 3.5 cts s$^{-1}$.
1913:
1914: Note that the upper curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:lchrc} plots the event rate
1915: for unfiltered full-field data, which is most relevant for comparisons with
1916: the telemetry limit. The source and background light curves
1917: are for filtered data. Standard filtering reduces the HRC-I
1918: background by 25-30\%
1919: with a loss of $\sim$2\% of valid X-ray events.
1920: Assuming that the true background rate is constant,
1921: one can derive the detector livetime during the flares
1922: by dividing the measured background rate by the true rate
1923: (derived from non-flare periods).
1924: The red traces in Fig.~\ref{fig:lchrc} plot the deadtime-corrected
1925: source rate during the two flares, with a statistical accuracy
1926: of $\sim$10\% for the 100-s bins.
1927: %
1928: Because many events during the large flare were lost, and those
1929: that remain may have incorrect times, we exclude the flare
1930: from our microflaring analysis.
1931: %The gross exposure of the remaining observation is 46776 s
1932: %with about 20500 X-ray events
1933: %(plus $\sim$10000 background events),
1934: %compared with 42620 s and about 4400 X-ray counts in the
1935: %ACIS microflaring data (which had to exclude the piled-up core).
1936: Lost events during the moderate flare near the middle of the
1937: observation may have affected the results
1938: so we repeated the analysis after excluding 1.4 ks around $t\sim 17$ ks.
1939:
1940: In both cases, we see in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha} that the HRC-derived
1941: joint probability distribution $p(\alpha,r_F)$
1942: is grossly similar to that determined from the ACIS data,
1943: but there are some important differences. First, at the 90\% confidence
1944: level, we can rule out $\alpha<2$, since we find
1945: that $1.99 < \alpha < 2.84$ (when excluding the large flare) and
1946: $2.08 < \alpha < 2.87$ (excluding both flares).
1947: More importantly, given that $p(\alpha)$ provides a rather
1948: poor summary of the complex 2-D $p(\alpha,r_F)$ distribution,
1949: the broad correlation found between $r_F$ and $\alpha$ with ACIS data
1950: is now resolved into two major components in the probability
1951: distribution: one with $\alpha\approx1.8$, similar to the solar
1952: case, corresponding to a low value of $r_F\lesssim0.1$~ct~s$^{-1}$,
1953: and another where the observed source counts are almost entirely dominated
1954: by flaring plasma, with $r_F\approx0.4$~ct~s$^{-1}$, and $\alpha\approx2.5$.
1955:
1956: This bimodal distribution is an indication that the model adopted for
1957: fitting, that of flare intensities distributed as a power-law with
1958: a single index, is too simplistic. The true flare distribution
1959: may be a broken power-law or another more complex form that requires
1960: consideration of local plasma conditions such as density, composition,
1961: and emissivity.
1962: For example, the correlation between energy deposition
1963: and X-ray emission may break down for small flares.
1964: These data thus provide the first concrete hint that different
1965: types of processes occur on late type stars than occur on the Sun,
1966: where the existence of a single power-law spanning at least 6
1967: orders of magnitude in flare energies (from $10^{26}$ to $10^{32}$ ergs)
1968: has been well established \citep{cit:aschwanden2000}.
1969:
1970:
1971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1972: \section{TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACIS FLARE}
1973: \label{sec:flare}
1974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1975:
1976: %% Such a large flare from the bottom end of the dMe distrib is very rare.
1977: %% This flare is near the top of what ... show in their plot.
1978: %% Fairly small optical flare for such a big X-ray flare???
1979: %%
1980: %% higher luminosity correlated with higher activity.
1981:
1982: Having completed discussion of the HRC observation, we return
1983: to the ACIS data.
1984: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:lcflare}, the X-ray count rate during
1985: the flare increased by over a factor of 100 from its quiescent level.
1986: The increase in luminosity is a factor of $\sim200$,
1987: and as noted in \S\ref{sec:spectra_flare}, observations of such large flares
1988: are quite rare.
1989: Observations of dMe stars with
1990: simultaneous X-ray and optical coverage are also uncommon
1991: but include:
1992: %Butler et al.\ (1986; UV Ceti and EQ Peg with \exosat);
1993: %de Jager et al.\ (1986; BY Dra with \exosat);
1994: %Schmitt, Haisch, \& Barwig (1993; UV Ceti with \rosat);
1995: %Katsova, Livshits, \& Schmitt (2002: EQ Peg with \rosat);
1996: %G\"{u}del et al.\ (2002; Proxima Cen with \xmm);
1997: %and
1998: %Osten et al.\ (2005; EV Lac with \chandra).
1999: BY Dra with \exosat\ (de Jager et al.\ 1986);
2000: UV Ceti with \exosat\ and \rosat\
2001: (Butler et al.\ 1986; Schmitt, Haisch, \& Barwig 1993);
2002: EQ Peg with \exosat\ and \rosat\
2003: (Butler et al.\ 1986; Katsova, Livshits, \& Schmitt 2002);
2004: Proxima Cen with \xmm\ (G\"{u}del et al.\ 2002a);
2005: and
2006: EV Lac with \chandra\ (Osten et al.\ 2005).
2007:
2008: %de Jager, C. et al. (1986), AA 156, 95, EXOSAT BY Draconis
2009: % Also de Jager, C. et al. (1986), AA 211, 157, EXOSAT UV Ceti,
2010: % but I assume that's the same obs as Butler.
2011:
2012:
2013: In the two-ribbon solar flare model,
2014: magnetic reconnection energizes electrons in the
2015: corona that are then accelerated into the chromosphere where
2016: they heat and ionize plasma that explosively expands into the
2017: corona in the process of ``chromospheric evaporation.''
2018: The multi-MK plasma then cools as it emits soft X-rays.
2019: At the beginning of the flare, synchrotron radio emission
2020: is produced as electrons spiral along the magnetic field
2021: lines and nonthermal bremsstrahlung is emitted as the electrons
2022: crash into the chromosphere at the magnetic field footprints.
2023: Optical emission is closely correlated with the nonthermal
2024: hard X-ray ($E>10$ keV)
2025: emission in solar flares \citep{cit:hudson1992} and is often used as
2026: a proxy for the latter.
2027: Nonthermal flare emission is orders of magnitude weaker than
2028: the soft X-ray thermal emission and has
2029: been observed tentatively only once in another star,
2030: during a superflare in the active binary II Pegasi \citep{cit:osten2007}.
2031:
2032: Soft and hard X-ray light curves are often related by the Neupert effect
2033: \citep{cit:neupert1968}. Nonthermal hard X-ray (and optical) emission
2034: traces the rate of electron energy deposition in the chromosphere,
2035: while the soft X-ray emission is approximately proportional to the
2036: cumulative thermal energy transferred to the flare plasma
2037: by the electrons, at least during the beginning of the flare
2038: before significant cooling has occurred. The time derivative
2039: of the soft X-ray light curve is therefore proportional
2040: to the hard X-ray light curve. Originally observed
2041: in solar flares, the Neupert effect (using optical or radio
2042: emission in lieu of hard X-rays) has also been observed in a
2043: few stars, including
2044: AD Leo \citep{cit:hawley1995},
2045: Proxima Cen \citep{cit:Guedel2002a},
2046: and probably II Peg (directly in hard X-rays; Osten et al.\ 2007).
2047:
2048:
2049: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2050: %% FIGURE 9
2051: %% fig:lcflare
2052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2053: %\clearpage
2054: \begin{figure}
2055: \centering
2056: \epsscale{1.1}
2057: \rotatebox{0}{
2058: \plotone{f9.eps}}
2059: \caption{
2060: X-ray light curve of the flare and its decay (top) and detail
2061: of the flare in different energy ranges (bottom); a slightly
2062: less restrictive spatial
2063: filter was used to include more counts for the bottom panel.
2064: Bin size is 100 s (20.5 s for optical in bottom panel).
2065: The pre-flare quiescent count-rate average has been subtracted from
2066: the optical data. The three data points near $t=43$ ks with wide bars
2067: in the optical curve
2068: represent average values over the indicated time intervals;
2069: gaps are dither-induced dropouts
2070: (see \S\ref{sec:extract_optical}).
2071: The bottom-most curve traces the time derivative of the
2072: full-range (0.25--8 keV) X-ray light curve during the main flare.
2073: Beyond $t=44.2$ ks (the flare peak) the derivative is negative.
2074: Prior to the main flare
2075: % $t=43.7$ ks
2076: the statistics are poor, but
2077: the derivative light curve seems to peak roughly
2078: in concert with the initial optical flare at $t \approx 42.7$ ks,
2079: as one would expect for the Neupert effect.
2080: % The quiescent average of $28446 \pm 264$ cts bin$^{-1}$ has
2081: % been subtracted from the optical data.
2082: % Note that the optical and hard (2--8 keV) X-ray
2083: % light curves rise more quickly and peak before the sub-2-keV emission,
2084: % and a smaller optical flare occurs at the very beginning of
2085: % the X-ray flare phase (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:lcfull}).
2086: The 1--19 bar across the top of the bottom panel refers to the 150-s
2087: bins used in Figs.~\ref{fig:HR} and \ref{fig:TEM}.
2088: }
2089: \label{fig:lcflare}
2090: \end{figure}
2091: %\clearpage
2092: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2093:
2094:
2095: %The Ross 154 flare has two subphases: an initial count-rate
2096: %rise of a factor of ten over a period of $\sim$500 s followed by
2097: %a $\sim$500-s plateau, and then the main flare with another ten-fold
2098: %rise over the next $\sim$600 s. After reaching its peak, the
2099: %main flare begins its decline, which can be modeled as the sum
2100: %of a fast (400-s $e$-folding time) and slow (13000 s) exponential decay.
2101:
2102: The Ross 154 flare has two subphases: an initial count-rate
2103: rise of a factor of ten over a period of $\sim$500 s followed by
2104: a $\sim$500-s plateau, and then the main flare with another ten-fold
2105: rise.
2106: Both the initial and main flares are accompanied by optical flares
2107: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lcflare} and note that the pre-flare quiescent
2108: average of $28446 \pm 264$ cts bin$^{-1}$ has
2109: been subtracted from the optical data).
2110: In the initial flare, the optical signal rises abruptly to
2111: its peak (within $\sim$50 s) while the X-ray signal continues
2112: to rise after the optical flare has started to decline.
2113: Although the statistics are limited, this behavior
2114: is consistent with the Neupert effect described above, in
2115: which the optical signal is proportional to the time derivative
2116: of the X-ray signal until the X-ray peak is reached and plasma
2117: cooling takes over.
2118:
2119: In the main flare, the optical and X-ray light curves
2120: roughly mirror each other. This is particularly true for the harder
2121: X-rays (above 2 keV), which peak $\sim$100 s before the softer
2122: X-rays, in concert with the optical light curve.
2123: The X-ray and optical light curves also begin their rise
2124: at about the same time, but the optical signal increases more
2125: quickly at first and then slows its rise to the peak.
2126: In this case, there is no simple Neupert effect, as the
2127: optical emission continues to rise even after the X-ray
2128: derivative has started falling. One possibility is
2129: that magnetic reconnection continues after the initial
2130: impulse, or perhaps conductive heating of the chromosphere
2131: by the flare maintains optical emission while the flare decays.
2132: %{\it I've probably garbled Jeremy's suggestions.}
2133: A significant minority of large solar flares do not show a Neupert effect,
2134: and a similar mix of flare behaviors is
2135: seen on other stars (e.g., Proxima Cen; G\"{u}del et al.\ 2004).
2136:
2137:
2138:
2139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2140: \subsection{Size and Density Estimates}
2141: \label{sec:flare_size}
2142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2143:
2144:
2145: %\reference{} Kashyap, V., \& Drake, J.J., 2000, Bull.Astr.Soc.India, 28, 475
2146: %\reference{} Mazzotta, P., Mazzitelli, G., Colafrancesco, S., \& Vittorio, N., 1998, AASS, 133, 403
2147: %\reference{} Rosner, R., Tucker, W.H., \& Vaiana, G.S., 1978, ApJ, 220, 643
2148: %\reference{} Young, P., et al., 2003, ApJSS, 144, 135
2149: %\reference{} Reale, F., Serio, S., \& Peres, G., 1993, A\&A, 272, 486
2150: %\reference{} Reale, F., G\"{u}del, M., Peres, G., \& Audard, M., 2004, A\&A, 416, 733
2151:
2152: Although detailed dynamical and structural modeling of the
2153: flare on Ross 154 is beyond the scope of the present paper,
2154: simple geometric arguments can be used to derive rough
2155: estimates of the size of the flaring volume and the plasma density
2156: within it. We focus on the main flare event, which occurs on
2157: three time scales.
2158: First is the rise of the flare ($\tau_{rise} \approx 500$~s)
2159: followed by its decline, which can be modeled as the sum of
2160: a fast ($\tau_{fast} \approx 400$~s $e$-folding time)
2161: and slow ($\tau_{slow} \approx 13000$~s) exponential decay.
2162: This double-exponential decay is often seen in stellar flares
2163: %\citep[e.g.,][]{cit:Osten1999},
2164: (e.g., Osten \& Brown 1999; G{\"u}del et~al.\ 2004; Reale et~al.\ 2004)
2165: and is also similar to the behavior seen in large solar flares,
2166: in which a steady active region undergoes a strong magnetic
2167: reconnection event resulting in an intense flare, and is
2168: followed by an arcade of reconnected loops that slowly decay
2169: \citep[e.g., the Bastille Day flare, see][]{cit:aschwanden2001}.
2170: %{\it Re this next part---doesn't it assume just 1 active region for
2171: %quiescent corona??}
2172: Such a scenario is also supported by the temporal analysis of
2173: \S\ref{sec:microflaring} that finds the apparently quiescent phase
2174: likely composed of a significant amount of microflaring emission,
2175: and by spectral analysis (Table~\ref{table:fits}) which shows that
2176: active-region emission persists throughout the duration of the observation
2177: at approximately the same temperature as found
2178: for the pre-flare quiescent emission ($\sim 5$~MK).
2179:
2180: Together with the previously derived temperatures and emission measures,
2181: the observed flare rise time and the decay time scales can be used
2182: to determine the sizes and densities of the emitting plasma.
2183: When conduction losses dominate the flare,
2184: the decay time scale can be approximated
2185: \citep[see e.g.,][]{cit:winebarger2003} by
2186: \begin{equation}
2187: \tau_C = \frac{4\times 10^{-10} n_e L^2}{T^{5/2}} \;\; {\mathrm{(cgs)}} \,,
2188: \end{equation}
2189: where $n_e$ is the electron density,
2190: $L$ is the length scale over which the plasma is distributed
2191: (the flaring loop half-length),
2192: and $T$ is the measured temperature.
2193: Given that the emission measure $EM \approx \frac{1}{2} n_e^2 L^3$ for
2194: a hemispherical volume of radius $r=\frac{2L}{\pi}$, we can simultaneously
2195: solve for $n_e$ and $r$ by identifying the observed decay time scale
2196: with $\tau_C$. Similarly, when radiative losses dominate, the
2197: decay time scale is given by
2198: \begin{equation}
2199: \tau_R = \frac{3kT}{n_e \Lambda(T)} \,,
2200: \end{equation}
2201: where $\Lambda(T)$ is the
2202: intensity per emission measure (in erg cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$),
2203: obtained here combining line
2204: emissivities from ATOMDB (v1.3.1; Smith et al.\ 2001b)
2205: %{cit:ATOMDB2001}
2206: and continuum emissivities from SPEX (v1.10; Kaastra et al.\ 1996)
2207: with PINTofALE (Kashyap \& Drake 2000) while
2208: using the fitted element abundances.
2209: %% {cit:spex1996}
2210: %% Kaastra, J.S., Mewe, R., \& Nieuwenhuijzen, H., 1996,
2211: %% in UV and X-ray spectroscopy of astrophysical and laboratory plasmas,
2212: %% eds.\ K.Yamashita and T.Watanabe, p.411, Univ.\ Acad.\ Press.
2213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2214: %parameterized by piecewise power-law functions
2215: %\citep[see e.g.,][]{cit:giampapa1996}.
2216: %(see e.g., Giampapa et al.\ 1996).
2217: As above, the plasma density $n_e$
2218: and the radius of the emitting volume $r$ can be derived
2219: from the measured temperature $T$ and emission measure $EM$,
2220: after identifying the observed decay time scale with $\tau_R$.
2221:
2222: At the temperatures typical of flares, $\Lambda(T) \propto T^{1/2}$
2223: and so $\tau_{R}/\tau_{C} \propto T^{3}$.
2224: Conduction losses thus dominate during the early (hotter)
2225: part of the flare, while radiative cooling dominates the later phase.
2226: We compute estimates of the flare volume, plasma density, and
2227: loop sizes as follows:
2228: \begin{enumerate}
2229:
2230: \item Flare Rise: The sound speed in a plasma at temperature $T$ is
2231: $c_{s} = \sqrt{kT/\mu m_{p}}$, where $m_{p}$ is the proton mass
2232: and $\mu$ is the average plasma particle mass coefficient
2233: ($\sim 1/2$ in a fully ionized plasma).
2234: The rise time of a flare is generally due to the time it
2235: takes for evaporated chromospheric material to fill the flare
2236: volume. For the simplest case of impulsive heating and a single loop,
2237: the rise time equals $L/c_{s}$,
2238: %this occurs at the sound speed,
2239: and from this we can estimate the length scale of
2240: the flaring volume as $L\sim4\,\times\,10^{10}$~cm, or $\sim 3\,R_*$,
2241: where $R_* \approx 0.20\,R_{\odot}$ is the radius of the star
2242: \citep[cf.][]{cit:segransan2003}.
2243: Because $L \propto \sqrt T$, this result is only weakly sensitive
2244: to uncertainties in the flare temperature and provides a firm
2245: upper limit.
2246: In reality, the heating may be non-impulsive
2247: so that evaporation continues to fill the loop for longer than $L/c_{s}$.
2248: The flare is also likely to occur in a complex loop arcade,
2249: in which the rise time is dominated by the successive lighting up
2250: of adjacent loop tubes \citep{cit:reeves2002,cit:reeves2007}.
2251: Solar loops have been modeled using hundreds of such strands,
2252: each lighting up a few seconds after the previous one; the
2253: typical velocities of the propagation of the sideways disturbance
2254: is $\sim\frac{1}{10}$ the sound speed \citep{cit:reeves2002}. With
2255: plausible assumptions regarding the geometry,
2256: this suggests typical flaring length scales of
2257: $L\sim4\,\times\,10^{9}$~cm. More accurate calculations require
2258: the use of the known decay timescales (see below).
2259:
2260: %Equating the rise time of the flare ($\tau_{rise}\sim$500 s) with the
2261: %time it takes to fill the flaring volume with evaporating
2262: %chromospheric material at the sound speed,
2263: %and using the average flare temperature derived from spectral
2264: %fitting ($T=74$ MK; $kT = 6.4$ keV),
2265: %we find that the flaring volume has a length scale of
2266: %$L \sim5\,\times\,10^{10}$~cm, or $\sim 4\,R_*$, where
2267: %$R_* \approx 0.20\,R_{\odot}$ is the radius of the star
2268: %\citep[cf.][]{cit:segransan2003}.
2269: %The peak flare temperature is somewhat higher than
2270: %the average value we used, but this increases the calculated
2271: %value of $L$ only slightly.
2272: %If the reconnection
2273: %event occurs at such a large height, this points to the existence of
2274: %magnetic fields on Ross 154 that are organized on large scales.
2275:
2276: \item Initial Decay:
2277:
2278: As noted above,
2279: temperatures in excess of $43$~MK occur near the flare peak, and
2280: at such high temperatures, conductive loss is an important factor
2281: in the evolution of the flare intensity. Setting the observed
2282: decay timescale ($\tau_{fast}=400$~s) to match
2283: the conductive decay timescale ($\tau_{C}$) in equation~1
2284: and using the observed
2285: flare emission measure ($EM\approx\frac{1}{2}~n_{e}^{2}~L^{3}$),
2286: we derive a plasma density
2287: $n_e\sim1.6\,\times\,10^{12}$~cm$^{-3}$ and loop size
2288: $L\sim3\,\times\,10^{9}$~cm
2289: (corresponding flare volume of diameter $\sim3.5\,\times\,10^{9}$~cm),
2290: in good agreement with the size derived from the flare rise time
2291: assuming an arcade of loops.
2292: Uncertainties on these results are large, however, because of
2293: the $L \propto T^{5}/EM$ relationship and the large uncertainty
2294: (particularly on the high side) for the flare temperature.
2295:
2296: The expected radiative decay timescale for the derived plasma
2297: density is $\tau_R\approx560$~s, which is similar in magnitude
2298: to $\tau_C$. Equating the two decay timescales (see van den Oord
2299: et al.\ 1988; their equation 18), we estimate the loop semi-length as
2300: $$
2301: L \approx 2.5\times10^{-19}~\frac{EM}{T^{3.25}}
2302: \frac{1}{N_l\alpha^2}~{\rm cm} \,,
2303: $$
2304: where $N_l$ is the number of loops and $\alpha$ is the ratio of the loop
2305: diameter to its length, and where we have adjusted the coefficient
2306: by a factor of 0.7 to account
2307: for the change in radiative power given the measured abundances. Assuming
2308: $N_l=1$ and $\alpha=0.1$, we find $L\approx10^{10}$~cm, greater than the
2309: estimate derived above. Modeling the flare decay more generally as a
2310: quasi-static cooling (van den Oord \& Mewe 1989; their equation 15) results
2311: in a lower estimate of $L\approx3\times10^{9}$~cm, matching the original
2312: simple estimate, again assuming a single flaring loop with a constant
2313: cross-section, and $\alpha=0.1$.
2314:
2315:
2316: \item Radiative Decay: As the flaring plasma cools, conduction losses
2317: decrease in importance and radiative losses start to dominate ($\tau_R <<
2318: \tau_C$). In the solar case, this phase coincides with the emergence
2319: of arcades of post-flare loops defined by the reconnected magnetic fields
2320: that cover approximately the same area as the pre-flare active region.
2321: Using equation (2), $\tau_{R}=\tau_{slow}=13000$ s,
2322: $T \approx 22$~MK ($kT = 1.9$ keV),
2323: the observed decay-phase emission measure ($2.7 \times 10^{51}$ cm$^{-3}$),
2324: and tabulated values for $\Lambda(T)$,
2325: we derive a hemispherical volume of radius
2326: $r\sim7\,\times\,10^{9}$~cm filled with a plasma of density
2327: $n_e\sim4\,\times\,10^{10}$~cm$^{-3}$.
2328: This is a robust result, as $L$ is fairly insensitive
2329: to temperature ($L \propto (EM/T)^{1/3}$).
2330: For comparison, the pressure scale height during this phase,
2331: given by $kT/(\mu m_{p} g)$
2332: and with the gravitational acceleration $g$ calculated at the
2333: stellar surface assuming
2334: %$R_{*} = 0.20 R_{\odot}$ and
2335: $M_{*} = 0.20 M_{\odot}$,
2336: is $\sim 2.6 \times 10^{10}$~cm, and an arcade of magnetically confined loops
2337: that are one-quarter this height is quite plausible.
2338: %Stellar radius is 1.4e10, and g was calc'd for at the
2339: %stellar surface, but g will decrease as you get farther above the surface,
2340: %leading to a greater effective P scale height.
2341: %------------------------------------------------
2342:
2343: %{cit:reale2004}{cit:reale1993}
2344: Note that Reale, Serio, \& Peres (1993; see also Reale et al.\ 2004) have
2345: developed a modeling method that fits hydrodynamically evolving loops
2346: to the observed light curves. Based on simulations, they derive a
2347: scaling law to determine the loop semi-length based on the initial
2348: temperature of the flare and the decay time scale,
2349: $$
2350: L\approx \tau_{decay}
2351: \frac{\sqrt{T/10 {\rm[MK]}}}{120 f(\zeta)} \,{\rm 10^{8}\, cm} \,,
2352: $$
2353: where $f(\zeta)>1$ is a non-dimensional correction factor that takes into
2354: account whether heating is present during the decay and $\zeta$ is the
2355: slope of the decay path in a density-temperature diagram.
2356: Note that $\zeta\approx1.2$ here (see \S\ref{sec:flare_hr} below).
2357: Using this scaling law, we derive a loop semi-length
2358: $L\sim7\times10^{8}\frac{1}{f(\zeta)}$~cm
2359: % print,(t_fl_decay*sqrt(tf_hi/1e7)/120.)*1e8
2360: during the fast decay. Extrapolating to the slow decay phase,
2361: we derive $L\sim2\times10^{10}\frac{1}{f(\zeta)}$~cm.
2362: % print,(t_tl_decay*sqrt(tt_xx/1e7)/120.)*1e8
2363: The latter is consistent with the estimates derived above, but the
2364: former greatly underestimates the length scales involved.
2365: Note that modeling this decay as quasi-static cooling
2366: \citep{cit:vandenOord1989} results in an estimate of the loop semi-length
2367: $L\approx3\times10^{11}$~cm, which is greater than all other
2368: estimates as well as greater than the coronal pressure scale height.
2369: We thus conclude that the slow decay is not well explained by
2370: quasi-static cooling, and that the simple picture of a
2371: single hydrodynamically evolving
2372: loop is too simplistic to explain the characteristics of this flare.
2373: A detailed hydrodynamic modeling of this flare is in progress.
2374:
2375: \item Active Region:
2376: In quiescence (i.e., prior to the flare),
2377: the active region(s) on the star cover an area
2378: $\approx50\pm13$\% (Johns-Krull \& Valenti 1996) of the stellar surface.
2379: Despite the dynamic
2380: nature of an active region, based on solar observations, we may
2381: approximate it as a stationary steady state loop in radiative
2382: equilibrium (e.g., Rosner, Tucker, \& Vaiana 1978 [RTV]).
2383: %note that based on the arcade and pressure scale height estimates above,
2384: %the active region loops are consistent with the RTV assumption of a
2385: %$\sim$constant pressure environment).
2386: In such a case, the temperature $T$, pressure $p \approx 2n_{e}kT$,
2387: and the loop length $L$ obey the scaling law
2388: % \begin{equation}
2389: % T = 1.4 \times 10^3 (pL)^{\frac{1}{3}} \,.
2390: % \end{equation}
2391: \begin{equation}
2392: T = \kappa~(pL)^{\frac{1}{3}} \,,
2393: \end{equation}
2394: where the proportionality constant is estimated to be
2395: $\kappa\approx1.4\,\times10^{3}$ in the case of the Sun.
2396: The value of $\kappa$ is dependent on the assumed estimate
2397: of the radiative loss function. For the case of Ross\,154,
2398: we estimate that $\kappa$ is reduced by a factor of $2.05 \pm 0.20$.
2399: The emission measure of such a plasma is given by
2400: \begin{equation}
2401: EM = n_e^2 V \approx n_e^2 (f 4 \pi R_*^2 L) \,,
2402: \end{equation}
2403: where $f$ is the fraction of the stellar surface covered by active
2404: regions. For $f=0.5$, and the measured emission measure of the
2405: quiescent emission at $T=5.3$~MK ($kT=0.46$ keV), we find loop lengths
2406: $L\approx4\times\,10^{10}$~cm.
2407: % filled with plasma at a density
2408: %$n_e\approx1.5\times\,10^{10}$~cm$^{-3}$. The pressure scale height
2409: %at this temperature is $\sim 9 \times 10^{9}$~cm,
2410: %thus the derived active region loop sizes are consistent
2411: %with the RTV assumption of a $\sim$constant pressure environment.
2412: This is much larger than both the loop sizes estimated
2413: above and the pressure scale height at this temperature
2414: ($\sim 6 \times 10^{9}$~cm). The latter violates the
2415: RTV assumption of a $\sim$constant pressure environment,
2416: and therefore we conclude that the active region loops are probably
2417: not in a stationary state. $L$, however, is proportional to
2418: $\kappa^{6}T^{4}/EM$, and at the assumed temperature
2419: $\kappa$ is approximately proportional to $T^{-2}$ so that
2420: $L \propto T^{-8}/EM$. A 10\% uncertainty in $T$ therefore
2421: leads to an uncertainty of $\sim2.5$ in $L$.
2422:
2423: \end{enumerate}
2424:
2425: %Even after the
2426: %flare, notice that a component at $T=7$--8~MK persists,
2427: %suggesting that the underlying active region remains intact.
2428: %From the size derived in the Radiative Decay analysis,
2429: %the post-flare arcade covers an area $\approx8$\% of the stellar
2430: %surface, much smaller than the total area of the 7-MK active region(s).
2431: %However, during the flare, the emission measure that can be attributed to
2432: %the active region
2433: %increases by roughly a factor of 3 (see Table 2 and
2434: %recall that the quiescent emission is modeled as being present
2435: %during throughout the flare and decay phases),
2436: %and at least in the
2437: %vicinity of the flare we expect the active region to be strongly
2438: %affected. The increased emission measure, if it is confined to the
2439: %vicinity of the flare, can be attributed to compact low-lying loops
2440: %at high densities
2441: %($L\approx6\times\,10^{8}$~cm and $n_e\approx4\times\,10^{10}$~cm$^{-3}$),
2442: %as suggested by applying equations~3 and 4. Note that such small scale
2443: %loops can only be inferred via spectral analysis, as is done here;
2444: %they cannot be detected in solar flare images because of the high
2445: %intensity of flares and the very high cadence or dynamic range
2446: %thus required for such observations.
2447:
2448: The size and density estimates derived above are all subject to
2449: significant uncertainties, because of assumptions regarding geometry
2450: (arcade versus single loop for the Flare Rise, low-lying stationary
2451: loops for the Active Region) or uncertainties in the fitted temperatures
2452: (particulary in the Initial Decay analysis, but also for the Active
2453: Region and Radiative Decay calculations). Results from the various
2454: flare analyses are reasonably consistent but we hesitate to interpret
2455: them in more detail.
2456:
2457:
2458: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2459: \subsection{Color-Intensity Evolution}
2460: \label{sec:flare_hr}
2461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2462:
2463: Detailed spectral analysis (e.g., Table~\ref{table:fits})
2464: can only be carried out over durations long compared to the
2465: time scale over which the flare evolves; analyses over shorter
2466: durations result in large errors on the fit parameters because
2467: of inadequate counting statistics. We therefore track the evolution
2468: of the hardness ratio of the flare as a means to study the
2469: evolution of the flare plasma. This evolution is shown in
2470: a color-intensity plot (Figure~\ref{fig:HR}), where the
2471: color $C$ is the log of the ratio of counts in the soft (S; $0.25-1$~keV)
2472: and hard (H; $2-8$~keV) passbands and the intensity $r$ is the
2473: combined count rate in those two bands. We compute the
2474: hardness ratios and their errors using the full Poisson
2475: likelihood in a Bayesian context (Park et al.\ 2006).
2476: This method allows us to determine the error bars
2477: accurately even in the low-count limit, and
2478: to explicitly account for and incorporate the systematic uncertainty
2479: inherent in a specific choice of time-bin size $\delta t$ and
2480: time-start phase by considering all possible choices of phase
2481: (via cycle-spinning) and bin sizes (via marginalization).
2482: The resulting track of the flare is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:HR},
2483: where darker shades represent a longer time spent by the
2484: source in that part of the color-intensity space and the
2485: fuzziness of the shading reflects the statistical error
2486: in the calculation.
2487:
2488: Also shown on the plot are a set of
2489: line segments marking the evolutionary track of the flare
2490: for the specific time-bin size $\delta t=150$~s, and a pair of
2491: model grids computed for different values of emission
2492: measure that bracket the observed flare intensities
2493: ($EM=0.5-15\times10^{52}$~cm$^{-3}$).
2494: The grids are computed with the PINTofALE package
2495: (Kashyap \& Drake 2000) using atomic emissivities obtained
2496: with the CHIANTI v4.2 package (Young et al.\ 2003) and
2497: ion balance calculations by Mazzotta et al.\ (1998).
2498:
2499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2500: %% FIGURE 10
2501: %% fig:HR
2502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2503:
2504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2505: %\clearpage
2506: \begin{figure}[!ht]
2507: \epsscale{1.1}
2508: \rotatebox{0}{
2509: \plotone{f10.eps}}
2510: \caption{
2511: Color-intensity evolution of the flare, obtained
2512: by averaging cycle-spun images at various bin sizes ranging
2513: from 40~s to 400~s. The density plot is made by sampling
2514: from the posterior probability distribution of the color $C$
2515: (the log of the hardness ratio $S/H$)
2516: computed from the binned data points for various
2517: bin sizes and is also cycle spun to include the effects of
2518: varying the phase of the binning. Data points obtained for
2519: a light curve constructed for a bin size of 150~s
2520: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lcflare}) are marked on the
2521: plot and connected by the solid white lines to trace the
2522: evolution of the source.
2523: A clear pattern in the flaring plasma evolution can be seen, first
2524: rising in temperature and intensity, softening at the peak, and then
2525: decaying in temperature and intensity.
2526: Also shown are grids corresponding
2527: to an optically-thin thermal emission model calculated for
2528: two different emission measures, $1.5 \times 10^{53}$~cm$^{-3}$
2529: for the upper one, and $5 \times 10^{51}$~cm$^{-3}$ for the
2530: lower one. The grids are computed for temperatures
2531: $T=10$, 20, 50, and 90~MK
2532: %(grid lines tilted to run from upper right to lower left)
2533: and for column densities $\log{N_H}=19$ to 21.3.
2534: %(lines tilted to run from upper left to lower right).
2535: Spectral fits to the summed data result in values of $N_H$ that
2536: are consistent with zero, however, from comparing the model thermal emission
2537: grids with the color-intensity values for bin 3,
2538: instances of large $N_H$ cannot be ruled out.
2539: }
2540: \label{fig:HR}
2541: \end{figure}
2542: %\clearpage
2543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2544:
2545: A number of notable features are present in the evolutionary
2546: track of the flare. First, there is a sharp initial hardening
2547: of the spectrum coincident with the onset of the small initial optical
2548: flare (bins 1--3; see Figures~\ref{fig:lcflare} and \ref{fig:HR}).
2549: We identify this with the initial onset of the reconnection
2550: event that generates a non-thermal hard X-ray flare.
2551: The spectrum at bin 3 appears to be either non-thermal so that the
2552: EM grids do not apply, or else has a high temperature
2553: and a very high
2554: column density ($N_H>5\times10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$) that
2555: might be associated with a coronal mass ejection.
2556: There are, however, too few counts for a spectral-fitting analysis
2557: to distinguish between these possibilities, and the uncertainty
2558: ranges for $r$ and $C$ may be large enough
2559: %at that point in the flare
2560: to permit a less interesting low-density thermal explanation.
2561: %The spectrum at this point is inconsistent with thermal emission,
2562: %as can be seen by a comparison of the model grids; the observed
2563: %values of $C$ fall outside the range of temperatures allowed
2564: %by a thermal model, unless significantly high values of
2565: %absorption column ($N_H>5\times10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$) are
2566: %assumed to exist.
2567: Thereafter, the plasma thermalizes, causing the spectrum
2568: to become softer and the intensity to rise because of
2569: increased radiative loss (bins 3-8). At this point,
2570: the main reconnection event occurs, leading to a large
2571: flare that increases in intensity and spectral hardness
2572: (bins 8-11), before heat input ceases and the plasma
2573: decays back to lower intensities and softer spectra
2574: (bins 12-19) during the rapid conductive-decay phase of the flare.
2575:
2576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2577: %% FIGURE 11
2578: %% fig:TEM
2579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2580:
2581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2582: %\clearpage
2583: \begin{figure}[!ht]
2584: \epsscale{1.0}
2585: \rotatebox{0}{
2586: \plotone{f11.eps}}
2587: \caption{
2588: The evolutionary track of the main flare in
2589: Temperature--Emission-Measure space.
2590: A plasma model assuming the same abundances as
2591: determined with the spectral analysis of the
2592: flare counts (Table~\ref{table:fits}) and a
2593: low column density ($N_H=10^{19}$~cm$^{-2}$)
2594: was used to convert the colors and
2595: intensities of Figure~\ref{fig:HR} to temperature
2596: and emission measure. The bin numbers corresponding
2597: to the time of the flare (see Figure~\ref{fig:lcflare})
2598: are shown, connected by dotted lines.
2599: %The dashed line represents the best-fit solution to
2600: %the decay of the plasma from the post-flare $EM$ peak.
2601: }
2602: \label{fig:TEM}
2603: \end{figure}
2604: %\clearpage
2605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2606:
2607:
2608: The color-intensity track in Figure~\ref{fig:HR} can be
2609: converted to a locus of evolution in Temperature and
2610: Emission Measure ($T-EM$) space
2611: if the absorption column $N_H$ and the plasma abundances
2612: are fixed throughout the duration of the flare. We adopt
2613: a low column density of $N_H=10^{19}$~cm$^{-2}$
2614: (any value below $\sim 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$ has no significant effect)
2615: and the fitted flare abundances (Table~\ref{table:fits})
2616: to compute the
2617: temperature from the color and the emission measure
2618: from the intensity (Figure~\ref{fig:TEM}) for the
2619: main flare (bins 8--19). If we further assume that
2620: the flare volume does not change over this time, then
2621: the $EM$ axis tracks changes in $n_e^2$. From the
2622: $T-EM$ track, we see this sequence of events:
2623: first, the temperature increases rapidly,
2624: followed by a rapid increase in density, as the
2625: evaporated chromospheric material fills the flare
2626: volume (bins 8--11). Then, the plasma starts to
2627: cool rapidly as the density reaches its peak, and
2628: eventually returns to the pre-main-flare environment.
2629:
2630: % Vinay, Nov 18:05:05 2007
2631: %hmm. the zeta fitting does make a difference which bins you fit.
2632: %for 12-19, it is T^2.4+-0.7, (yes, I forgot to send you the error
2633: %bars before, should include them in the text!) so zeta ~ 1.2+-0.35
2634: %for 13-19, it is T^1.9+-0.6, so zeta ~ 0.9+-0.3
2635: %for 13-16, it is T^1.3+-0.2, so zeta ~ 0.6+-0.1
2636: %According to Reale, the larger the zeta, the less heating there is.
2637: %zeta=0.5 is apparently the limit of steady state heating, though in
2638: %that case I don't understand how there is a change in T at all.
2639:
2640: %and in p32, f(\zeta) -- I found out what their definition is,
2641: %Reale et al. 1997, A&A, 325, 782, eqn 3, has
2642: %F(\zeta) = c_a/(zeta/zeta_a-1)+q_a == tau_LC/tau_th,
2643: %with c_a=5.4, zeta_a=0.25, q_a=0.52, so F(\zeta) ~ 2 for
2644: %large zeta, and ~4 for small zeta. However, I recommend
2645: %leaving the text as is, and let people put in their own
2646: %F(zeta) as they see fit, partly because zeta has such large
2647: %error bars, and partly because the coefficients there are
2648: %prone to large systematic changes as the stellar environment
2649: %changes.
2650:
2651: During this cooling phase (bins 12--19), $EM \propto T^{2.4\pm0.7}$.
2652: Assuming that the flare volume
2653: does not vary, this means that $n_e \propto T^{\zeta}$
2654: where $\zeta\approx1.2\pm0.35$ (see Radiative Decay discussion
2655: in \S\ref{sec:flare_size}). This value of $\zeta$
2656: corresponds to an intermediate level of heating occuring
2657: during the flare, similar to the flare observed on
2658: Proxima~Cen (Reale et~al.\ 2004). The flare evolution, however,
2659: is seen to be highly complex; looking at a shorter portion of
2660: the cooling phase (bins 13--16),
2661: the index $\zeta\approx0.6\pm0.1$, which is indicative of greater
2662: heat deposition. This continuous heating
2663: may be a manifestation of a flare arcade, as is often
2664: seen during solar flares (e.g., Reeves et~al.\ 2002).
2665: Detailed hydrodynamical modeling of the flare arcade is
2666: necessary in order to definitively establish
2667: the flare environment.
2668:
2669:
2670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2671: \section{MASS LOSS AND STELLAR WIND CHARGE EXCHANGE HALO}
2672: \label{sec:wind}
2673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2674:
2675:
2676: Mass-loss rates of a few times $10^{-10}$ to more than
2677: $10^{-5}$ \Msunper\ have
2678: been measured for many stars using a variety
2679: of methods based on P Cygni profiles, optical and molecular emission
2680: lines or absorption lines, and infrared and radio excesses
2681: \citep{cit:lamers1999}.
2682: All those measurements, however, are of strong winds from
2683: massive OB and Wolf-Rayet stars or cool red giants and supergiants.
2684: For comparison, the solar mass-loss rate (\Mdotsun)
2685: is only $\sim2 \times 10^{-14}$ \Msunper.
2686: Because of their frequent large flares, it might be
2687: expected that dMe stars would have comparable or larger
2688: mass-loss rates, and because of their sheer numbers,
2689: M dwarfs would then contribute substantially to
2690: the chemical enrichment of the ISM.
2691:
2692: It was not until very recently that measurements
2693: of the modest stellar winds from
2694: low-mass stars became feasible, beginning with
2695: $\alpha$ Cen AB (\Mdot $= 2$\Mdotsun)
2696: and Proxima Cen (\Mdot $< 0.2$\Mdotsun) \citep{cit:wood2001}.
2697: Over a dozen late-type mostly main-sequence stars have
2698: now been studied
2699: with measured mass-loss rates ranging from 0.15 to 100 \Mdotsun\
2700: \citep{cit:muller2001,cit:wood2002,cit:wood2005}.
2701: Those studies have revealed that mass-loss rates are roughly
2702: proportional to a star's X-ray luminosity per unit surface area,
2703: except for M dwarfs, which surprisingly
2704: have much {\em lower} mass-loss rates than predicted by that relation.
2705:
2706: All the late-type-star measurements were made using the {\it Hubble Space
2707: Telescope} Goddard High Resolution Spectrometer to measure
2708: H Ly$\alpha$ absorption profiles.
2709: %% Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) failed in 2004.
2710: %% Will try to service in 2008.
2711: To summarize, the
2712: interaction of a stellar wind with a partially neutral
2713: ISM, primarily in charge exchange (CX) collisions
2714: between stellar-wind protons and neutral H atoms from the ISM,
2715: creates a region of enhanced neutral H density,
2716: or `hydrogen wall,' in the star's astropause (analog of the
2717: Sun's heliopause). The resulting density enhancement leads
2718: to excess absorption in the wings of the star's Ly$\alpha$
2719: line, which can be measured and modeled to deduce the total
2720: stellar mass-loss rate.
2721:
2722: At the time the first of those results were published, another
2723: more direct but less sensitive stellar-wind detection method,
2724: also based on charge exchange processes,
2725: was proposed by \citet{cit:wargelin2001}.
2726: This method searches for X-ray emission from
2727: the very small fraction of metal ions in the stellar wind,
2728: which charge exchange with neutral gas streaming into the astrosphere
2729: from the ISM. In CX collisions of the
2730: highly charged wind ions, especially H-like and fully ionized O,
2731: an electron from a neutral H or He atom is captured into a
2732: high-$n$ level of the metal ion (usually $n=5$ for O) from
2733: which it then radiatively decays, emitting an X-ray.
2734: Although coronal X-ray emission from a star is roughly
2735: $10^{4}$ times as bright as its stellar-wind CX emission, the latter is
2736: emitted throughout the astrosphere with a distinctive spectral
2737: signature which permits both spatial and spectral filtering
2738: to be applied. This X-ray CX method was first applied
2739: to a {\it Chandra} observation of Proxima Cen, resulting
2740: in a null detection of the CX halo and
2741: an upper limit for the mass-loss rate
2742: of 14\Mdotsun\ \citep{cit:wargelin2002}, compared
2743: to an upper limit of 0.2\Mdotsun\ derived using the
2744: Ly$\alpha$ method \citep{cit:wood2001}.
2745: In the remainder of \S8 we apply the CX technique
2746: to Ross 154, explain why we are
2747: ultimately unable to deduce even an upper limit for its mass-loss rate,
2748: and discuss future prospects for this detection method.
2749:
2750:
2751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2752: \subsection{CX Analysis}
2753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2754:
2755:
2756: As described by \citet{cit:wargelin2002},
2757: the total rate of X-ray emission from a star as the result of
2758: CX of a particular species of ion is simply equal to
2759: the production rate of that ion in the stellar wind, either
2760: from its creation in the corona or as the result of the
2761: CX of a more highly charged ion state. As an example, the emission
2762: rate of He-like O X-rays is equal to the sum of the creation
2763: rate of H-like O ions {\it and} the creation rate of bare
2764: O ions, which eventually charge exchange to create H-like ions.
2765: Oxygen is the most abundant metal ion in
2766: stellar winds, and with a coronal temperature of 0.46 keV
2767: ($5.3 \times 10^{6}$ K) nearly all of the O ions
2768: in Ross 154's wind are fully stripped O$^{8+}$ \citep{cit:mazzotta1998}.
2769: Those ions emit \ion{O}{8} Lyman photons via CX,
2770: followed eventually by \ion{O}{7} K$\alpha$ emission after the
2771: ions CX a second time.
2772:
2773: The total number of X-ray photons emitted via CX processes from oxygen ions
2774: in the Ross 154 wind
2775: and then detected by a telescope
2776: with effective area $A$ is thus equal to
2777: \begin{equation}
2778: N_{tot} = 2 R_{O} t \frac{A}{4 \pi d^{2}}
2779: \end{equation}
2780: where $R_{O}$ is the production rate of (fully stripped) O ions in
2781: the stellar wind, $t$ is the observation time (42620 s for the
2782: quiescent phase), and
2783: $d$ is the distance to the star (2.97 pc).
2784: The factor of 2 is because each O ion emits a H-like and
2785: then a He-like X-ray.
2786:
2787: To calculate $R_{O}$ we consider the case in which Ross 154 has
2788: the same mass-loss rate as the Sun, \Mdot$=2 \times 10^{-14}$ \Msunper.
2789: Assuming the same He/H ratio as for the solar wind, 0.044,
2790: and half the metal abundance (net 0.001 relative to H),
2791: the total mass-loss rate is $6.65 \times 10^{35}$ ions s$^{-1}$,
2792: of which $6.36 \times 10^{35}$ ions s$^{-1}$ are protons.
2793: The ratio of O and H ions in the wind (which we assume is
2794: equal to their ratio in the corona) is equal to the
2795: product of: the coronal abundance of O relative to the solar photospheric
2796: abundance;
2797: %(0.49---much less with new fits-- from the quiescent fits,
2798: %using \citet{cit:anders1989}
2799: %photospheric abundances);
2800: the solar photospheric
2801: to coronal O abundance ratio \citep[1.10;][]{cit:anders1989};
2802: and O to H ratio in the solar wind
2803: \citep[$5.6 \times 10^{-4}$;][]{cit:schwadron2000}.
2804: In the case of half-solar coronal abundances,
2805: $R_{O}$ is
2806: $1.9 \times 10^{32}$ ions s$^{-1}$, and with an effective
2807: area of $\sim$320 cm$^{2}$ for {\it Chandra}/ACIS-S3 in the energy
2808: range for O emission ($\sim$600 eV),
2809: $N_{tot}$ is 5 counts for a 1\Mdotsun\ wind.
2810: If those counts could be isolated from the detector background
2811: and coronal emission, a stellar wind only a few times stronger
2812: could be detected.
2813:
2814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2815: \subsubsection{Searching for the CX Excess}
2816: \label{sec:wind_spec}
2817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2818:
2819: To isolate the CX emission we take advantage of its unique
2820: spectral and spatial characteristics.
2821: As noted above, oxygen is the most important element in stellar
2822: CX halos, primarily because it is the most abundant metal.
2823: It is also the highest-$Z$ element that has a large fraction
2824: of the bare and H-like ions that emit X-rays following CX;
2825: C ions are nearly abundant and even more highly ionized, but
2826: their X-ray emission is at lower energies where X-ray detection
2827: efficiency is usually poor. L-shell Fe emission may also contribute
2828: but at a lower level over a relatively broad range of energies.
2829: For these reasons we focus on O emission
2830: between 560 and 850 eV, encompassing He-like \ion{O}{7} K$\alpha$
2831: ($\sim$565 eV),
2832: H-like \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$ (654 eV), and the high-$n$ Lyman lines
2833: (775--836 eV).
2834: Because of the moderate energy resolution of the ACIS-S3 CCD,
2835: we make our energy cuts at 525 and 875 eV.
2836:
2837: To further enhance contrast against the coronal emission we
2838: use spatial discrimination and compare the radial profiles of the source
2839: emission during quiescence and during the flare
2840: (when the fraction of CX emission is negligible).
2841: As mentioned above and explained in more detail in \S\ref{sec:wind_spatial},
2842: Ross 154's CX emission is expected to appear
2843: around the star in an approximately symmetric shell-like halo.
2844: During the flare the observed source emission distribution
2845: will be essentially identical to the intrinsic telescope PSF
2846: because any CX emission will contribute a minuscule fraction
2847: of the total observed events. During quiescence
2848: any halo emission will, if strong enough, manifest itself
2849: as an excess relative to the the flare PSF.
2850: Although the flare and quiescent spectra are different, the energy
2851: range we use for our analysis (525--875 eV) is narrow enough that
2852: differences in the effective PSF for each phase's emission are
2853: negligible compared to the statistical uncertainties described
2854: below.
2855:
2856: When searching for the CX halo emission, we cannot look too
2857: close to the source centroid because the coronal emission
2858: is thousands of times stronger and completely
2859: swamps that from the halo, despite the very tight \chandra\ PSF.
2860: Likewise, the halo extraction region
2861: cannot be too large or the detector background will dominate
2862: the CX signal. For this observation (with its
2863: particular background, and number of quiescent and flare counts
2864: within the chosen energy band),
2865: an annulus with radii of approximately
2866: 35 and 81 pixels (corresponding to 17'' and 40'', or 51 and 119 AU)
2867: provides the best sensitivity after a 5-pixel-wide box
2868: around the bright readout streak is excluded.
2869:
2870: To compare the fraction of halo-region emission during the
2871: quiescence and flare we must know the total number of counts
2872: during each phase.
2873: This was determined from the number of counts in
2874: the readout streaks (excluding a 20-pixel-radius
2875: circle around the source and correcting for background and
2876: underlying events distributed by the telescope PSF),
2877: dividing by the fraction of the streak used (162 rows out of 206),
2878: and then dividing by the exposure time fraction for the complete
2879: readout streak, equal to 1.35\% (see \S\ref{sec:extract_xray_arfcorr}).
2880:
2881: Using the energy range and source region described above
2882: we found $97\pm14$ quiet counts and $200\pm15$ flare counts,
2883: giving count fractions of
2884: $0.00285\pm0.00044$ and $0.00367\pm0.00032$, respectively.
2885: The net difference is therefore $-0.00082\pm0.00054$.
2886: Equivalently, $125\pm13$ quiet counts were expected based on the
2887: flare ratio while $97\pm14$ counts were observed, yielding
2888: a statistically insignificant {\it deficit} of $28\pm19$ counts.
2889: Several other combinations of energy range and annulus size
2890: were also tried, with similar results.
2891:
2892:
2893: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2894: \subsubsection{Modeling the Spatial Distribution}
2895: \label{sec:wind_spatial}
2896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2897:
2898: After obtaining the above null result for CX halo emission,
2899: we attempted to obtain an upper limit on the stellar mass-loss rate
2900: by computing how many CX events would need to be detected to
2901: obtain a statistically significant excess.
2902: This requires more detailed modeling of the expected spatial distribution
2903: of the CX emission in order to determine $f_{ann}$, the fraction of
2904: CX photons that would be detected within the chosen annulus.
2905:
2906: %
2907: %A quantitative assessment of {\it Chandra}'s ability to detect
2908: %stellar winds and a model of the spatial distribution of
2909: %astrospheric CX emission for a spherically symmetric wind
2910: %has been described by \citet{cit:wargelin2001}.
2911: %For this work, we have used a more detailed model of the interaction of
2912: %the Proxima~Cen's stellar wind and its local ISM.
2913: %As noted in \S1, a hydrogen wall of neutral gas is
2914: %expected to form when an ionized wind interacts with neutral gas
2915: %in the ISM, with a strong density enhancement on the `upwind' side
2916: %when the star and surrounding gas have relative motion.
2917: %
2918: Based on absorption-line spectra obtained by {\it HST} and {\it EUVE},
2919: Ross 154 is believed to be surrounded
2920: by the `G cloud,' a region of enhanced density
2921: a few parsecs in size for which
2922: \citet{cit:linsky2000} have derived a value
2923: of 0.10 cm$^{-3}$ for the neutral H density.
2924: The G cloud is moving roughly toward us from the direction of Ross 154,
2925: toward $l=184.5^{\circ}$, $b=-20.5^{\circ}$
2926: \citep{cit:lallement1992},
2927: with virtually the same velocity (29.4 km s$^{-1}$)
2928: and direction of motion as
2929: the Local Interstellar Cloud surrounding the Sun.
2930: Given its proper motion and the radial velocity
2931: listed in the SIMBAD database
2932: \citep[-4 km s$^{-1}$;][]{cit:wallerstein2004},
2933: Ross 154
2934: sees an ISM wind of 22 km s$^{-1}$, with the upwind
2935: side of its astrosphere pointed roughly toward the Galactic center
2936: and the viewing angle from Earth nearly aligned
2937: with the axis of its astrosphere (at an angle of $26^{\circ}$;
2938: B.~E.\ Wood 2005, private communication).
2939:
2940: As noted in \S\ref{sec:wind}, a hydrogen wall of neutral gas is
2941: expected to form on the upwind side, and it is in this
2942: region of enhanced neutral gas density that the
2943: CX emission will be most concentrated.
2944: Given the orientation of the H wall,
2945: we model it as a hemispherical shell pointed toward Earth.
2946: Outside the shell, the ISM is undisturbed, while inside
2947: the density of neutral H can be approximated \citep{cit:cravens2000} as
2948: $n_{H} = n_{H}^{asy} e^{-(\lambda_{H}/r)}$
2949: where $n_{H}^{asy}$ is the asymptotic density just inside the H wall,
2950: $\lambda_{H}$ is the scale for neutral H depletion near the star
2951: (from photoionization and proton-H CX),
2952: and $r$ is radial distance.
2953:
2954: Based on the astrospheric modeling results of
2955: \citet{cit:wood2002} we have derived the following approximate
2956: scaling relations:
2957: \begin{eqnarray}
2958: R_{inner} & \sim
2959: & 110 \left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\odot}}\right)^{0.5}
2960: \mathrm{AU} \\
2961: R_{outer} & \sim
2962: & 200 \left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\odot}}\right)^{0.5}
2963: \mathrm{AU} \\
2964: n_{H}^{wall} & \sim
2965: & 3\, n_{H}^{\,ISM} \\
2966: n_{H}^{asy} & \sim
2967: & 0.25\,n_{H}^{\,ISM}
2968: \left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\odot}}\right)^{-0.3}\\
2969: \lambda_{H} & \sim
2970: & 3.3 \left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\odot}}\right)
2971: \mathrm{AU},
2972: \end{eqnarray}
2973: where $R_{inner}$ and $R_{outer}$ are the inner and outer radii of
2974: the H wall,
2975: $n_{H}^{wall}$ is the neutral H density within the wall,
2976: $n_{H}^{\,ISM}$ is the neutral H density in the
2977: undisturbed ISM (0.10 cm$^{-3}$),
2978: and all values are appropriate for the upwind direction for
2979: \Mdot$/$\Mdotsun $\ga 1$ and relative cloud/star velocities of
2980: less than $\sim50$ km s$^{-1}$.
2981:
2982: The distribution of neutral He is less well understood but also less
2983: important. We assume that its density is given by
2984: $n_{He} = 0.10 n_{H}^{asy} e^{-(\lambda_{He}/r)}$
2985: where $\lambda_{He}$ is approximately
2986: $1\left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\odot}}\right)$ AU.
2987: CX emission from the downwind hemisphere is roughly equal to
2988: the upwind emission but spread over such a large volume of space
2989: that we ignore it in our detectability calculations.
2990:
2991: Detailed descriptions of the spatial emission calculations are found
2992: in \citet{cit:wargelin2001,cit:wargelin2002}.
2993: Cross sections for CT of highly charged C, N, O, and Ne ions
2994: with atomic H and associated radiative branching ratios
2995: are taken from
2996: \citet{cit:harel1998},
2997: \citet{cit:greenwood2001},
2998: \citet{cit:rigazio2002},
2999: \citet{cit:johnson2000},
3000: and related references in \citet{cit:khar2000,cit:khar2001}.
3001: %More information
3002: %on stellar wind CX spectra (e.g., cross sections and line yields)
3003: %can be found in \citet{cit:wargelin2004}.
3004: To summarize, the stellar wind
3005: is assumed to expand isotropically and CX with neutral gas in
3006: the astrosphere having a distribution and density
3007: described by the equations above. For bare O$^{8+}$ and H,
3008: the CX cross section $\sigma_{CX}$ is $3.4 \times 10^{-15}$ cm$^{2}$,
3009: and $3.7 \times 10^{-15}$ cm$^{2}$ for O$^{7+}$. CX with
3010: He, which is relatively unaffected by its passage from the ISM
3011: into the astrosphere (there is no `He wall' density enhancement)
3012: is also included in our model. The density of each ion species
3013: is calculated numerically and its emissivity and fractional abundance
3014: computed at each step (e.g., the fraction of O$^{8+}$ decreases with
3015: distance as it charge exchanges to create O$^{7+}$ ions and
3016: \ion{O}{8} Lyman photons). The initial composition of stellar-wind
3017: O ions is set to 95\% O$^{8+}$ and 5\% O$^{7+}$.
3018:
3019: For modest \Mdot$/$\Mdotsun\ (less than $\sim$20),
3020: the CX emission profile (projected on the sky and summed
3021: in annular bins around the star)
3022: rises steeply from the center and then slowly falls
3023: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:spatialCX}).
3024: The deficit of emission at small radii is because of
3025: neutral gas
3026: depletion near the star,
3027: and the falloff in X-ray CX emission at large radii occurs because
3028: highly charged ions are `used up' as they CX with neutral gas,
3029: recombining into lower charge states that can not emit at X-ray energies.
3030: The CX luminosity from such winds, however, is too small for us
3031: to detect.
3032:
3033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3034: %% FIGURE 12
3035: %% {fig:spatialCX}
3036: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3037: %\clearpage
3038: \begin{figure}[!ht]
3039: \centering
3040: \epsscale{1.0}
3041: \rotatebox{0}{
3042: \plotone{f12.eps}}
3043: \caption{
3044: Modeled radial CX emission distributions for various mass-loss rates.
3045: 100 AU corresponds to 34''.
3046: At rates above $\sim20$\Mdotsun, most emission occurs in a shell hundreds
3047: of AU from the star, and the emission observed in an annulus
3048: near the star (51--119 AU, shaded gray) becomes increasingly
3049: independent of the mass-loss rate.
3050: Emission at small radii is nearly all from H-like O$^{7+}$
3051: but at larger distances
3052: an increasing fraction of emission comes from He-like O$^{6+}$
3053: as stellar-wind ions undergo further CX collisions.
3054: }
3055: \label{fig:spatialCX}
3056: \end{figure}
3057: %\clearpage
3058: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3059:
3060:
3061: For larger mass-loss rates, the astrosphere is essentially swept
3062: clear of neutral gas ($n_{H}^{\,asy} \la 0.10$; see eq.~9)
3063: so that CX emission is concentrated
3064: in the astropause in a shell around the star.
3065: When viewed from afar the emission per radial bin steadily rises
3066: from the center
3067: as the line of sight traverses an increasingly long path through
3068: the emission shell and then gradually falls at larger distances
3069: as the fraction of highly charged ions decreases.
3070: The emission shell is hundreds or thousands of AU in radius in such a case
3071: (eqs.~6 and 7), while the annulus used in our analysis extends
3072: to only 119 AU because of the limited field of the observation
3073: (and because the background per unit radius becomes too large).
3074: The fraction of total CX emission within this annulus, $f_{ann}$,
3075: therefore scales as approximately $R_{inner}^{-2}$.
3076: According to equation~6, however,
3077: $R_{inner}$ is proportional to \Mdot$^{0.5}$, so
3078: $f_{ann}$ scales as \Mdot$^{-1}$.
3079: Since the total number of counts detected within the annulus
3080: is given by $R_{ann} = f_{ann} R_{tot}$, and $R_{tot}$ is
3081: proportional to \Mdot, $R_{ann}$ is nearly constant. Our ability
3082: to detect the CX excess therefore does not increase with
3083: \Mdot\ beyond $\sim$20\Mdotsun,
3084: and so we are unable to find even an upper limit.
3085: In short, a CX halo provides too few counts to be detectable
3086: for small \Mdot, while larger values of \Mdot\ produce more total emission
3087: but spread too diffusely over a larger projected area.
3088:
3089: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3090: \subsubsection{Future Prospects for CX Halo Detections}
3091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3092:
3093: Ultimately, the limiting factor in such a search is telescope sensitivity.
3094: A large collecting area is thus essential, while
3095: detectors with better energy resolution
3096: can vastly improve the contrast of the CX signal against
3097: coronal emission and background.
3098: Microcalorimeters, such as the
3099: now-lost XRS onboard {\it Suzaku} \citep{cit:cottam2005}
3100: and those planned for proposed missions such as
3101: {\it Constellation-X} \citep{cit:white2003}
3102: and {\it XEUS} \citep{cit:parmar2003},
3103: have resolution of a few eV and
3104: can isolate individual lines that are enhanced
3105: by CX, such as high-$n$ Lyman lines and the
3106: He-like K$\alpha$ forbidden and intercombination lines
3107: \citep{cit:wargelin2008}.
3108: With collecting areas roughly 10 and 100 times that
3109: of \chandra, {\it Con-X} and {\it XEUS} could respectively
3110: collect hundreds or thousands of CX counts from solar-mass-loss-rate
3111: stars in 100-ks exposures.
3112:
3113: Such observations would permit direct
3114: imaging of the winds and astrospheres of main sequence
3115: late-type stars (i.e., stars with highly ionized winds),
3116: providing information on the
3117: geometry of the stellar wind, such as whether outflows are
3118: primarily polar, azimuthal, or isotropic, and whether or not
3119: other stars have analogs of the slow (more ionized) and fast
3120: (less ionized) solar wind streams.
3121: Enhanced emission in the relatively dense neutral gas
3122: outside the stellar-wind termination shock would indicate the
3123: size of the astrosphere and the orientation and
3124: approximate speed of the relative star-cloud motion.
3125: Neutral gas density can be
3126: inferred from the falloff of CX emission at large distances from the star,
3127: which is proportional to $1/\tau_{CX} = 1/\sigma_{CX}n_{H}$, where
3128: $1/\tau_{CX}$ is the path length for a CX collision.
3129: The stellar wind velocity
3130: can also be determined from the hardness ratios of
3131: the H-like Lyman emission \citep{cit:beiers2001}.
3132: Although such studies are just beyond the capabilities
3133: of \chandra, future observatories will certainly provide
3134: abundant information on the stellar winds and astrospheres
3135: around nearby stars.
3136:
3137:
3138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3139: \section{SUMMARY}
3140: \label{sec:summary}
3141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3142:
3143: In this paper we have analyzed data from two \chandra\ observations
3144: of Ross 154, which included one very large and a few moderate flares.
3145: Analysis of spectra from the ACIS observation reveals an enhanced
3146: Ne/O abundance ratio (relative to commonly accepted solar abundances)
3147: during quiescence and a further increase, along with overall
3148: metallicity, during the large flare. Because of severe event
3149: pileup, however, large corrections to the instrument effective area
3150: were needed and each spectral fit used only a few thousand counts,
3151: introducing significant uncertainties into the results.
3152:
3153: Flaring behavior was studied at both low and very high intensity levels.
3154: Two moderate flares, which saturated the limited available telemetry,
3155: occurred during the HRC-I observation, and evidence for the
3156: Neupert effect was seen at the beginning of the large ACIS flare.
3157: Based on the spectral fit results and measured flare rise and decay
3158: times, we derived several physically reasonable estimates of flare and
3159: active region sizes and densities, along with
3160: information about the color-intensity evolution of the flare.
3161:
3162: From temporal analysis of the quiescent emission during both observations
3163: we found that microflaring, which is the superposition of many low-level
3164: flares, shows a bimodal intensity-frequency distribution when modeled
3165: with a power-law distribution. Only a few other stars have
3166: been similarly studied, and our results provide the first evidence
3167: that flaring on late-type stars may follow a distribution more
3168: complex than the single power-law of the Sun.
3169: Lastly, we searched unsuccessfully for charge-exchange emission
3170: from the stellar wind, but conclude that the next generation
3171: of X-ray telescopes will be capable of such observations.
3172:
3173:
3174: \acknowledgments
3175:
3176: The authors wish to thank M.~Juda for help in interpreting
3177: the HRC-I NIL-mode data.
3178: Support for this work was provided by NASA
3179: through \chandra\ Award Number GO2-3020X issued by the
3180: {\it Chandra X-ray Observatory} Center (CXC),
3181: which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
3182: for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
3183: The authors were also supported by NASA contract NAS8-39073 to the
3184: CXC during the course of this research.
3185:
3186:
3187:
3188:
3189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3190: % REFERENCES
3191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3192:
3193: %\reference{} Reale, F., Serio, S., \& Peres, G., 1993, A\&A, 272, 486
3194: %\reference{} Reale, F., G\"{u}del, M., Peres, G., \& Audard, M., 2004, A\&A, 416, 733
3195:
3196: %(Butler et al.\ 1986;
3197: %Ambruster, Sciortino, \& Golub 1987;
3198: %Robinson et al.\ 1995;
3199: %Audard et al.\ 2000;
3200: %Kashyap et al.\ 2002;
3201: %Guedel et al.\ 2003, 2004)
3202:
3203: %{cit:harel1998},
3204: %{cit:greenwood2001},
3205: %{cit:rigazio2002},
3206: %{cit:johnson2000},
3207: %{cit:khar2000,cit:khar2001}.
3208:
3209: \begin{thebibliography}{}
3210: \bibitem[Agrawal, Rao, \& Sreekantan(1986)]{cit:agrawal1986}
3211: Agrawal, P.~C., Rao, A.~R., \& Sreekantan, B.~V.\ 1986,
3212: \mnras, 219, 225
3213: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{cit:anders1989}
3214: Anders, E. \& Grevesse, N.\ 1989,
3215: Geo.\ Cosmo.\ Acta 53, 197
3216: \bibitem[Ambruster, Sciortino, \& Golub(1987)]{cit:ambruster1987}
3217: Ambruster, C.~W., Sciortino, S., \& Golub, L.\ 1987,
3218: \apjs, 65, 273
3219: \bibitem[Aschwanden \& Alexander(2001)]{cit:aschwanden2001}
3220: Aschwanden, M.~J., \& Alexander, D.\ 2001,
3221: \solphys, 204, 91
3222: \bibitem[Aschwanden \& Parnell(2002)]{cit:aschwanden2002}
3223: Aschwanden, M.~J., \& Parnell, C.~E.\ 2002,
3224: \apj, 572, 1048
3225: \bibitem[Aschwanden et~al.(2000)]{cit:aschwanden2000}
3226: Aschwanden, M.~J., Tarbell, T.~D., Nightingale, R.~W.,
3227: Schrijver, C.~J, Title, A., Kankelborg, C.~C., Martens, P.,
3228: \& Warren, H.~P.\ 2000,
3229: \apj, 535, 1047
3230: \bibitem[Asplund, Grevesse, \& Sauval (2005)]{cit:asplund2005}
3231: Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, A.~J.\ 2005,
3232: in ASP Conf.\ Ser., 336,
3233: Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis,
3234: ed.\ T.~G.\ Barnes III \& F.~N.\ Bash (San Francisco: ASP), 25
3235: \bibitem[Audard et~al.(2000)]{cit:audard2000}
3236: Audard, M., G\"{u}del, M., Drake, J.~J., \& Kashyap, V.~L.\ 2000,
3237: \apj, 541, 396
3238: \bibitem[{{Audard} {et~al.}(2003){Audard}, {G{\" u}del}, {Sres},
3239: {Raassen}, \& {Mewe}}]{cit:Audard03}
3240: {Audard}, M., {G{\" u}del}, M., {Sres}, A., {Raassen}, A.~J.~J.,
3241: \& {Mewe}, R.\ 2003,
3242: \aap, 398, 1137
3243: \bibitem[Bahcall et~al.(2005)]{Bahcall.etal:05}
3244: Bahcall, J.~N., Basu, S., \& Serenelli, A.~M.\ 2005,
3245: \apj, 631, 1281
3246: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia(2004)]{Basu.Antia:04}
3247: Basu, S., \& Antia, H.~M.\ 2004,
3248: \apjl, 606, L85
3249: \bibitem[Beiersdorfer et al.(2001)]{cit:beiers2001}
3250: Beiersdorfer, P., Lisse, C.~M., Olson, R.~E., Brown, G.~V.,
3251: \& Chen, H.\ 2001,
3252: \apjl, 549, L147
3253: \bibitem[Bensby, Feltzing, \& Lundstr{\"o}m(2003)]{Bensby.etal:03}
3254: Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundstr{\"o}m, I.\, 2003,
3255: \aap, 410, 527
3256: \bibitem[Bowyer et al.(1996)]{cit:bowyer1996}
3257: Bowyer, S., Lampton, M., Lewis, J., Wu, X., Jelinsky, P., \&
3258: Malina, R.~F.\ 1996,
3259: \apjs, 102, 129
3260: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1986)]{cit:butler1986}
3261: Butler, C.~J., Rodono, M., Foing, B.~H., \& Haisch, B.~M.\ 1986,
3262: Nature, 321, 679
3263: \bibitem[Carter et al.(2003)]{cit:ChaRT}
3264: Carter, C., et al.\ 2003,
3265: ADASS XII ASP Conf.\ Series, 295, 477
3266: \bibitem[Christian et al.(1999)]{cit:christian1999}
3267: Christian, D.~J., Craig, N., Cahill, W., Roberts, B., \& Malina,
3268: R.~F.\ 1999,
3269: \aj, 117, 2466
3270: \bibitem[Cottam et al.(2005)]{cit:cottam2005}
3271: Cottam, J., et al.\ 2005,
3272: in AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ 774,
3273: X-ray Diagnostics of Astrophysical Plasmas: Theory, Experiment,
3274: and Observation, ed.\ R.~Smith (New York: AIP), 379
3275: \bibitem[Cravens(2000)]{cit:cravens2000}
3276: Cravens, T.~E.\ 2000,
3277: \apj, 532, L153
3278: \bibitem[de Jager et al.(1986)]{cit:deJager1986}
3279: de Jager, C., et al.\ 1986,
3280: \aap, 156, 95
3281: %\bibitem[Drake(2003)]{Drake:03}
3282: % Drake, J.~J.\ 2003,
3283: % Adv.\ Space Res., 32, 945
3284: %\bibitem[Drake(2006)]{Drake:06}
3285: % Drake, J.~J.\ 2006,
3286: % \apj, submitted
3287: %\bibitem[Drake et~al.(1994)]{cit:Drake94}
3288: % Drake, J.~J., Brown, A., Patterer, R.~J., Vedder, P.~W., Bowyer, S.,
3289: % \& Guinan, E.~F.\ 1994,
3290: % \apjl, 421, L43
3291: \bibitem[{{Drake} {et~al.}(1995){Drake}, {Laming}, \& {Widing}}]{cit:Drake95}
3292: {Drake}, J.~J., {Laming}, J.~M., \& {Widing}, K.~G.\ 1995,
3293: \apj, 443, 393
3294: \bibitem[Drake \& Testa(2005)]{Drake.Testa:05}
3295: Drake, J.~J., \& Testa, P.\ 2005,
3296: Nature, 436, 525
3297: \bibitem[Eggen(1996)]{cit:eggen1996}
3298: Eggen, O.~J.\ 1996,
3299: \aj, 111, 466
3300: \bibitem[Favata et al.(2000)]{cit:favata2000}
3301: Favata, F., Reale, F., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Maggio, A., \&
3302: Matsumoto, H.\ 2000,
3303: \aap, 353, 987
3304: \bibitem[Favata \& Schmitt(1999)]{cit:favata1999}
3305: Favata, F., \& Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 1999,
3306: \aap, 350, 900
3307: \bibitem[Feldman(1992)]{cit:Feldman92}
3308: {Feldman}, U.\ 1992,
3309: Physica Scripta, T46, 202
3310: \bibitem[Fleming et al.(1993)]{cit:fleming1993}
3311: Fleming, T.~A., Giampapa, M.~S., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.,
3312: \& Bookbinder, J.~A.\ 1993,
3313: \apj, 410, 387
3314: \bibitem[Fleming et al.(1995)]{cit:fleming1995}
3315: Fleming, T.~A., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., \& Giampapa, M.~S.\ 1995,
3316: \apj, 450, 401
3317: \bibitem[Freeman et al.(2001)]{cit:freeman2001}
3318: Freeman, P., Doe, S., \& Siemiginowska, A.\ 2001,
3319: Proc.\ SPIE 4477, 76
3320: %\bibitem[{{Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez} {et~al.}(2005){Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez},
3321: % {Drake}, {Lin}, {Kashyap}, \& {Ball}}]{cit:Garcia-Alvarez05}
3322: % {Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez}, D., {Drake}, J.~J., {Lin}, L., {Kashyap}, V.,
3323: % \& {Ball}, W.~N.\ 2005,
3324: % \apj, 621, 1009
3325: %\bibitem[Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez et al.(2006)]{cit:garcia2006sub}
3326: % Garc\'{\i}a-Alvarez, D., Drake, J.~J., Kashyap, V.~L., Lin, L., \&
3327: % Ball, W.\ 2006,
3328: % \apj, 638, 1028
3329: \bibitem[Gehrels(1986)]{cit:gehrels1986}
3330: Gehrels, N.\ 1986,
3331: \apj, 303, 336
3332: %\bibitem[Giampapa et al.(1996)]{cit:giampapa1996}
3333: % Giampapa, M.~S., Rosner, R., Kashyap, V., Fleming, T.~A.,
3334: % Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., \& Bookbinder, J.~A.\ 1996,
3335: % \apj, 463, 707
3336: \bibitem[Greenwood et al.(2001)]{cit:greenwood2001}
3337: Greenwood, J.~B., et al.\ 2001,
3338: \pra, 63, 62707
3339: \bibitem[G{\"u}del(2004)]{Gudel:04}
3340: G{\"u}del, M.\ 2004
3341: \aapr, 12, 71
3342: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(2003)]{cit:guedel2003}
3343: G\"{u}del, M., Audard, M., Kashyap, V.~L., \& Drake, J.~J.\ 2003,
3344: \apj, 582, 42
3345: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(2001)]{cit:Guedel2001}
3346: G{\"u}del, M., Audard, M., Magee, H., Franciosini, E., Grosso, N.,
3347: Cordova, F.~A., Pallavicini, R., \& Mewe, R.\ 2001,
3348: \aap, 365, L344
3349: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(2004)]{cit:Guedel2004}
3350: {G{\"u}del}, M., Audard, M., Reale, F., Skinner, S.~L.,
3351: \& Linsky, J.~L.\ 2004,
3352: \aap, 416, 713
3353: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(2002a)]{cit:Guedel2002a}
3354: {G{\"u}del}, M., Audard, Skinner, S.~L., \& Horvath, M.~I.\ 2002a,
3355: \apjl, 580, L73
3356: \bibitem[{{G{\" u}del} {et~al.}(2002b){G{\" u}del}, {Audard}, {Sres}, {Wehrli},
3357: {Behar}, {Mewe}, {Raassen}, \& {Magee}}]{cit:Guedel02}
3358: {G{\" u}del}, M., {Audard}, M., {Sres}, A., {Wehrli}, R., {Behar},
3359: E., {Mewe}, R., {Raassen}, A.~J.~J., \& {Magee}, H.~R.~M.\ 2002b,
3360: in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 277,
3361: Stellar Coronae in the Chandra and XMM-Newton Era,
3362: ed.\ F.\ Favata \& J.~J.\ Drake (San Francisco: ASP), 49
3363: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(1999)]{Guedel.etal:99}
3364: G{\"u}del, M., Linsky, J.~L., Brown, A., \& Nagase, F.\ 1999,
3365: \apj, 511, 405
3366: %\bibitem[G{\"u}del et~al.(1999)]{cit:Guedel1999}
3367: % {G{\"u}del}, M., {Linsky}, J.~L., {Brown}, A., \& {Nagase}, F.\ 1999,
3368: % \apj, 511, 405
3369: \bibitem[Grevesse \& Sauval(1998)]{cit:grevesse1998}
3370: Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, A.~J.\ 1998,
3371: Space Science Reviews, 85, 161
3372: \bibitem[Harel, Jouin, \& Pons(1998)]{cit:harel1998}
3373: Harel, C., Jouin, H., \& Pons B.\ 1998,
3374: At.\ Data and Nucl.\ Data Tables, 68, 279
3375: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(1995)]{cit:hawley1995}
3376: Hawley, S.~L., et al.\ 1995,
3377: \apj, 453, 464
3378: \bibitem[Heinke et al.(2003)]{cit:heinke2003}
3379: Heinke, C.~O., Edmonds, P.~D., Grindlay, J.~E., Lloyd, D.~A.,
3380: Cohn, H.~N., \& Lugger, P.~M.\ 2003,
3381: \apj, 590, 809
3382: %\bibitem[Haisch et al.(1995)]{cit:haisch1995}
3383: % Haisch, B., Antunes, A., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 1995,
3384: % Science, 268, 1327
3385: %\bibitem[Huenemoerder, Canizares, \& Schulz(2001)]{cit:Huenemoerder2001}
3386: % Huenemoerder, D.~P., Canizares, C.~R., \& Schulz, N.~S.\ 2001,
3387: % \apj, 559, 1135
3388: \bibitem[H{\"u}nsch et al.(1999)]{cit:hunsch1999}
3389: H{\"u}nsch, M., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Sterzik, M.~F., \& Voges, W.\
3390: 1999,
3391: A\&AS, 135, 319
3392: \bibitem[Hudson(1991)]{cit:hudson1991}
3393: Hudson, H.~S.\ 1991,
3394: \solphys, 133, 357
3395: \bibitem[Hudson et al.(1992)]{cit:hudson1992}
3396: Hudson, H.~S., Acton, L.~W., Hirayama, T., \& Uchida, Y.\ 1992,
3397: \pasj, 44, L77
3398: \bibitem[Johns-Krull \& Valenti(1996)]{cit:krull1996}
3399: Johns-Krull, C.~M., \& Valenti, J.~A.\ 1996,
3400: \apjl, 459, L95
3401: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2000)]{cit:johnson2000}
3402: Johnson, W.~R., Savukov, I.~M., Safronova, U.~I., \& Dalgarno, A.\ 2000, \apjs, 141, 543
3403: %\bibitem[Kaastra(1992)]{cit:kaastra1992}
3404: % Kaastra, J.~S.\ 1992,
3405: % An X-Ray Spectra Code for Optically Thin Plasmas,
3406: % Internal SRON-Leiden Report, updated version 2.0
3407: \bibitem[Kaastra et al.(1996)]{cit:spex1996}
3408: Kaastra, J.~S., Mewe, R., \& Nieuwenhuijzen, H., 1996,
3409: in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas,
3410: eds.\ K.\ Yamashita \& T.\ Watanabe (Univ.\ Acad.\ Press), 411
3411: \bibitem[Kashyap \& Drake(2000)]{cit:kashyap2000}
3412: Kashyap, V., \& Drake, J.~J.\ 2000,
3413: Bull.\ Astr.\ Soc.\ India, 28, 475
3414: \bibitem[Kashyap et al.(2002)]{cit:kashyap2002}
3415: Kashyap, V.~L., Drake, J.~J., G\"{u}del, M., \& Audard, M.\ 2002,
3416: \apj, 580, 1118
3417: \bibitem[Katsova, Livshits, \& Schmitt(2002)]{cit:katsova2002}
3418: Katsova, M.~M., Livshits, M.~A., \& Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 2002,
3419: in ASP Conf.\ Ser.,
3420: Stellar Coronae in the Chandra and XMM-Newton Era,
3421: ed.\ F.~Favata \& J.~J.~Drake (San Francisco: ASP), 515
3422: \bibitem[Kellett \& Tsikoudi(1997)]{cit:kellett1997}
3423: Kellett, B. J., \& Tsikoudi, V.\ 1997,
3424: \mnras, 288, 411
3425: \bibitem[Kharchenko \& Dalgarno(2001)]{cit:khar2001}
3426: Kharchenko, V., \& Dalgarno, A.\ 2001,
3427: \apjl, 554, L99
3428: \bibitem[Kharchenko \& Dalgarno(2000)]{cit:khar2000}
3429: Kharchenko, V., \& Dalgarno, A.\ 2000,
3430: J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 105, 18351
3431: \bibitem[Krucker \& Benz(1998)]{cit:krucker1998}
3432: Krucker, S., \& Benz, A.~O.\ 1998,
3433: \apjl, 501, L213
3434: \bibitem[Lallement \& Bertin(1992)]{cit:lallement1992}
3435: Lallement, R., \& Bertin, P.\ 1992,
3436: \aap, 266, 479
3437: \bibitem[Lamers \& Cassinelli(1999)]{cit:lamers1999}
3438: Lamers, H.~J.~G.~L.~M., \& Cassinelli, J.~P.\ 1999,
3439: Introduction to Stellar Winds
3440: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
3441: %\bibitem[Laming(2004)]{cit:laming2004}
3442: % Laming, J.~M.\ 2004,
3443: % \apj, 614, 1063
3444: \bibitem[Lampton et al.(1997)]{cit:lampton1997}
3445: Lampton, M., Lieu, R., Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Bowyer, S.,
3446: Voges, W., Lewis, J., \& Wu, X.\ 1997,
3447: \apjs, 108, 545
3448: %\bibitem[Malina et al.(1994)]{cit:malina1994}
3449: % Malina, R. F., et al.\ 1994,
3450: % \aj, 107, 751
3451: %\bibitem[Liedahl et al.(1995)]{cit:liedahl1995}
3452: % Liedahl, D.~A., Osterheld, A.~L., \& Goldstein, W.~H.\ 1995
3453: % \apj, 438, L115
3454: \bibitem[Landi, Feldman, \& Doschek(2007)]{Landi.etal:07}
3455: Landi, E., Feldman, U., \& Doschek, G.~A.\ 2007,
3456: \apj, 659, 743
3457: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1984)]{cit:lin1984}
3458: Lin, R.~P., Schwartz, R.~A., Kane, S.~R., Pelling, R.~M.,
3459: \& Hurley, K.~C.\ 1984,
3460: \apj, 283, 421
3461: \bibitem[Linsky et al.(2000)]{cit:linsky2000}
3462: Linsky, J.~L., Redfield, S., Wood, B.~E., \& Piskunov, N.\ 2000,
3463: \apj, 528, 756
3464: \bibitem[Mazzotta et al.(1998)]{cit:mazzotta1998}
3465: Mazzotta, P., Mazzitelli, G., Colafrancesco, S., \& Vittorio, N.\
3466: 1998,
3467: A\&AS, 133, 403
3468: %\bibitem[McKenzie \& Feldman(1992)]{cit:mckenzie1992}
3469: % McKenzie, D.~L., \& Feldman, U.\ 1992,
3470: % \apj, 389, 764
3471: \bibitem[M\"{u}ller, Zank, \& Wood(2001)]{cit:muller2001}
3472: M\"{u}ller, H.-R., Zank, G.~P., \& Wood, B.~E.\ 2001,
3473: \apj, 551, 495
3474: \bibitem[Neupert(1968)]{cit:neupert1968}
3475: Neupert, W.~M.\ 1968,
3476: \apjl, 153, L59
3477: %\bibitem[Osten et~al.(2003)]{cit:Osten2003}
3478: % Osten, R.~A., Ayres, T.~R., Brown, A., Linsky, J.~L.,
3479: % \& Krishnamurthi, A.\ 2003,
3480: % \apj, 582, 1073
3481: \bibitem[Osten \& Brown(1999)]{cit:Osten1999}
3482: Osten, R.~A., \& Brown, A.\ 1999,
3483: \apj, 515, 746
3484: \bibitem[Osten et~al.(2007)]{cit:osten2007}
3485: Osten, R.~A., Drake, S., Tueller, J., Cummings, J., Perri, M.,
3486: Moretti, A., \& Covino, S.\ 2007,
3487: \apj, 654, 1052
3488: %\bibitem[Osten et~al.(2000)]{cit:Osten2000}
3489: % Osten, R.~A., Brown, A., Ayres, T.~R., Linsky, J.~L., Drake, S.~A.,
3490: % Gagn{\'e}, M., \& Stern, R.~A.\ 2000,
3491: % \apj, 544, 953
3492: \bibitem[Osten et~al.(2005)]{cit:Osten2005}
3493: Osten, R.~A., Hawley, S.~L., Allred, J.~C., Johns-Krull, C.~M.,
3494: \& Roark, C.\ 2005,
3495: \apj, 621, 398
3496: \bibitem[Pan et al.(1997)]{cit:pan1997}
3497: Pan, H.~C., Jordan, C., Makishima, K., Stern, R.~A.,
3498: Hayashida, K., \& Inda-Koide, M.\ 1997,
3499: \mnras, 285, 735
3500: \bibitem[Park et~al.(2006)]{cit:park2006}
3501: Park, T., Kashyap, V.~L., Siemiginowska, A., van Dyk, D.~A.,
3502: Zezas, A., Heinke, C., \& Wargelin, B.~J.\ 2006,
3503: \apj, 652, 610
3504: \bibitem[Parmar et al.(2003)]{cit:parmar2003}
3505: Parmar, A.~N., et al.\ 2003,
3506: Proc.\ SPIE 4851, 304
3507: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{cit:perryman1997}
3508: Perryman, M.~A.~C., et al.\ 1997,
3509: \aap, 323, L49
3510: %\bibitem[{{Raassen} {et~al.}(2002){Raassen}, {Mewe}, {Audard}, {G{\" u}del},
3511: % {Behar}, {Kaastra}, {van der Meer}, {Foley}, \& {Ness}}]{cit:Raassen02}
3512: % {Raassen}, A.~J.~J., et al.\ 2002,
3513: % \aap, 389, 228
3514: \bibitem[Raassen et~al.(2003)]{cit:raassen2003}
3515: Raassen, A.~J.~J., Mewe, R., Audard, M., \& G{\" u}del, M.\ 2003,
3516: \aap, 411, 509
3517: \bibitem[Read et~al.(2006)]{cit:read2006}
3518: Read, A.~M., Sembay, S.~F., Abbey, A.~F., \& Turner, M.~J.~L.\ 2006,
3519: Proc.\ ``The X-Ray Universe 2005,''
3520: %El Escorial, Madrid, 26-30 September 2005,
3521: ed.\ A.\ Wilson, (ESA SP-604), 925
3522: \bibitem[Reale, Serio, \& Peres(1993)]{cit:reale1993}
3523: Reale, F., Serio, S., \& Peres, G., 1993,
3524: A\&A, 272, 486
3525: \bibitem[Reale et~al.(2004)]{cit:reale2004}
3526: Reale, F., G\"{u}del, M., Peres, G., \& Audard, M., 2004,
3527: A\&A, 416, 733
3528: \bibitem[Reeves \& Warren(2002)]{cit:reeves2002}
3529: Reeves, K.~K., \& Warren, H.~P.\ 2002,
3530: \apj, 578, 590
3531: \bibitem[Reeves et~al.(2007)]{cit:reeves2007}
3532: Reeves, K.~K., Warren, H.~P., \& Forbes, T.G.\ 2007,
3533: \apj, submitted
3534: \bibitem[Rigazio, Kharchenko, \& Dalgarno(2002)]{cit:rigazio2002}
3535: Rigazio, M., Kharchenko, V., \& Dalgarno, A.\ 2002,
3536: \pra, 66, 64701
3537: \bibitem[Robinson et al.(1995)]{cit:robinson1995}
3538: Robinson, R.~D., Carpenter, K.~G., \ Percival, J.~W.,
3539: \& Bookbinder, J.~A.\ 1995,
3540: \apj, 451, 795
3541: \bibitem[Robrade \& Schmitt(2005)]{cit:robrade2005}
3542: Robrade, J., \& Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 2005,
3543: \aap, 435, 1073
3544: \bibitem[Rosner, Tucker, \& Vaiana(1978)]{cit:rosner1978}
3545: Rosner, R., Tucker, W.~H., \& Vaiana, G.~S.\ 1978,
3546: \apj, 220, 643
3547: \bibitem[Saar(1994)]{cit:saar1994}
3548: Saar, S.~H.\ 1994,
3549: in IAU Symp.\ 154, Infrared Solar Physics,
3550: ed.\ D.~M.\ Rabin et al.\ (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 493
3551: \bibitem[Saar \& Linsky(1985)]{cit:saar1985}
3552: Saar, S.~H., \& Linsky, J.~L.\ 1985,
3553: \apjl, 299, L47
3554: %\bibitem[{{Sanz-Forcada} {et~al.}(2004){Sanz-Forcada}, {Favata},
3555: % \& {Micela}}]{cit:Sanz-Forcada04}
3556: % {Sanz-Forcada}, J., {Favata}, F., \& {Micela}, G.\ 2004,
3557: % \aap, 416, 281
3558: %\bibitem[Scelsi(2005)]{cit:Scelsi05}
3559: % There's a Scelsi04 in David's list, but also an '05 in ADS.
3560: \bibitem[Schmelz et al.(2005)]{Schmelz:05}
3561: Schmelz, J.~T., Nasraoui, K., Roames, J.~K., Lippner, L.~A.,
3562: \& Garst, J.~W.\ 2005,
3563: \apjl, 634, L197
3564: \bibitem[Schmitt et al.(1990)]{cit:schmitt1990}
3565: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Collura, A., Sciortino, S., Vaiana, G.~S.,
3566: Harnden, F.~R., Jr., \& Rosner, R.\ 1990,
3567: \apj, 365, 704
3568: \bibitem[Schmitt, Haisch, \& Barwig(1993)]{cit:schmitt1993}
3569: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Haisch, B., \& Barwig, H.\ 1993,
3570: \apjl, 419, L81
3571: \bibitem[Schwadron \& Cravens(2000)]{cit:schwadron2000}
3572: Schwadron, N.~A., \& Cravens, T.~E.\ 2000,
3573: \apj, 544, 558
3574: \bibitem[S\'{e}gransan et al.(2003)]{cit:segransan2003}
3575: S\'{e}gransan, D., Kervella, P., Forveille, T., \& Queloz, D.\ 2003,
3576: \aap, 397, L5
3577: \bibitem[Smith et~al.(2001a)]{cit:apec2001}
3578: Smith, R.~K., Brickhouse, N.~S., Liedahl, D.~A., \& Raymond, J.~C.\
3579: 2001a,
3580: \apjl, 556, L91
3581: \bibitem[Smith et~al.(2001b)]{cit:ATOMDB2001}
3582: Smith, R.~K., Brickhouse, N.~S., Liedahl, D.~A., \& Raymond, J.~C.\
3583: 2001b,
3584: Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasmas,
3585: ASP Conference Series Vol.\ 247,
3586: eds.\ G.\ Ferland \& D.\ W.\ Savin (San Francisco: ASP), 159
3587: \bibitem[Stuhlinger et~al.(2006)]{cit:stuhlinger2006}
3588: Stuhlinger, M., et al.\ 2006,
3589: Proc.\ ``The X-Ray Universe 2005,''
3590: %El Escorial, Madrid,
3591: %26-30 September 2005 (in press; astro-ph 0511395)
3592: ed.\ A.\ Wilson, (ESA SP-604), 937
3593: \bibitem[Telleschi et al.(2005)]{cit:telleschi2005}
3594: Telleschi, A., G\"{u}, M., Briggs, K., Audard, M.,
3595: Ness, J.-U., \& Skinner, S.~L.\ 2005,
3596: \apj, 622, 653
3597: \bibitem[van den Oord \& Mewe(1989)]{cit:vandenOord1989}
3598: van den Oord, G.~H.~J., \& Mewe, R.\ 1989,
3599: \aap, 213, 245
3600: \bibitem[van den Oord et~al.(1988)]{cit:vandenOord1988}
3601: van den Oord, G.~H.~J., Mewe, R., \& Brinkman, A.~C.\ 1988,
3602: \aap, 205, 181
3603: \bibitem[Wallerstein \& Tyagi(2004)]{cit:wallerstein2004}
3604: Wallerstein, G., \& Tyagi, S.\ 2004,
3605: \pasp, 116, 554
3606: \bibitem[Wargelin, Beiersdorfer, \& Brown(2008)]{cit:wargelin2008}
3607: Wargelin, B.~J., Beiersdorfer, P., \& Brown, G.~V.\ 2008,
3608: Can.\ J.\ Phys., in press
3609: \bibitem[Wargelin et al.(2004)]{cit:wargelin2004}
3610: Wargelin, B.~J., Markevitch, M., Juda, M., Kharchenko, V.,
3611: Edgar, R., \& Dalgarno, A.\ 2004,
3612: \apj, 607, 596
3613: \bibitem[Wargelin \& Drake(2001)]{cit:wargelin2001}
3614: Wargelin, B.~J., \& Drake, J.~J.\ 2001,
3615: \apj, 546, L57
3616: \bibitem[Wargelin \& Drake(2002)]{cit:wargelin2002}
3617: Wargelin, B.~J., \& Drake, J.~J.\ 2002,
3618: \apj, 578, 503
3619: %\bibitem[Wheeler et~al.(1989)]{cit:wheeler1989}
3620: % Wheeler, J.~C., Sneden, C., \& Truran, J.~W., Jr.\ 1989,
3621: % \araa, 27, 279
3622: \bibitem[Wertheimer \& Laughlin(2006)]{cit:wertheimer2006}
3623: Wertheimer, J.~G., \& Laughlin, G.\ 2006,
3624: \aj, 132, 1995
3625: \bibitem[White et~al.(1994)]{cit:White94}
3626: White, N.~E., Arnaud, K., Day, C.~S.~R., Ebisawa, K., Gotthelf, E.~V.,
3627: Mukai, K., Soong, Y., Yaqoob, T., \& Antunes, A.\ 1994,
3628: \pasj, 46, L97
3629: \bibitem[White \& Tananbaum(2003)]{cit:white2003}
3630: White, N.~E., \& Tananbaum, H.~D.\ 2003,
3631: Proc.\ SPIE 4851, 293
3632: % X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy,
3633: % ed.\ Joachim E.~Truemper, Harvey D.~Tananbaum
3634: % (where: who), 293
3635: \bibitem[Winebarger et al.(2002)]{cit:winebarger2002}
3636: Winebarger, A., Emslie, A.~G., Mariska, J.~T., \& Warren, H.~P.\ 2002,
3637: \apj, 565, 1298
3638: \bibitem[Winebarger, Warren, \& Seaton(2003)]{cit:winebarger2003}
3639: Winebarger, A.~R., Warren, H.~P., \& Seaton, D.~B., 2003,
3640: \apj, 593, 1164
3641: \bibitem[Wood et al.(1994)]{cit:wood1994}
3642: Wood, B.~E.; Brown, A., Linsky, J.~L., Kellett, B.~J.,
3643: Bromage, G.~E., Hodgkin, S.~T., \& Pye, J.~P.\ 1994,
3644: \apjs, 93, 287
3645: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2001)]{cit:wood2001}
3646: Wood, B.~E., Linsky, J.~L., M\"{u}ller, H.-R., \& Zank, G.~P.\ 2001,
3647: \apjl, 547, L49
3648: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2002)]{cit:wood2002}
3649: Wood, B.~E., M\"{u}ller, H.-R., Zank, G.~P., \& Linsky, J.~L.\ 2002,
3650: \apj, 574, 412
3651: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2005)]{cit:wood2005}
3652: Wood, B.~E., Redfield, S., Linsky, J.~L., M\"{u}ller, H.~R.,
3653: \& Zank, G.~P.\ 2005,
3654: \apjs, 159, 118
3655: \bibitem[Young(2005)]{Young:05}
3656: Young, P.~R.\ 2005,
3657: \aap, 444, L45
3658: \bibitem[Young et al.(2003)]{cit:young2003}
3659: Young, P.~R., Del Zanna, G., Landi, E., Dere, K.~P.,
3660: Mason, H.~E., \& Landini, M.\ 2003,
3661: \apjs, 144, 135
3662:
3663: \end{thebibliography}
3664:
3665:
3666:
3667:
3668:
3669:
3670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3675: \end{document}
3676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3677:
3678: \bibitem[Allende Prieto, Lambert, \& Asplund(2001)]{cit:allende2001}
3679: Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.~L., \& Asplund, M.\ 2001,
3680: \apj, 556, L63
3681: \bibitem[Anosova, Orlov, \& Pavlova(1994)]{cit:anosova1994}
3682: Anosova, J., Orlov, V.~V., \& Pavlova, N.~A.\ 1994,
3683: \aap, 292, 115
3684: \bibitem[Badalyan \& Livshits(1992)]{cit:badalyan1992}
3685: Badalyan, O.~G., \& Livshits, M.~A.\ 1992,
3686: Soviet Astron., 36, 70
3687: \bibitem[Beiersdorfer et al.(2000)]{cit:beiers2000}
3688: Beiersdorfer, P., et al.\ 2000,
3689: \prl, 85, 5090
3690: \bibitem[Benedict et al.(1998)]{cit:benedict1998}
3691: Benedict, G.~F., et al.\ 1999,
3692: \apj, 116, 429
3693: \bibitem[Benedict et al.(1999)]{cit:benedict1999}
3694: Benedict, G.~F., et al.\ 1999,
3695: \apj, 118, 1086
3696: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{cit:bond2001}
3697: Bond, H.~E., Mullan, D.~J., O'Brien, M.~S., \& Sion, E.~M.\ 2001,
3698: \apj, 560, 919
3699: \bibitem[Bowyer, Drake, \& Vennes(2000)]{cit:bowyer2000}
3700: Bowyer, S., Drake, J.~J., \& Vennes, S.\ 2000,
3701: \araa, 38, 231
3702: \bibitem[Brinkman et al.(2001)]{cit:brinkman2001}
3703: Brinkman, A.~C., et al.\ 2001,
3704: \aap, 365, L324
3705: \bibitem[Cash(1979)]{cit:cash1979}
3706: Cash, W.\ 1979,
3707: \apj, 228, 939
3708: \bibitem[Cox(1998)]{cit:cox1998}
3709: Cox, D.~P. 1998,
3710: in The Local Bubble and Beyond, ed.\ D.\ Breitschwerdt,
3711: M.~J.\ Freyberg, and J.\ Tr\"{u}mper (Berlin:Springer), 121
3712: \bibitem[Cravens(1997)]{cit:cravens1997}
3713: Cravens, T.~E.\ 1997,
3714: \grl, 24, 105
3715: \bibitem[Cravens(2000)]{cit:cravens2000}
3716: Cravens, T.~E.\ 2000,
3717: \apj, 532, L153
3718: \bibitem[Cravens, Robertson, \& Snowden(2001)]{cit:cravens2001}
3719: Cravens, T.~E., Robertson, I.~P., \& Snowden, S.~L.\ 2001,
3720: J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 106, \mbox{24,883}
3721: \bibitem[Doyle \& Mathioudakis(1989)]{cit:doyle1991}
3722: Doyle, J.~G., \& Mathioudakis, M.\ 1991,
3723: \aap, 241, L41
3724: \bibitem[Drake(1999)]{cit:drake1999}
3725: Drake, J.~J.\ 1999,
3726: \apjs, 122, 269
3727: \bibitem[Drake(2002)]{cit:drake2002}
3728: Drake, J.~J.\ 2002,
3729: in ASP Conf.\ Ser.,
3730: Stellar Coronae in the Chandra and XMM-Newton Era,
3731: ed.\ F.~Favata \& J.~J.~Drake (San Francisco: ASP), 75
3732: \bibitem[Drake et al.(2001)]{cit:drakeetal2001}
3733: Drake, J.~J., Brickhouse, N.~S., Kashyap, V., Laming, J.~M.,
3734: Huenemoerder, D.~P., Smith, R., \& Wargelin, B.~J.\ 2001,
3735: \apj, 548, L81
3736: \bibitem[Feldman \& Laming(2000)]{cit:feldman2000}
3737: Feldman, U., \& Laming, J.~M.\ 2000,
3738: Phys. Scr., 61, 222
3739: \bibitem[Gayley et al.(1997)]{cit:gayley1997}
3740: Gayley, K.~G., Zank, G.~P., Pauls, H.~L., Frisch, P.~C.,
3741: \& Welty, D.~E.\ 1997,
3742: \apj, 487, 259
3743: \bibitem[Greenwood et al.(2000)]{cit:greenwood2000}
3744: Greenwood, J.~B., Williams, I.~D.,
3745: Smith, S.~J., \& Chutjian, A.\ 2000,
3746: \apj, 533, L175
3747: \bibitem[G\"{u}del et al.(2001)]{cit:guedel2001}
3748: G\"{u}del, M., Audard, M., Magee, H., Franciosini, E., Grosso, N.,
3749: Cordova, F.~A., Pallavicini, R., \& Mewe, R.\ 2001,
3750: \aap, 365, L344
3751: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(1998)]{cit:haisch1998}
3752: Haisch, B., Kashyap, V., Drake, J.~J., \& Freeman, P.\ 1998,
3753: \aap, 335, L101
3754: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(1980)]{cit:haisch1980}
3755: Haisch, B.~M., Harnden, F.~R., Seward, F.~D., Vaiana, G.~S.,
3756: Linsky, J.~L., \& Rosner, R.\ 1980,
3757: \apj, 242, L99
3758: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(1983)]{cit:haisch1983}
3759: Haisch, B.~M., Linsky, J.~L., Bornmann, P.~L., Stencel, R.~E.,
3760: Antiochos, S.~K., Golub, L., \& Vaiana, G.~S.\ 1983,
3761: \apj, 267, 280
3762: \bibitem[Harel, Jouin, \& Pons(1998)]{cit:harel1998}
3763: Harel, C., Jouin, J., \& Pons, B.\ 1998,
3764: At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 68, 280
3765: \bibitem[Houdebine, Foing, \& Rodon\'{o}(1990)]{cit:houdebine1990}
3766: Houdebine, E.~R., Foing, B.~H., \& Rodon\'{o}, M.\ 1990
3767: \aap, 238, 249
3768: \bibitem[Izmodenov, Lallement, \& Malama(1999)]{cit:izmo1999}
3769: Izmodenov, V.~V., Lallement, R., \& Malama, Y.~G.\ 1999,
3770: \aap, 342, L13
3771: \bibitem[Jay et al.(1996)]{cit:jay1996}
3772: Jay, J.~E., Guinan, E.~F., Morgan, N.~D., Messina, S.,
3773: \& Jassour, D.\ 1996,
3774: \baas, 189, No.\ 120.04
3775: \bibitem[Kharchenko \& Dalgarno(2001)]{cit:khar2001}
3776: Kharchenko, V., \& Dalgarno, D.\ 2001,
3777: \apj, 554, L99
3778: \bibitem[Kundu \& Shevgaonkar(1988)]{cit:kundu1988}
3779: Kundu, M.~R., \& Shevgaonkar, R.~K.\ 1988,
3780: \apj, 334, 1001
3781: \bibitem[Lallement \& Bertin(1992)]{cit:lallement1992}
3782: Lallement, R., \& Bertin, P.\ 1992,
3783: \aap, 266, 479
3784: \bibitem[Lim \& White(1996)]{cit:lim1996}
3785: Lim, J., \& White, S.~M.\ 1996,
3786: \apj, 462, L91
3787: \bibitem[Lim, White, \& Cully(1996)]{cit:limcully1996}
3788: Lim, J., White, S.~M., \& Cully, S.~L.\ 1996,
3789: \apj, 461, 1009
3790: \bibitem[Lim, White, \& Slee(1996)]{cit:limslee1996}
3791: Lim, J., White, S.~M., \& Slee, O.~B.\ 1996,
3792: \apj, 460, 976
3793: \bibitem[Linsky et al.(2000)]{cit:linsky2000}
3794: Linsky, J.~L., Redfield, S., Wood, B.~E., \& Piskunov, N.\ 2000,
3795: \apj, 528, 756
3796: \bibitem[Maggio et al.(2002)]{cit:maggio2002}
3797: Maggio, A., Drake, J.~J., Kashyap, V., Peres, G., Sciortino, S.\ 2002,
3798: in ASP Conf.\ Ser.,
3799: Stellar Coronae in the Chandra and XMM-Newton Era,
3800: ed.\ F.~Favata \& J.~J.~Drake (San Francisco: ASP), 57
3801: \bibitem[Matthews \& Gilmore(1993)]{cit:matthews1993}
3802: Matthews, R., \& Gilmore, G.\ 1993,
3803: \mnras, 261, L5
3804: \bibitem[Mazzotta et al.(1998)]{cit:mazzotta1998}
3805: Mazzotta, P., Mazzitelli, G., Colafrancesco, S., \& Vittorio, N.\ 1998,
3806: A\&AS, 133, 403
3807: \bibitem[Mullan et al.(1992)]{cit:mullan1992}
3808: Mullan, D.~J., Doyle, J.~G., Redman, R.~O., \& Mathioudakis, M.\ 1992,
3809: \apj, 397, 225
3810: \bibitem[Mullan et al.(1989)]{cit:mullan1989}
3811: Mullan, D.~J., Sion, E.~M., Bruhweiler, F.~C.,
3812: \& Carpenter, K.~G.\ 1989,
3813: \apj, 339, L33
3814: \bibitem[M\"{u}ller, Zank, \& Wood(2001)]{cit:muller2001}
3815: M\"{u}ller, H.~R., Zank, G.~P., \& Wood, B.~E.\ 2001
3816: \apj, 551, 495
3817: \bibitem[Peres et al.(2000)]{cit:peres2000}
3818: Peres, G., Orlando, S., Reale, F., Rosner, R., \& Hudson, H.\ 2000,
3819: \apj, 528, 537
3820: \bibitem[Phaneuf, Janev, \& Pindzola (1987)]{cit:phaneuf1987}
3821: Phaneuf, R.~A., Janev, R.~K., \& Pindzola, M.~S.\ 1987,
3822: Atomic Data for Fusion, Vol.\ 5: Collisions of Carbon and
3823: Oxygen Ions with Electrons, H, H$_{2}$ and He,
3824: ORNL-6090 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Controlled Fusion
3825: Atomic Data Center)
3826: \bibitem[Phillips et al.(2001)]{cit:phillips2001}
3827: Phillips, K.~J.~H., Mathioudakis, M., Huenemoerder, D.~P.,
3828: Williams, D.~R., Phillips, M.~E., \& Keenan, F.~P.\ 2001,
3829: \mnras, 325, 1500
3830: \bibitem[Reid \& Gilmore(1984)]{cit:reid1984}
3831: Reid, N., \& Gilmore, G.\ 1984,
3832: \mnras, 206, 19
3833: \bibitem[Schwadron \& Cravens(2000)]{cit:schwadron2000}
3834: Schwadron, N.~A., \& Cravens, T.~E.\ 2000,
3835: \apj, 544, 558
3836: \bibitem[Snowden et al.(1995)]{cit:snowden1995}
3837: Snowden, S.~L., et al.\ 1995,
3838: \apj, 454, 643
3839: \bibitem[Van den Oord \& Doyle(1997)]{cit:oord1997}
3840: van den Oord, G.~H.~J., \& Doyle, J.~G.\ 1997,
3841: \aap, 319, 578
3842: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar \& Ferlet(2002)]{cit:vidal2002}
3843: Vidal-Madjar, A., \& Ferlet, R.\ 2002,
3844: \apj, 571, L169
3845: \bibitem[von Steiger et al.(2000)]{cit:steiger2000}
3846: von Steiger, R., et al.\ 2000,
3847: J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 105, \mbox{27,217}
3848: \bibitem[Wargelin \& Drake(2001)]{cit:wargelin2001}
3849: Wargelin, B.~J., \& Drake, J.~J.\ 2001,
3850: \apj, 546, L57
3851: \bibitem[White(1996)]{cit:white1996}
3852: White, N.~E.\ 1996,
3853: in ASP Conf. Ser. 109,
3854: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, 9th Cambridge Workshop,
3855: ed.\ R.~Pallavicini \& A.~Dupree (San Francisco: ASP), 193
3856: \bibitem[Wood, Alexander, \& Linksy(1996)]{cit:woodetal1996}
3857: Wood, B.~E., Alexander, W.~R., \& Linsky, J.~L.\ 1996,
3858: \apj, 470, 1157
3859: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2001)]{cit:wood2001}
3860: Wood, B.~E., Linsky, J.~L., M\"{u}ller, H.~R., \& Zank, G.~P.\ 2001,
3861: \apj, 547, L49
3862:
3863:
3864:
3865: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccrccc}
3866: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
3867: \tablecolumns{8}
3868: \tablewidth{0pc}
3869: \tablecaption{Summary of Model Parameter Estimation \label{table:fits}}
3870: \tablehead{
3871: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Quiescent} & \colhead{} &
3872: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Flare} \\
3873: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-8} \\
3874: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{Metallicity\tablenotemark{a}}
3875: & \colhead{$kT$\tablenotemark{b}}
3876: & \colhead{norm\tablenotemark{c}} &
3877: \colhead{} & \colhead{Metallicity\tablenotemark{a}}
3878: & \colhead{$kT$\tablenotemark{b}}
3879: & \colhead{norm\tablenotemark{d}}}
3880: \startdata
3881: isoT/solar abund &[M/H]$\equiv$0 & $0.31\pm0.01$ & $4.1\pm0.1$ &
3882: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
3883: & & & &
3884: & & & \\
3885: isoT/abund free &[M/H]$=-1.0\pm^{0.1}_{0.05}$ & $0.50\pm0.03$ & $2.0\pm0.1$ &
3886: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
3887: & & & &
3888: & & & \\
3889: isoT/grouped abund & [Fe/H]=$-0.9\pm0.1$ & $0.37\pm0.03$ & $22\pm2$ &
3890: & [Fe/H]=$-0.6\pm^{0.5}_{0.2}$ & $0.81\pm^{0.4}_{0.1}$ & $11\pm^{7}_{4}$ \\
3891: & [Mg/H]$=-0.2\pm0.2$ & & &
3892: & [Mg/H]$=0.1\pm^{0.4}_{0.3}$ & & \\
3893: & [Ne/H]$=-0.2\pm0.1$ & & &
3894: & [Ne/H]$<0.8$ & & \\
3895: & [O/H]$=-0.7\pm0.1$ & & &
3896: & & & \\
3897: & & & &
3898: & & & \\
3899: multiT/solar abund &[M/H]$\equiv$0 & 1.37 & $4.6\pm0.3$ &
3900: & [M/H]$\equiv$0 & 1.37 & $92\pm14$ \\
3901: & & 0.68 & $1.4\pm0.3$ &
3902: & & 0.68 & $16\pm9$ \\
3903: & & 0.34 & $1.4\pm0.2$ &
3904: & & 0.34 & $8.5\pm7.2$\\
3905: & & 0.17 & $1.5\pm0.4$ &
3906: & & & \\
3907: & & 0.085 & $<3.9$ &
3908: & & & \\
3909: \enddata
3910:
3911: \tablenotetext{a}{
3912: All abundances are expressed in the usual logarithmic bracket notation
3913: relative to solar photospheric abundances tabulated by Anders \& Grevesse 1989.
3914: See also \S3.2.
3915: }
3916: \tablenotetext{b}{
3917: Temperature parameters are expressed in energy units of keV.
3918: }
3919: \tablenotetext{c}{
3920: Normalizations for fits to the quiescent spectrum must be multiplied
3921: by 19.2 to account for the loss of events due to pileup.
3922: The adjusted normalizations correspond to the plasma emission measure in
3923: units of $10^{-19}/ (4 \pi D^2) \int n_e n_H \;
3924: dV$, where $D$ is the distance to Proxima~Cen (1.30pc) and $n_e$ and $n_H$
3925: are the electron and hydrogen number densities, respectively.
3926: }
3927: \tablenotetext{d}{
3928: For the flare fits,
3929: normalizations must be multiplied by 21.1 to correct for pileup losses.
3930: }
3931: \end{deluxetable}
3932:
3933:
3934:
3935: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
3936: \tablecaption{Charge Exchange Cross Sections \label{table:cxcross}}
3937: \tablewidth{0pt}
3938: \tablehead{
3939: & \colhead{Neutral} & \colhead{$\sigma_{CX}$}
3940: & \colhead{Uncert.} & \colhead{Capture} \\
3941: \colhead{Ion} & \colhead{Species} & \colhead{(10$^{-15}$ cm$^{2}$)}
3942: & \colhead{(\%)} & \colhead{Levels}
3943: }
3944: \startdata
3945: C$^{5+}$ & H & 2.2\tablenotemark{a} & 20 & $n=4$ \\
3946: C$^{5+}$ & He & 1.5\tablenotemark{a} & 50 & $n=3$ \\
3947: C$^{6+}$ & H & 3.9\tablenotemark{a} & 20 & $4f,4d$ \\
3948: C$^{6+}$ & He & 0.9\tablenotemark{a} & 40 & $3p,3d$ \\
3949: N$^{7+}$ & H & 5.0\tablenotemark{b} & 30 & $n=5$ \\
3950: N$^{7+}$ & He & 3.0\tablenotemark{c} & 40 & $n=4$ \\
3951: O$^{7+}$ & H & 5.1\tablenotemark{a} & 20 & $n=4,5$ \\
3952: O$^{7+}$ & He & 1.5\tablenotemark{a} & 30 & $n=4$ \\
3953: O$^{8+}$ & H & 5.0\tablenotemark{a} & 20 & $5f,5g,5d$ \\
3954: O$^{8+}$ & He & 3.0\tablenotemark{a} & 30 & $n=4$ \\
3955: \enddata
3956:
3957: \tablenotetext{a}{
3958: Data from Phaneuf, Janev, \& Pindzola 1987, assuming a collision
3959: velocity of 550 km sec$^{-1}$. Cross sections vary by less than
3960: 10\% from the listed value between 400 and at least 700 km sec$^{-1}$.
3961: }
3962: \tablenotetext{b}{
3963: The theoretical cross sections of Harel, Jouin, \& Pons 1998
3964: for O$^{8+}$ and N$^{7+}$ + H are virtually identical
3965: ($5.66 \times 10^{-15}$ cm$^{2}$ at 440 km sec${-1}$),
3966: so we apply the Phaneuf, Janev, \& Pindzola 1987 value for O$^{8+}$
3967: to N$^{7+}$.
3968: }
3969: \tablenotetext{c}{
3970: By analogy, we use the same cross section for
3971: N$^{7+}$ + He as for O$^{8+}$ + He.
3972: Cross sections for He-like Si, He-like and Li-like and S, and H-like N$^{6+}$
3973: are assumed to be $4 \times 10^{-15}$ cm$^{2}$;
3974: these are minor contributors and errors in their
3975: cross sections are unimportant.
3976: }
3977: \end{deluxetable}
3978:
3979:
3980:
3981:
3982: \begin{deluxetable}{lcr}
3983: \tablecaption{Modeled CX Emission Lines \label{table:lines}}
3984: \tablewidth{0pt}
3985: \tablehead{
3986: & \colhead{Energy} & \colhead{Eff. Area} \\
3987: \colhead{Line} & \colhead{(eV)} & \colhead{(cm$^{2}$)}
3988: }
3989: \startdata
3990: C K$\alpha$ & 304 & 55 \\
3991: C Ly$\alpha$ & 368 & 200 \\
3992: C Ly$\gamma$ & 459 & 322 \\
3993: N K$\alpha$ & 426 & 274 \\
3994: N Ly$\alpha$ & 500 & 371 \\
3995: N Ly$\gamma$ & 625 & 416 \\
3996: O K$\alpha$ & 570 & 359 \\
3997: O Ly$\alpha$ & 654 & 443 \\
3998: O Ly$\delta$ & 836 & 561 \\
3999: \enddata
4000: \tablecomments{
4001: H-like Lyman emission
4002: is assumed to be divided equally between Ly$\alpha$ and transitions
4003: from the CX-capture level directly to ground.
4004: Effective areas have an uncertainty of
4005: approximately 10\%.
4006: }
4007: \end{deluxetable}
4008:
4009:
4010:
4011: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
4012: \tablecaption{Parameters for the Slow Solar Wind \label{table:vonSteiger}}
4013: \tablewidth{0pt}
4014: \tablehead{
4015: & \colhead{Rel.} & \colhead{H-like} &
4016: \colhead{Bare} & \colhead{$\log T_{\mathrm{freeze}}$} \\
4017: \colhead{Element} & \colhead{Abund.} & \colhead{Fraction} &
4018: \colhead{Fraction} & \colhead{(K)}
4019: }
4020: \startdata
4021: C & 0.670 & 0.31 & 0.48 & 6.13 \\
4022: N & 0.0785& 0.74 & 0.08 & 6.15 \\
4023: O & 1 & 0.20 & 0.07 & 6.20 \\
4024: \enddata
4025: \tablecomments{
4026: Data are taken from
4027: von Steiger et al.\ 2000 and Schwadron \& Cravens 2000.
4028: The value of $T_{\mathrm{freeze}}$ for N ions was not listed,
4029: and is our estimate.
4030: As noted by von Steiger et al., a
4031: single temperature characterization becomes problematic with
4032: increasing $Z$; based on the tabulation of Mazzotta et al.\ 1998,
4033: we estimate the best $\log T_{\mathrm{freeze}}$ value
4034: for O lies between 6.2 and 6.3.
4035: For the fast solar wind, $\log T_{\mathrm{freeze}}$ is
4036: roughly 0.16 lower for each element.
4037: }
4038: \end{deluxetable}
4039:
4040:
4041: % &Abund. &Fraction &Fraction & ($\log T$(K)) \\
4042:
4043:
4044:
4045:
4046: \end{document}
4047:
4048: