1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4: %\usepackage{epsf}
5: %\usepackage[hang,small,bf]{caption}
6: %\setlength{captionmargin}{20pt}
7: \usepackage{apjfonts}
8:
9: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.\ }
10: \newcommand{\kms}{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}
11: \newcommand{\cmsq}{\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
12: \newcommand{\cc}{\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
13: \newcommand{\flux}{\hbox{erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$}}
14: \newcommand{\lumin}{\hbox{ergs~s$^{-1}$}}
15: \newcommand{\persec}{\hbox{s$^{-1}$}}
16: \newcommand{\aox}{$\alpha_{\rm ox}$}
17: \newcommand{\nh}{\hbox{${N}_{\rm H}$}}
18: %\newcommand{\h}{$h_{70}^{-1}$}
19:
20: \newcommand{\h}{$H_0=70\, {\rm km\, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$}
21:
22: \newcommand{\epsi}{$g_{\rm k}\, $}
23: \newcommand{\epsikin}{$\epsilon_{\rm k}\, $}
24:
25: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\emph{Chandra}}}
26: \newcommand{\cxo}{{\emph{Chandra X-ray Observatory}}}
27: \newcommand{\xmm}{\emph{XMM-Newton}}
28: \newcommand{\asca}{{\emph{ASCA}}}
29: \newcommand{\rosat}{\emph{ROSAT}}
30: \newcommand{\hst}{\emph{HST}}
31:
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \def\sarc{$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$}
36: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}
37: \def\arcmin{$^{\prime}$}
38: \def\degr{$^{\circ}$}
39: \def\seco{$^{\rm s}\!\!.$}
40: \def\ls{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel<\over\sim\;$}}
41: \def\gs{\lower 2pt \hbox{$\;\scriptscriptstyle \buildrel>\over\sim\;$}}
42: \def\lk{$L_{\rm KIN}$}
43:
44: \title{The Optical-Radio Mapping: the kinetic efficiency of Radio-Loud AGNs}
45:
46: \author{Francesco Shankar\altaffilmark{1}, Alfonso Cavaliere\altaffilmark{2}, Michele Cirasuolo\altaffilmark{3} and Laura Maraschi\altaffilmark{4}}
47: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy,
48: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210,
49: shankar@astronomy.ohio-state.edu} \altaffiltext{2}{Astrofisica, Dip.
50: Fisica Univ. "Tor Vergata", Via Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma,
51: Italy} \altaffiltext{3}{SUPA Institute for Astronomy, University of
52: Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh EH9, 3HJ}
53: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Brera
54: 28, 20121 Milano, Italy}
55:
56: %\begin{doublespace}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: We constrain the mean kinetic efficiency of radio-loud active
60: galactic nuclei by using an optically selected sample for which both
61: the optical and the radio luminosity functions (LFs) have been
62: determined; the former traces the bolometric luminosity $L$, while
63: the latter traces the kinetic power $L_{\rm k}$, empirically
64: correlated to the radio emission. Thus in terms of the ratio $g_{\rm
65: k}=L_{\rm k}/L$, we can convert the optical LF of the sample into a
66: radio one. This computed LF is shown to match the directly observed
67: LF for the same sample if $g_{\rm k}=0.10^{+0.05}_{-0.01}$ holds,
68: with a scatter $\sigma=0.38^{+0.04}_{-0.09}$ dex; with these values
69: we also match a number of independent correlations between $L_{\rm
70: k}$, $L$ and radio emission, that we derive through Monte Carlo
71: simulations. We proceed to translate the value of $g_{\rm k}$ into a
72: constraint on the kinetic efficiency for the production of radio
73: jets or winds, namely, $\epsilon_{\rm k}=L_{\rm k}/\dot{M}_{\rm
74: a}c^2\sim 0.01$ in terms of the rate $\dot{M}_{\rm a}$ of mass
75: accretion onto the central black hole. Then, on assuming that on
76: average the radio sources share the same kinetic efficiency, we
77: compute a solid lower limit of about $25\%$ on the contribution of
78: radio sources to the local black hole mass density.
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \keywords{cosmology: theory -- black hole: accretion -- quasars:
82: general -- radio sources: evolution}
83:
84: \section{INTRODUCTION}
85: \label{sec|intro}
86:
87: The origin of the radio-loudness of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)
88: still constitutes an open issue. There is evidence suggesting that
89: the formation of a relativistic jet or a fast wind (e.g., Blundell
90: \& Kuncic 2007) sustaining the radio emission is tightly related to
91: the mass of the central black hole (BH; e.g., Laor 2000). On the
92: other hand, the wide scatter observed between radio and optical
93: luminosities (e.g., Cirasuolo et al. 2003a) suggests that other
94: parameters such as the mass accretion rate onto the BH and possibly
95: its spin could play a significant role in determining when a galaxy
96: becomes radio-loud (e.g., Blandford et al. 1990, Ho 2002, Best et
97: al. 2005, Sikora et al. 2005 and references therein).
98:
99: At one enticing extreme, Blandford \& Znajek (1977) proposed the
100: jets to be powered by the extraction of energy already accumulated
101: in a rotating BH. On the other hand, the spin, however important to
102: set the jet direction, may not provide the necessary power for
103: energizing the very luminous sources such as some Steep Spectrum
104: Radio sources (SSRs) and many Flat Spectrum Quasars (FSQs).
105:
106: Alternative models (e.g., Livio et al. 1999) have proposed the
107: dominant fraction of the jet or wind kinetic power to be directly
108: linked to the rest-mass energy of the currently accreting matter, as
109: is the case for the radiative power. In any event, the kinetic power
110: must originate at some time from the accretion energy; thus a
111: constraint on the link between these two quantities is of key
112: importance to probe the still unsettled issues of the jet's
113: composition and production mechanisms (e.g., Celotti 2004).
114: %In particular one of the mechanisms proposed to explain the
115: %formation of the jets is the extraction of energy accumulated in a
116: %rotating BH (Blandford \& Znajek 1977). This implies a power
117: %proportional to the square of the intensity magnetic field threading
118: %the BH horizon and to the square of the angular momentum. However
119: %important to give the jet direction, the spin energy may not provide
120: %the necessary power to energize the very luminous sources such as
121: %the Steep Spectrum (SSR) and Flat Spectrum Quasars (FSQ) (Livio et
122: %al. 1999). Several theoretical models have proposed that a
123: %significant fraction of the jet kinetic power must be directly
124: %linked with the rest-mass energy of the accretion matter, as in the
125: %case of the radiated energy.
126:
127: In this work we propose a simple but efficient and statistically
128: significant way to constrain the fraction of \emph{kinetic} to
129: accretion power. In the case of the radiative bolometric luminosity
130: $L$, the emitted power is written as $L=\epsilon \dot{M}_{\rm
131: a}c^2$, where $\dot{M}_{\rm a}$ is the current accretion rate of
132: matter onto the central massive BH and $\epsilon$ is the efficiency
133: to extract $L$ from $\dot{M}_{\rm a}$. In an analogous way we can
134: set the kinetic output as $L_{\rm k}=\epsilon_{\rm k}\dot{M}_{\rm
135: a}c^2=(\epsilon_{\rm k}/ \epsilon)\, L$. We assume that the AGN
136: kinetic output represents a fraction \epsi of the bolometric
137: luminosity, i.e.,
138: \begin{equation}
139: L_{\rm k}=g_{\rm k}L\, ;
140: \label{eq|LkinL}
141: \end{equation}
142: this implies that $g_{\rm k}=\epsilon_{\rm k}/ \epsilon$ if the two
143: outputs draw from the same accretion flow. Thus one could constrain
144: $g_{\rm k}$ and in turn $\epsilon_{\rm k}$ by selecting a
145: statistically significant sample of radio-loud AGNs for which both
146: the radio and optical luminosities are known. The latter is in fact
147: a good tracer of the bolometric emission, given that AGN spectral
148: studies have provided over the years a reliable average bolometric
149: correction $C_B=L/L_B\nu_B\approx 10$, where the $B$-band luminosity
150: $L_B$ is in units of ${\rm erg\,s^{-1}Hz^{-1}}$ and $\nu_B=6.8\times
151: 10^{14}\, {\rm Hz}$ (Elvis et al. 1994). In turn, significant radio
152: emission is always associated with kinetic power, and several papers
153: (referred to in \S~\ref{sec|Method}) provide and discuss empirical
154: correlations between $L_{\rm k}$ and the radio luminosity $L_{\rm
155: R}$.
156:
157: Our aim is to \emph{statistically} derive the fraction of the
158: accreting rest mass energy that powers the jets or winds by
159: computing the average ratio $g_{\rm k}$, and then derive a lower
160: limit to the predicted local BH mass density associated with
161: radio-loud AGNs. In \S~\ref{sec|Method} we will present our method,
162: the results of which will be given in \S~\ref{sec|results}. In
163: \S~\ref{sec|soltan} we will describe in detail how to compute the
164: corresponding contribution to the BH mass density using the value of
165: \epsikin. In \S~\ref{sec|conclu} we will discuss our results and
166: give our conclusions.
167:
168: In the following we will adopt the "concordance cosmology" (see
169: Spergel et al. 2007) with round parameters \h, $\Omega_m=0.3$ and
170: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
171:
172: \section{The method}
173: \label{sec|Method}
174:
175: In this \S$\, $we describe how we statistically constrain the ratio
176: between kinetic and bolometric luminosities $g_{\rm k}$. Our
177: database will be constituted by the optical and the radio luminosity
178: functions (LFs) derived by Cirasuolo, Magliocchetti \& Celotti
179: (2005; henceforth CMC) for the same sample of optically selected
180: radio-loud AGNs; this is collected by cross-correlating the 2-degree
181: Field Quasar Redshift survey (2dF) with the Faint Images Radio Sky
182: at Twenty cm (FIRST). The sample spans a considerable range in
183: magnitude $-24\lesssim M_B\lesssim -28$ and redshift $0.8\lesssim z
184: \lesssim 2.2$. In the following we will start from their optical
185: LF\footnote{Here we point out that the correct values of the CMC
186: double power-law LF should read: $\alpha=0.228$, $\beta=2.37$ for
187: the slopes, $\Phi_0=6.1\times10^{-8}\,\, {\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ for the
188: normalization and $M^*(z)=M^*(0)-2.5(k_1 z+k_2 z^2)$, with
189: $k_1=2.24$, $k_2=-0.696$, for the break luminosity.} with parameters
190: adjusted to our cosmology.
191:
192: We then convert the adopted optical LF to a bolometric one by using
193: the average value $C_B=10.4$ with a log-normal scatter of 0.1 dex
194: around the mean. We have checked that our results are not sensitive
195: to the precise value of $C_B$, as very similar conclusions are found
196: also on using $C_B\approx 8$ (e.g., Marconi et al. 2004, Richards et
197: al. 2006). The direct link between optical and radio luminosities
198: has been already extensively studied by CMC (and references therein)
199: who find that a correlation between these two quantities exists,
200: although with a wide scatter.
201:
202: In this work we are mainly focused on constraining the average
203: kinetic output of radio-loud AGNs. Several studies have been able to
204: empirically define the relation between radio emissions and kinetic
205: outputs, showing that on average the former are associated to high
206: levels of the latter (e.g., Rawling and Saunders 1991). After
207: expressing the bolometric LF in terms of kinetic luminosities via
208: Eq.~(\ref{eq|LkinL}), we convert to radio powers on using the
209: relation of Willott et al. (1999)
210: \begin{equation}
211: L_{\rm k}=3\times 10^{45} f^{3/2}L_{151}^{6/7} {\rm \,\, erg\,
212: s^{-1}}\, ,
213: %L_{151}=f^{-7/4}\left(\frac{L_{\rm k}}{3\times
214: %10^{45}}\right)^{7/6}\, ,
215: \label{eq|Willott}
216: \end{equation}
217: where $L_{151}$ is the observed radio luminosity in units of
218: $10^{28}\, {\rm W\, Hz^{-1}\, sr^{-1}}$ at 151 MHz.
219:
220: In Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) $L_{\rm k}$ was empirically measured on
221: tracing the integrated $pdV$ work done by radio AGNs in excavating
222: the cavities observed in the hot gaseous medium around them. The
223: relation calibrated by Willott et al. (1999) relies therefore on
224: specific assumptions on how to link the age of the source to its
225: kinetic power. Following Hardcastle et al. (2007), the factor $f$ is
226: introduced in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) to account for systematic
227: underestimates of the true jet power that this technique may induce;
228: for example, the quantity $f$ also includes the coupling efficiency
229: between the AGN kinetic output and the surrounding medium. In the
230: following we will use (and discuss in \S~\ref{sec|conclu}) the
231: average value $f=15$, as measured for a sample of Faranoff-Rayleigh
232: I and II radio galaxies (Hardcastle et al. 2007 and references
233: therein).
234:
235: Note that both $L_k$ and $L_{151}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) are
236: calibrated on samples mainly composed of radio galaxies; however, if
237: the unification model is to hold on average for all radio sources
238: (see Urry \& Padovani 1995), AGNs and radio galaxies are similar
239: physical systems only observed at different angles; so we will take
240: Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) to hold also for our sample of radio-loud
241: AGNs. Throughout we will adopt an average AGN radio spectral slope
242: $\alpha_R=0.7$, typical of the bright Steep Spectrum radio sources
243: sampled by CMC (see also references therein). A Gaussian scatter
244: with variance $\sigma$ is adopted around the mean of both
245: Eqs.~(\ref{eq|LkinL}) and ~(\ref{eq|Willott}).
246:
247: Thus we obtain a radio LF which depends on only two free parameters,
248: \epsi and $\sigma$, once $f$ is fixed. The values of \epsi and
249: $\sigma$ are then constrained through a $\chi^2$ analysis by
250: matching our result to the radio LF independently measured by CMC.
251: %This value is also close to the average value of $f\sim 10$
252: %derived by Maraschi (2004) for a sample of blazars.
253:
254: \section{RESULTS OF OPTICAL-RADIO MAPPING}
255: \label{sec|results}
256: %
257: %By multiplying the Richards et al. (2005)'s optical LF by the
258: %redshift and luminosity dependent We have compared in fact with the
259: %work discuss the comparison between the CMC work with the recent
260: %results obtained from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) by Jiang
261: %et al. (2007). We perform this comparison in order to check for the
262: %existence of any possible bias linked with the CMC sample which
263: %could alter their determination of the optical and/or radio LF.
264: %Jiang et al. (2007) cross-correlated a wide sample of optically
265: %selected quasars from SDSS with FIRST, determining the radio-loud
266: %fraction of quasars as a function of redshift and luminosity. We
267: %multiply the Richards et al. (2005) LF, representative of the total
268: %population of optical AGNs, by the Jiang et al. (2007) radio
269: %duty-cycle. In Fig.~(\ref{fig|duty}) we show this estimate of the
270: %optical LF of radio-loud AGNs with a dashed line with its $1-\sigma$
271: %uncertainty in the radio duty-cycle inferred by Jiang et al. (2007;
272: %striped region; the $g$-band LF has been converted to $B$ band using
273: %$M_B=M_g+0.115$). The CMC result is instead shown with a solid line
274: %with its $1-\sigma$ uncertainty region (grey area). There is
275: %evidence for good agreement at all relevant luminosities between the
276: %two independent determinations within the uncertainties. For
277: %reference we show the comparison at only two redshift bins, $z=1.2$
278: %and $z=1.7$ (Fig. \ref{fig|duty}), however the comparison is good
279: %throughout the redshift range probed by CMC. %It is worth noting that
280: %even though the bright ends of the CMC radio and optical LFs are not
281: %properly sampled by the FIRST-2dF sample they in good agreement with
282: %estimates from brighter surveys (Willott et al. 2001; La Franca ...)
283: %as shown in CMC. By applying the duty-cycle radio inferred by Jiang
284: %et al. (2007) to the optical LF of the whole quasar population as
285: %derived by Richards et al. (2005) we obtain an estimate of the radio
286: %LF of optically selected quasars. The $g$-band LF of Richards et al.
287: %has been converted to $B$ band using $M_B=M_g+0.115$ (e.g. Richards
288: %et al. 2005). The comparison with the CMC optical LF of radio loud
289: %quasars is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig|duty} and within the
290: %uncertainties the good agreement extends over nearly two decades in
291: %luminosity.
292:
293: Our computed radio LF, shown as a solid line in
294: Fig.~\ref{fig|Phiradio}, fits the CMC data on the empirical radio LF
295: (solid points) when
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: g_{\rm k}=0.10^{+0.05}_{-0.01} \nonumber\\
298: \sigma=0.38^{+0.04}_{-0.09}\, . \label{eq|gkin}
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: The grey area in Fig.~\ref{fig|Phiradio} shows the propagated
301: $1\sigma$ uncertainty from the optical LF. The match is good at all
302: luminosities and redshifts in the sample using the same value for
303: $g_{\rm k}$ (shown are the results for $z=1.3$ and $z=2$).
304: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin}) implies a relatively small amount of power
305: %carried by the jet relative to radiative emission; if the observed
306: %jet power were close to the true kinetic power, i.e., if $f\sim 1$
307: %in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}), then $g_{\rm k}$ would be even
308: %smaller. %The
309: %error-bars on \epsi are derived by matching the transformed optical
310: %LF with the $1\sigma$ uncertainties in the CMC radio data.
311: %(all three in units of $erg\, s^{-1}$)
312:
313: We note that on adopting a Gaussian scatter we are able to reproduce
314: the mean and extent of the observed scatter around it, within a
315: given bin of optical luminosity. Fig.~\ref{fig|simulations} shows
316: our results (solid lines) for $-24\lesssim M_B\lesssim -25$ and
317: $-25\lesssim M_B\lesssim -26$ compared to the data collected by CMC
318: (dashed lines). Neglecting scatter in the relations (dotted lines)
319: would instead lead to a severe underestimate of the significant
320: spread observed in the data. %We also note that incompleteness
321: %effects are accounted for in the optical and radio LFs by CMC.
322:
323: We have also performed other checks and tests on our results. To
324: look for possible biases in the optical selection of radio sources,
325: we have compared our determination of the optical LF with the recent
326: results by Jiang et al. (2007). These authors have cross-correlated
327: a large sample of optically selected quasars from SDSS with FIRST,
328: determining the radio-loud fraction of quasars as a function of
329: redshift and luminosity. By multiplying the LF by Richards et al.
330: (2005), representative of the whole population of optical AGNs, by
331: the Jiang et al. (2007) fraction of radio sources as a function of
332: optical luminosity, we can evaluate the radio-optical LF expected
333: from the SDSS data; in Fig.~\ref{fig|PhiOpt} we show this with a
334: dashed line in two reference redshift bins at $z=1.3$ and $z=2$.
335: Also shown with a striped area is the $1-\sigma$ uncertainty region
336: derived from the uncertainty in the Jiang et al. (2007) radio-loud
337: fraction. On the same plots we compare the completeness-corrected
338: evaluations by CMC for their radio-optical sample; we show their
339: data points as solid filled circles with error bars, together with
340: their best-fit estimate represented with a solid line. The good
341: match between the two evaluations supports the absence of any
342: specific bias in our adopted LFs, at least for $M_B\lesssim -24.5$
343: where most of the sample sources reside (cfr.
344: Fig.~\ref{fig|simulations}).
345:
346: Through Monte Carlo sampling we then extract a sample of sources
347: from the optical LF with a given $L_B$ \footnote{All simulation
348: results presented in the following are provided by averages over
349: 1000 realizations, each one with 10000 points.}, from which we
350: compute $L$, $L_{\rm k}$ and $L_{\rm R}$ by using
351: Eqs.~(\ref{eq|LkinL}) and (\ref{eq|Willott}) with their scatters
352: having fixed $g_{\rm k}$ to the value given in Eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin}).
353: In this way we build simulated distributions and correlations among
354: these observables, which we compare with a number of different data
355: sets.
356:
357: %We sample bins of
358: %luminosities below and above the peak in the optical LF as measured
359: %by CMC, finding very good correspondence with the data.
360: %We cannot compare with the very low/high luminosity ends of the LF,
361: %due to poor statistics in the data. Moreover the comparison with CMC
362: %shows that our simple prescription of a Gaussian scatter can account
363: %for most of all the possible, if any, beaming effects in the sample.
364: %
365: %We have also simulated beaming effects following Urry \& Padovani
366: %(1991), which however produce much skewer distributions than those
367: %observed.
368:
369: %We also show in that our simulated kinetic luminosities compare
370: %well with other sets of independent data.
371: Fig.~\ref{fig|relations} (left panel) shows our simulated $L_{\rm
372: R}-L_{\rm k}$ correlation, which is equivalent in slope, and
373: slightly lower in normalization but still compatible, relative to
374: the one derived by Heinz, Merloni \& Schwab (2007), and shown by the
375: long-dashed line with $1\sigma$ uncertainties shown as dotted lines.
376: Note that their relation is calibrated on a sample of FSQs, which
377: could be more beamed and/or energetic than our SSR dominated sample
378: (see also \S~\ref{sec|conclu}). Also shown with solid points and
379: error bars are the sets of data by B\^{i}rzan et al. (2004) and
380: Allen et al. (2006).
381:
382: As Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) might appear to be model-dependent, in the
383: right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig|relations} we also show how our results
384: on $L_{\rm k}$ relate to the narrow emission lines luminosities
385: $L_{\rm NLR}$\footnote{We use the conversions $L_{\rm NLR}=3(3L_{\rm
386: OII}+1.5L_{\rm OIII})$, $L_{\rm OII}=L_{\rm OIII}$ and $L_{\rm
387: OII}=L/5\times 10^3$ with scatter equal to $\sigma$ (e.g Willott et
388: al. 1999).}, and compare with the data points collected by Rawlings
389: \& Saunders (1991). The good agreement between our results and
390: theirs, which were derived under different assumptions from Willott
391: et al.
392: (1999), is encouraging. %The good agreement between their findings on the
393: %kinetic power needed for the large scale radio lobes and ours,
394: %derived from the accretion just at the BH, also supports the idea of
395: %jets being highly collimated and energetic out to kiloparsec scales
396: %(see also Celotti \& Fabian 1993, Celotti et al. 1997).
397: %
398: %The technique used by Rawlings \& Saunders (1991), is the one also
399: %later adopted by Willott et al. (1999). We caution the reader that
400: %both the results of these two groups rely on some assumptions about,
401: %for example, modeling how to link the age of the source to its
402: %%those presented in Rawlings \& Saunders (1991) is encouraging.
403:
404: %These authors take the observed radio LF of FLQ and
405: %convert it into a kinetic LF using a relation calibrated by the
406: %authors between $L_{\rm k}$ and radio luminosity $L_{\rm RAD}$
407: %(shown with a long-dashed line with its error bars as dotted lines).
408: %We find that our inferred relation is equivalent in slope and
409: %compatible in normalization, with the one derived by Heinz et al.
410: %(2007). FSQ also could have higher $L_{\rm k}$ for a fixed $L_{\rm
411: %RAD}$ and/or higher beaming for a fixed $L_{\rm k}$, with respect
412: %to our simulated sample, which is mainly dominated by much less
413: %beamed Steep Spectrum sources (see CMC).
414: %The main results of this paper would however
415: %still hold, being our best fit value still of order a few percent,
416: %e.g. $g_{\rm k}=0.5$, which implies $\epsilon_{\rm k}\sim 0.05$
417: %if $\epsilon \sim 0.1$.
418: %
419: %Finally, we also note that our results also agree with the relation
420: %calibrated by Xu et al. (1999) for a large sample of radio-loud AGNs
421: %with well defined radio core luminosities.
422: %
423: %Finally we notice that when converting our simulated $P_{\rm 1.4
424: %GHz}$ to $P_{\rm 5 GHz}$, we get a best fit of $\log L_{\rm 5
425: %GHz}=(0.69\pm 0.12)\log L_{\rm OIII}+(0.20\pm 4.52)$, close to the
426: %empirical calibrated relation found by Xu et al. (1999; converted to
427: %\h) $L_{\rm 5 GHz}=(0.78\pm 0.07)\log L_{\rm OIII}+(3.24\pm 1.1)$,
428: %for a large sample of radio-loud AGNs with well defined radio core
429: %luminosities.
430:
431: %\section{DISCUSSION}
432: %\label{sec|discu}
433: %
434: %\section{BIASES IN THE METHODOLOGY}
435: %\label{sec|biases}
436: %A similar
437: %comparison for the radio LF was done by CMC, who have shown in their
438: %Fig. 3 that, after correcting for completeness, their radio LF is
439: %consistent with other estimates in the literature (see CMC for
440: %further details).
441:
442: %In this \S we discuss two possible and meaningful applications
443: %of the result obtained in \S~\ref{sec|results}. While the
444: %conclusions drawn in the first part of the paper rely on the data
445: %themselves with a minimum set of assumptions, in this second half of
446: %the paper our conclusions rely on a set of assumptions which,
447: %however, if confirmed true by future work, will shed light on two
448: %basic and still highly debated issues regarding the radioloud AGN
449: %population.
450: %
451: %We find that using an average conversion efficiency of \epsi=0.15,
452: %between bolometric luminosity and kinetic luminosity, we can
453: %reproduce several pieces of independent observational evidence.
454: %Mainly we are able to map the optical LF of optically selected
455: %radio-loud AGNs to a radio LF consistent with the data, at all
456: %redshifts and luminosities probed by CMC.
457: %
458: %
459: \section{THE KINETIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE BH MASS FUNCTION}
460: \label{sec|soltan}
461:
462: Constraining the total kinetic power from massive BHs is of key
463: importance for several models of galaxy evolution (e.g., Croton et
464: al. 2006, Cavaliere \& Lapi 2007) which require a significant amount
465: of kinetic feedback from the massive BHs to prevent catastrophic
466: cooling in the cores of groups and clusters of galaxies and limit
467: the formation of too massive galaxies in the local universe.
468:
469: Thus in this \S$\, $we use our above results to evaluate the total
470: kinetic energy associated to SSRs. As discussed later in
471: \S~\ref{sec|conclu}, we shall not include additional contributions
472: to the kinetic integrated AGN emission from other other kinds of
473: AGNs, such as FSQs or radiatively inefficient sources, whose
474: modeling is uncertain. Rather, our aim is to provide a firm
475: \emph{lower} limit to the actual contribution of radio-kinetic AGNs
476: to the local mass density in black holes.
477:
478: To compute this, we reverse the classic So{\l}tan (1982) approach,
479: which consists of estimating the average radiative efficiency
480: $\epsilon$ by dividing the integrated energy density observed from
481: AGNs by the local mass density in relic BHs. After computing the
482: integrated kinetic energy from SSRs, we divide it by our best-fit
483: value for the kinetic efficiency \epsikin, and time-integrate to
484: derive the local BH mass function expected from kinetically active
485: SSRs. By comparing the latter with the local mass function of the
486: whole BH population, we derive a lower limit to the fraction of the
487: relic BHs which have been kinetically active in their past.
488:
489: We start from considering that during an accretion episode onto the
490: central BH a fraction of the accreting mass energy is released as
491: radiative and/or kinetic power. In \S~\ref{sec|results} we evaluated
492: the ratio \epsi to be of order $10^{-1}$, which in turn implies a
493: kinetic efficiency of \epsikin$\sim 10^{-2}$, if the sources in the
494: CMC sample possess on average the same radiative efficiency
495: $\epsilon\sim 0.1$ typical of AGNs (e.g., So{\l}tan 1982). Here we
496: make the specific assumption that this value of $\epsilon_k$ is
497: common to all Steep Spectrum kinetically-loud AGNs, irrespective of
498: their radiative emission. The total energy extracted reads
499: \begin{equation}
500: L_{\rm tot}=L+L_{\rm k}=(\epsilon+\epsilon_{\rm k})\,
501: \dot{M}_{a}c^2\, .
502: \label{eq|LMdot}
503: \end{equation}
504: Therefore the total mass accreted onto the central BH is
505: \begin{equation}
506: \dot{M}_{BH}=(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm k})\, \dot{M}_{a}\, ,
507: \label{eq|MdotBH}
508: \end{equation}
509: which converts to
510: \begin{equation}
511: \dot{M}_{BH}=\frac{(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm k})\, L_{\rm
512: k}}{\epsilon_{\rm k}c^2}\, \label{eq|MdotBHLkin}
513: \end{equation}
514: on using Eq.~(\ref{eq|LMdot}).
515: %, or also
516: %\begin{equation}
517: %\dot{M}_{BH}=\frac{(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm k})L}{\epsilon c^2}\,
518: %. \label{eq|MdotBHLrad}
519: %\end{equation}
520:
521: By integrating the last equation over time and luminosity, and
522: equating it to the local mass density $\rho_{\rm BH}$ in relic BHs,
523: we obtain the kinetic ``So{\l}tan-type'' argument
524: \begin{equation}
525: \rho_{\rm BH}=\int dz\frac{dt}{dz} \int d\log L_{\rm k}\,
526: \Phi(L_{\rm k},z)\, \frac{(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm k})\, L_{\rm
527: k}}{c^2\epsilon_{\rm k}} \label{eq|SoltanKin}\, ,
528: \end{equation}
529: where $\Phi(L_{\rm k},z)$ is the \emph{kinetic} luminosity function
530: of AGNs in units of ${\rm Mpc^{-3}\, dex^{-1}}$ defined below.
531:
532: %The kinetic efficiency \epsikin$=\epsilon$\epsi is then computed on
533: %adopting a radiative efficiency of $\epsilon=0.1$, a typical value
534: %for radiatively efficient AGNs (e.g., So{\l}tan 1982).
535: The value of \epsi derived in \S~\ref{sec|results} was calibrated on
536: the CMC sample which is representative of radio-loud and optically
537: bright AGNs, mostly composed of SSRs. Neglecting to lowest order
538: $\epsilon$ and \epsikin in the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin})
539: does not alter our conclusions. We now use as our wider database the
540: 5 GHz radio LF by De Zotti et al. (2005) specific for SSRs. The
541: Steep Spectrum kinetic luminosity function $\Phi(L_{\rm k},z)$ is
542: then derived by convolving this luminosity function with a Gaussian
543: with mean given by Eq.~(\ref{eq|LkinL}), where \epsi and the
544: dispersion $\sigma$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin}).
545:
546: %In Eqs.~(\ref{eq|MdotBH}) to
547: %(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) we allow all kinetic sources to also have an
548: %associated radiative output. As just discussed, the latter condition
549: %may not be necessarily true, however setting $\epsilon \approx 0$ in
550: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) does not alter our conclusions.
551: %Integrating Eq.~(\ref{eq|MdotBHLrad}) instead yields the usual
552: %"radiative" So{\l}tan argument
553: %\begin{equation}
554: %\rho_{\rm BH}=\int dz\frac{dt}{dz} \int d\log
555: %L\Phi(L,z)\frac{(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm k})L}{c^2\epsilon}
556: %\label{eq|SoltanRad}\, ,
557: %\end{equation}
558: %where $\Phi(L,z)$ is the total AGN bolometric LF. In the original
559: %version of the radiative So{\l}tan argument,
560: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanRad}) is written without any "extra" release
561: %of energy other than the radiative one, therefore in that case,
562: %$\epsilon$ is the only free parameter left to be constrained in
563: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanRad}). By redoing the full calculation as in
564: %Shankar et al. (2007), we have checked that the inclusion of an
565: %extra parameter with low value, $\epsilon_{\rm k}\lesssim 0.02$,
566: %does not alter the general results on the radiative So{\l}tan
567: %argument, as expected.
568: %
569: %
570: % the
571: %reverse could not be true and therefore the "correction" for
572: %$\epsilon_{\rm k}$ in
573: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanRad}) could not be an appropriate choice. %In
574: %fact, it could also be easily true that \emph{not} all radiative
575: %AGNs have an associated radio-loud phase.
576: %In other words, the fact that only a few percent of the optical
577: %population of AGNs is radio-loud (e.g., Shen et al. 2007), could be
578: %due to a "duty-cycle" effect, i.e., the timescale for the radio
579: %output could be much shorter than the radiative one (although still
580: %a significant process in energy release). On the other hand, the
581: %radio-loud fraction of AGNs could be a real "physical" effect, i.e.,
582: %only a small fraction of the total AGN population goes through a
583: %radio-loud phase during its evolution due to a still not defined
584: %mechanism.
585: %
586: %To this purpose we therefore plug into Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin})
587: %our best-fit value $\epsilon_{\rm k}=g_{\rm k}\epsilon=0.01$,
588: %(fixing $\epsilon=0.1$ for simplicity, within the range constrained
589: %by several studies, e.g., Marconi et al. 2004, Shankar et al. 2004,
590: %Hopkins et al. 2007, Shankar et al. 2007, in preparation). The
591: %kinetic LF is then computed by converting the Willott et al. (2001)
592: %radio LF at 151 MHz representative of all radio
593: %sources\footnote{Note that here we are also including radio galaxies
594: %in our census of kinetic BHs, as these sources are
595: %considered to be the "obscured" version of the radio luminous
596: %AGNs.}, converted into a kinetic LF using
597: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) with a 0.38 dex scatter around the mean.
598: %We then compute the cumulative BH mass density as a function
599: %of redshift using the right hand side of
600: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}).
601: %
602: %Our results, obtained in \S~\ref{sec|results}, can be very
603: %useful in constraining the fundamental issue regarding the actual
604: %radio-loud fraction of AGNs. %In fact, by plugging our best-fit value
605: %for \epsi into Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}), and assuming that
606: %radio loud AGNs share, on average, the same radiative efficiency as
607: %radio quiet ones, we can predict the total accreted mass density and
608: %mass function, associated to the whole radio loud population. By
609: %comparing this estimate to the total mass density today in galaxies,
610: %$\rho_{\rm BH}$, we can constrain the average fraction of the local
611: %BHs which have ever undergone a radio-loud phase in their
612: %past (an argument valid at least for the most massive ones).
613:
614: Our result is shown by the solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig|rhokin}. It
615: is seen that at $z\approx 0$ the BH mass density we evaluate to be
616: associated to the Steep Spectrum radio-loud population is about
617: $25\%$ of the BH mass density found in local
618: galaxies (light grey area). %Interestingly we find that $\rho_{\rm k}$ matches a
619: %value of $0.2\rho_{\rm BH}$ instead (light grey area), supporting
620: %the idea that only a minority of the relic BHs present in
621: %the local universe have undergone a radio-loud kinetic phase (at
622: %least the more massive ones). Our estimate for $\rho_{\rm k}$
623: %would instead agree with the full value of $\rho_{\rm BH}$ only on
624: %using $\epsilon_{\rm k}=0.002$ (dotted line), which is, however,
625: %about $7\, \sigma$ below our best-fit value.
626:
627: This amount is not far from the cumulative mass density obtained
628: from the optical LF by Richards et al. (2005), representative of the
629: whole population of optical AGNs at $z\lesssim 3$, which is shown
630: with a long-dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig|rhokin}. The latter mass
631: density is obtained via the standard radiative So{\l}tan argument
632: which is formally equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) with
633: $\epsilon_{\rm k}$ in the denominator replaced by $\epsilon$, and
634: $L_{\rm k}$ by $L$. Also shown with a dotted line in
635: Fig.~\ref{fig|rhokin} is the BH mass density obtained by integrating
636: the SSR LF by Dunlop \& Peacock (1990); a slightly higher value
637: would be obtained by integrating the SSR LF by Willott et al.
638: (2001). These differences in BH mass densities simply reflect
639: differences in the SSR LF adopted at given kinetic efficiency.
640:
641: In any event, our computations converge to show that the accreted
642: mass density associated with Steep Spectrum radio-loud kinetic AGNs
643: alone is comparable to the total BH mass density accreted by optical
644: AGNs. Note that the optical luminosity function has been extended
645: down to $M_B\sim -21$, which is the minimum luminosity probed by
646: Richards et al. (2005). On the other hand, our mass density
647: evaluations derived from the SSR LFs have been computed by extending
648: the computations to the corresponding limiting luminosity, i.e.
649: $\log L_{\rm k}/({\rm erg\, s^{-1}})\sim 43.9$ and $\log P/({\rm W\,
650: Hz^{-1}\, sr^{-1}})\sim 23.1$, on the basis of Eqs.~\ref{eq|Willott}
651: and ~\ref{eq|gkin}.
652:
653: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig|NM} we show the differential mass
654: density as a function of $z$ for radio-loud and optical AGNs. It can
655: be seen that the approximate match between the mass density accreted
656: by kinetic and optical AGNs holds at each redshift, supporting a
657: scenario in which the optical and kinetic outputs are produced by
658: similar accretion events at each time.
659:
660: The match also holds in the final cumulative BH mass functions, as
661: shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig|NM}. The grey area in the
662: Figure represents the local BH mass function with its systematic
663: uncertainties. Keeping in mind that below a BH mass $M_{\bullet}\sim
664: 10^8\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$ our results are actually extrapolated, it
665: can be seen that the fraction of the local BH population which has
666: been kinetically active as Steep Spectrum sources in its past grows
667: with $M_{\bullet}$ from about $25\%$ to reach near totality for
668: masses $\gtrsim 10^9\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$. This was computed on
669: adopting an average Eddington ratio of $\dot{m}=L/L_{\rm Edd}=0.5$,
670: where $L_{\rm Edd}=1.3\times 10^{38} M_{\bullet}/{\rm M_{\odot}}\,
671: {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$. This ratio is found to provide a good match
672: between the local and accreted mass functions for the overall AGN
673: population by, e.g., Marconi et al. (2004), Shankar et al. (2004)
674: and Shankar, Weinberg \& Miralda-Escud\'{e} (2007); our results
675: however do not significantly depend on the precise choice for the
676: adopted Eddington ratio, within the range of several tenths.
677:
678: The results presented in this \S$\,$ indicate a considerable
679: contribution to the local mass density from radio-kinetically active
680: SSRs, in fact comparable to the one from optical/X-ray sources
681: (e.g., Shankar et al. 2004). The latter ones, not explicitly
682: accounted for here, are able to explain the mass around
683: $M_{\bullet}\sim 10^8\, {\rm M_{\odot}}$ needed to attain full match
684: with the local mass function (see right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig|NM}).
685: In other words, a considerable fraction of relic black holes have
686: possibly undergone a kinetically-loud phase in their past. %Such
687: %conclusions are expected given the value for the kinetic efficiency
688: %derived in \S~\ref{sec|results}. In fact, in a So{\l}tan-type
689: %argument as expressed in Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) where $\rho_{\rm
690: %BH}(z)\propto \Phi(L_k,z)/\epsilon_k$, if SSRs have a number density
691: %of $\sim 1/10$ of the optically selected AGNs (e.g., Jiang et al.
692: %2007) and a kinetic efficiency about $1/10$ of the radiative
693: %efficiency (Eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin})), the resulting cumulative mass
694: %densities for
695: %SSRs and optical AGNs must be comparable. %In other words, if BHs
696: %grow exponentially, with $\dot{M}_{\bullet}\propto M_{\bullet}$,
697: %using Eq.~\ref{eq|MdotBHLkin} we get that their e-folding time reads
698: %as
699: %\begin{equation}
700: %t_{\rm efold}=\frac{\epsilon_{\rm kin}t_E}{(1-\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm
701: %kin})\, \dot{m}}\, ,
702: % \label{eq|Tefold}
703: %\end{equation}
704: %where the Salpeter (1964) timescale is given by $t_E=4\times 10^8$
705: %yr. As our results of \S~\ref{sec|results} indicate a significantly
706: %lower average kinetic efficiency with respect to the radiative one,
707: %then according to Eq.~\ref{eq|Tefold} the corresponding
708: %radio-kinetic timescale will be proportionally shorter than in the
709: %radiative case, supporting a scenario in which the radio-loud
710: %fraction (e.g., Shen et al. 2007) is possibly due to a "duty-cycle"
711: %effect, being the kinetic phase just a transient, brief phase within
712: %the longer radiative one.
713: %We note here that the De Zotti et al. (2005)'s LF predicts a kinetic
714: %power comparable with the one from optical AGNs at all epochs. This
715: %result supports a parallel evolution between the radiative and the
716: %kinetic output, consistent with our initial assumption made in
717: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) that to each kinetic emission process
718: %is also associated a comparable radiative one. Generally our
719: %estimates on the cumulative and differential accreted mass density
720: %grow inversely proportional to the radiative efficiency, if we
721: %assume that the relation \epsikin=\epsi$\times \epsilon$ holds for
722: %all radio-loud AGNs. Therefore the cumulative mass density could
723: %grow up to a factor $\sim 2$ if we assume a lower radiative
724: %efficiency $\epsilon \sim 0.05$, and decrease by a factor of $\sim
725: %3$ if $\epsilon \gtrsim 0.3$.
726:
727: %\section{COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS WORKS}
728:
729:
730: %who reach somewhat different conclusions than ours. They constrain
731: %$\epsilon_{\rm k}$ by using Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}) in which
732: %they insert an estimate for $\rho_{\rm k}$ derived from direct
733: %integration of their empirical radio-loud kinetic luminosity
734: %function. By inserting the total BH mass density in local
735: %galaxies in Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}), they find $\epsilon_{\rm
736: %kin}\sim 0.03$ and also claim that the efficiency could grow as high
737: %as $\epsilon_{\rm k}\sim 0.3$ if only 1/10 of the local population
738: %of BHs has undergone a kinetic phase in the past. Their
739: %value therefore is actually more than an order of magnitude higher
740: %than ours. The origin for this discrepancy resides in the kinetic
741: %luminosity function actually used in Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}),
742: %i.e., their estimate for $\Phi(L_{\rm k},z)$ is higher than ours.
743: %This cannot be due to the $L_{\rm k}-L_R$ relation, as ours agrees
744: %very well with theirs (see Fig.~\ref{fig|relations}; left panel),
745: %but mostly relies on other parameters, such as the corrections for
746: %relativistic boosting, which are not required for our sample, mostly
747: %dominated by Steep Spectrum AGNs. Also note that their sample is
748: %highly biased towards purely radio-selected AGNs, sources which, by
749: %definition, could have a much higher kinetic efficiency than the
750: %optically-selected sample taken into account in this study.
751: %
752: %Heinz et al. (2007) assume that in a typical Steep Spectrum AGN
753: %$\sim 20\%$ of the radio luminosity is correlated with a flat
754: %component and the latter is correlated with the kinetic output
755: %through their $L_{\rm k}-L_R$ relation. By correcting the Dunlop
756: %\& Peacock (1990) Steep Spectrum LF by this effect, they then
757: %estimate that, when compared to the total relic BH mass
758: %density, the average kinetic efficiency of Steep Spectrum radio
759: %sources to be $< 1.2\%$ (Heinz et al. 2007; Heinz \& Merloni 2007).
760: %We find that the average kinetic efficiency must be of order $\sim
761: %0.5\%$, in good agreement with their results.
762: %
763: %The relation expressed in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) is actually
764: %independent of the fraction of the flat part of the spectrum
765: %associated with the jet. However, we find equivalent results
766: %following Heinz et al. (2007) by correcting for $20\%$ the core flat
767: %emission and then assuming $f\gtrsim 40$, to bring
768: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) conistent with the one calibrated by
769: %Heinz et al. (2007). This is notable, as it shows that
770: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}), calibrated on the larger scale radio
771: %emission, is actually a good tracer, on average, of the jet kinetic
772: %emission.
773: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}
774: \label{sec|conclu}
775:
776: We have proposed a powerful method for estimating the average
777: efficiency of the \emph{kinetic} power production process, derived
778: essentially from observational constraints, i.e., from
779: intercalibrating the radio and the optical LFs. Our result therefore
780: is independent of specific assumptions on the jet or wind dynamics
781: and composition; it can be actually used to constrain theoretical
782: models of jets. The value for the constant $f\simeq 15$ discussed by
783: Hardcastle et al. (2007) and inserted in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}),
784: supports the picture of "heavy" jets with a dominant protonic
785: component; this enhances the kinetic output associated with even
786: modest radio luminosities. We have adopted Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott})
787: for all radio-loud sources, irrespective of their redshift and/or
788: environment.
789:
790: %In our calculations in \S~\ref{sec|results} we have corrected the
791: %radio and optical LFs for incompleteness effects including the
792: %normalization factors derived by CMC. We are confident that our
793: %results should not be affected by other systematics in the
794: %determination of the LFs used for our computation in
795: %\S~\ref{sec|results}.
796: So far we did not consider effects of beaming in the Steep Spectrum
797: radio LF. We expect the degree of beaming in these sources to be
798: small on average. In fact, we have checked that on correcting the
799: observed luminosities in the CMC radio LF with the beaming
800: parameters appropriate for SSRs as done in the unification models of
801: Urry \& Padovani (1991, 1995), the resulting intrinsic LF is very
802: similar to the one observed by CMC, only $\approx 0.06$ dex fainter
803: on average. This in turn implies values about $10\%$ smaller for the
804: $g_{\rm k}$ best value, still within our $1-\sigma$
805: uncertainties.%\footnote{We here did not correct the normalization of
806: %the LF in this computation, as we are not interested in recovering
807: %the full intrinsic distribution of the parent population but only to
808: %correct the observed radio luminosities in our sample for effects of
809: %beaming.}.
810:
811: %considering also the Flat Spectrum component in Steep spectrum AGNs,
812: %by integrating over redshift and luminosity the de-boosted Dunlop \&
813: %Peacock (1990)'s LFs. By dividing the cumulative kinetic energy
814: %density by the total local BH mass density, Heinz et al. (2007) find
815: %kinetic efficiencies higher by a factor of a few relative to our
816: %results.
817: Our statistical results on the average kinetic efficiency of SSRs do
818: not exclude that FSQs could have a higher kinetic efficiency, or
819: that there could be sources with exceptionally high kinetic outputs.
820: For example, on discussing individual powerful blazars Maraschi \&
821: Tavecchio (2003) find higher values for the kinetic efficiency than
822: derived here. This is partly due to their selection of the brightest
823: jets for which the SEDs can be determined up to $\gamma$-ray range.
824: In addition, the high energy emissions probe the jet closer to the
825: nucleus; conceivably the jet decelerates before reaching the radio
826: hot spots and lobes, so that part of its kinetic energy is lost on
827: the way. Thus the extended radio emissions on which
828: Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) has been calibrated could only set a lower
829: limit to the full kinetic energy imparted to the jet at its origin.
830: Heinz et al. (2007) have recently estimated the cumulative FSQ
831: kinetic energy, finding average kinetic efficiencies a factor of a
832: few higher than our best-fit value, but still on the order of a few
833: percent of accreted rest-mass energy.
834:
835: To make contact with these independent studies, we have redone our
836: calculation on adopting for the correction factor $f$ a higher value
837: than the already significant one used here; for example, setting
838: $f=45$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}), we get a relation very similar to
839: that derived by Heinz et al. (2007). Our $\chi^2$ fitting yields in
840: this case \epsi=$0.53^{+0.20}_{-0.27}$ and
841: $\sigma=0.307^{+0.003}_{-0.004}$, which implies kinetic efficiencies
842: a factor of five higher than derived in \S~\ref{sec|results}. While
843: more stringent calibrations on relations such as that in
844: Eq.~(\ref{eq|Willott}) are essential to pin down the average value
845: of \epsikin, all methods support kinetic efficiencies of order a few
846: percent. Consider that having increased $f$ and \epsi$\,$ will
847: proportionally increase the kinetic efficiency and mean kinetic
848: luminosity, although leaving the BH mass density $\rho_{\rm
849: BH}\propto L_{\rm k}/\epsilon_{k}$ unaltered.
850:
851: %Note that our result on \epsi agrees with the average value derived
852: %by Ghisellini \& Celotti (2001) for FRI and FRII radio sources, if
853: %the dividing line between the two populations is identified with the
854: %transition to subcritical accretion rates.
855: Finally, we note that the levels of kinetic efficiency derived in
856: this work agree with the amount of energy kinetic feedback required
857: in theoretical studies of massive galaxies (e.g., Granato et al.
858: 2004, Cavaliere \& Lapi 2006, Shankar et al. 2006).
859:
860: Summarizing, we have used an optically selected sample of radio loud
861: AGNs dominated by SSRs to convert the optical LF to a radio one. We
862: have found that the kinetic output in jets or winds must amount to a
863: fraction \epsi$\sim 10^{-1}$ of the bolometric luminosity to match
864: the empirical radio LF for the same sample; with this value we have
865: been able to reproduce also a number of empirical correlations
866: relating $L_B$, $L_{\rm k}$ and $L_R$. From typical values for the
867: AGN radiative efficiency $\epsilon\sim 10^{-1}$, we have derived an
868: average kinetic efficiency \epsikin$\sim 10^{-2}$ which we have
869: assumed to be common to all SSRs. By using Eq.~(\ref{eq|SoltanKin}),
870: we have then constrained the contribution of kinetically-loud SSRs
871: to the local BH mass density to be $\gtrsim 25\%$, comparable to
872: what is found from optical/X-ray selected AGNs. We consider the
873: latter estimate to provide a firm \emph{lower} limit; additional
874: contributions to the kinetic integrated AGN emission could come from
875: the more numerous and less luminous AGNs (e.g., Heinz et al. 2007),
876: from AGNs in radiatively inefficient but kinetically efficient
877: accretion states (e.g., Churazov et al. 2005), and/or from FSQs with
878: intrinsically higher kinetic power than here considered (see
879: Maraschi \& Tavecchio 2003). An additional contribution arises from
880: radio galaxies which should have comparable kinetic outputs
881: according to Unification models; in agreement with our findings in
882: fact, Koerding et al. (2007) find $g_{\rm k}\approx 0.2$ for a
883: significant sample of FRI and FRII radio galaxies.
884:
885: % Finally, according to AGN
886: %Unification Models, all radio galaxies are radio AGNs on the plane
887: %of the sky and therefore should be added to the total kinetic AGN
888: %LF, thus possibly further increasing the predicted local demography
889: %of the kinetically loud BHs.
890: %
891: %We argue that the magnetic extraction of energy from BHs to be often
892: %subdominant with respect to the direct energy extraction from the
893: %accretion flow itself.
894: %What is interesting however is that a constant factor (\epsi)
895: %between optical luminosity and kinetic luminosity accounts for a
896: %wide range of scaling relations.
897:
898: \begin{acknowledgements}
899: Work partly supported by NASA grant GRT000001640. We thank A.
900: Merloni for discussions; FS thanks S. Mathur for comments on an
901: earlier version of the manuscript. Thanks are due to our referee for
902: suggestions helpful toward improving our presentation.
903: \end{acknowledgements}
904:
905:
906: %;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;references;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
907: \begin{thebibliography}{}
908: \bibitem{} Allen, S. W., Dunn, R. J. H., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G.
909: B., \& Reynolds, C. S. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 21
910: \bibitem{} Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., \& Teukolsky, S. A. 1972,
911: ApJ, 178, 347
912: \bibitem{} Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G.,
913: Heckman, T. M., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., \&
914: White, S. D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25
915: \bibitem{} B\^{i}rzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M.
916: W., \& Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 800
917: \bibitem{} Blandford, R. D. 1999, in
918: \emph{Magnetic activity in stars, discs and quasars. Papers of a
919: Discussion Meeting held at The Royal Society}.. Roy Soc of London
920: Phil Tr A, vol. 358, Issue 1767, p.811
921: \bibitem{} Blandford, R. D., \& Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433
922: \bibitem{} Blandford, R. D., Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883
923: \bibitem{} Blundell, K., \& Kuncic, Z. 2007, ApJL, accepted,
924: astroph/0708.2929
925: \bibitem{} Cavaliere, A., \& D'Elia, V. 2002, ApJ, 571, 226
926: \bibitem{} Cavaliere, A., \& Lapi, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, L5
927: \bibitem{} Cavaliere, A., \& Lapi, A. 2007, ApJ, accepted, arXiv:0712.1441
928: \bibitem{} Celotti, A., \& Fabian, A. C. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 228
929: \bibitem{} Celotti, A., Padovani, P., \& Ghisellini, G. 1997, MNRAS,
930: 286, 415
931: \bibitem{} Celotti, A. 2004, \emph{CfA Colloquium Lecture Series Talk}
932: \bibitem{} Churazov, E., Sazonov, S., Sunyaev, R.,
933: Forman, W., Jones, C., \& Böhringer, H. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 91
934: \bibitem{} Cirasuolo, M., Celotti, A., Magliocchetti, M., \& Danese, L. 2003,
935: MNRAS, 346, 447
936: \bibitem{} Cirasuolo, M., Magliocchetti, M., \& Celotti, A. 2005,
937: MNRAS, 357, 1267 (CMC)
938: \bibitem{} Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., De Lucia,
939: G., Frenk, C. S., Gao, L., Jenkins, A., Kauffmann, G., Navarro, J.
940: F., \& Yoshida, N. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11
941: \bibitem{} De Zotti, G., Ricci, R., Mesa, D., Silva, L., Mazzotta, P.,
942: Toffolatti, L., \& González-Nuevo, J. 2005, A\&A, 431, 893
943: \bibitem{} Dunlop, J. S., \& Peacock, J. A. 1990, MNRAS, 247, 19
944: \bibitem{} Elvis, M., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1
945: %\bibitem{} Ghisellini, G., \& Celotti, A. 2001, A\&A, 379, L1
946: \bibitem{} Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \&
947: Danese, L. 2004, ApJ, 600, 580
948: \bibitem{} Hardcastle, M. J., Evans, D. A., \& Croston, J. H. 2007,
949: MNRAS accepted, astroph/0702094
950: \bibitem{} Heinz, S., Merloni, A., \& Schwab, J. 2007, ApJ, 658, 9
951: \bibitem{} Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120
952: \bibitem{} Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., Hernquist, L.
953: 2007, ApJ, 654, 731
954: \bibitem{} Jiang, L., Fan, X., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Richards, G. T.;
955: Schneider, D. P., Strauss, M. A., \& Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 656,
956: 680
957: \bibitem{} Koerding, E. G., Jester, S., \& Fender, R. 2007, MNRAS,
958: accepted, arXiv:0710.1718
959: \bibitem{} Laor, A. 2000, ApJ, 543, L111
960: \bibitem{} Livio, M., Ogilvie, G. I., \& Pringle, J. E. 1999, ApJ,
961: 512, 100
962: \bibitem{} Maraschi, L. 2001, AIP Conf Proc. Vol 586, p. 409
963: \bibitem{} Maraschi, L., \& Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667
964: \bibitem{} Maraschi, L. 2004, A\&SS, 294, 101
965: \bibitem{} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K.,
966: Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
967: %\bibitem{} Padovani, P., Giommi, P., Landt, H., \& Perlman, E. S.
968: %2007, ApJ, accepted, astroph/0702740
969: \bibitem{} McLure, R. J., Dunlop., J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1390
970: \bibitem{} Rawlings, S. G., \& Saunders, R. D. E. 1991, Nat, 349, 138
971: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 839
972: \bibitem{} Richards, G. T., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470
973: \bibitem{} Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796
974: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Salucci, P., Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese,
975: L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020
976: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Salucci, P., De Zotti, G., \& Danese,
977: L. 2006, ApJ, 643, 14
978: \bibitem{} Shankar, F., Weinberg, M. D., \& Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J.
979: 2007, ApJ, submitted, arXiv:0710.4488
980: \bibitem{} Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., \& Lasota, J. P. 2006, ApJ,
981: submitted, astroph/060409
982: \bibitem{} So{\l}tan, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115
983: \bibitem{} Spegel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
984: \bibitem{} Thorne, K. S., Price, R. H., \& MacDonald, D. A. 1986,
985: Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press)
986: \bibitem{} Urry, M., Padovani, P. 1991, ApJ, 371, 60
987: \bibitem{} Urry, M., Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803
988: \bibitem{} Vittorini, V., Shankar, F., \& Cavaliere, A. 2005, MNRAS,
989: 363, 1376
990: \bibitem{} Willott, C. J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., \& Lacy,
991: M. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1017
992: \bibitem{} Willott, C. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 536
993: %\bibitem{} Xu, C., Livio, M, \& Baum, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 1169
994: \end{thebibliography}
995: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
996: %\begin{figure}
997: %\epsfxsize=7.5cm \epsffile {fig1.eps}
998: %\begin{figure}
999: %\epsscale{0.6} \plotone{fig1.eps} \caption{\small Comparison between
1000: %the fraction of radio-loud AGNs in optical samples at two redshifts
1001: %as labeled. From the Richards et al. (2005) luminosity function we
1002: %extract the expected number of radio loud sources as given by Jiang
1003: %et al. (2007); the results is shown with a \emph{dashed} line with
1004: %its uncertainty region (striped area). The filled circles are the
1005: %data by Cirasuolo et al. (2005) renormalized by a factor of 1.5 to
1006: %account for incompleteness, while the \emph{solid} line is their
1007: %best-fit luminosity function with its uncertainty region
1008: %(\emph{grey} area).} \label{fig|duty}
1009: %\end{figure}
1010: %
1011: %
1012: %\begin{figure}
1013: %\epsfxsize=7.5cm \epsffile {fig4.eps}
1014: %
1015: %\begin{figure}
1016: %\epsfxsize=7.5cm \epsffile {fig2.eps}
1017: \newpage
1018:
1019: \begin{figure}
1020: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{fig1.eps}\caption{\small Best-fit radio LF
1021: (\emph{solid} line) and its propagated $1-\sigma$ uncertainty region
1022: (\emph{grey} area) obtained by converting the optical LF from CMC
1023: with the use of Eqs.~(\ref{eq|LkinL}) and ~(\ref{eq|Willott}). The
1024: result is presented for two redshifts bins as labeled, and is
1025: compared with the data on the radio LF empirically derived by CMC
1026: (\emph{solid} circles) for the same sample.} \label{fig|Phiradio}
1027: \end{figure}
1028:
1029: \newpage
1030: %
1031: \begin{figure}
1032: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{fig2.eps}\caption{\small Comparisons between
1033: the normalized distributions of sources as a function of radio power
1034: corresponding to a given bin in optical luminosity, as labeled. The
1035: \emph{dashed} line in each panel corresponds to the sample by CMC,
1036: while the \emph{solid} line is the mean computed from our
1037: simulations with scatter included. The \emph{dotted} line is the
1038: distribution expected when no scatter is considered.}
1039: \label{fig|simulations}
1040: \end{figure}
1041: %\begin{figure}
1042: %\epsfxsize=7.5cm \epsffile {fig3.eps}
1043:
1044: \newpage
1045:
1046: \begin{figure}
1047: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{fig3.eps}\caption{\small The \emph{solid}
1048: line (with its 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty region shown with a grey area)
1049: represents the fit to the optical LF, derived by CMC for their
1050: sample of optical-radio sources in the 2dF-FIRST catalogues; the
1051: solid points with error bars represent their original measurements.
1052: The \emph{dashed} line and the striped area represent the best-fit
1053: and $1-\sigma$ uncertainty region of the optical LF by Richards et
1054: al. (2005), representative of the whole optical AGN population,
1055: corrected for the luminosity and redshift-dependent fraction of
1056: radio-loud AGNs derived by Jiang et al. (2007). These two
1057: independent evaluations are compared at $z=1.2$ and $z=2.0$, as
1058: indicated in the two panels; note the good agreement.}
1059: \label{fig|PhiOpt}
1060: \end{figure}
1061:
1062: \newpage
1063:
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{fig4.eps}\caption{\small Comparison between
1066: simulations and data. \emph{Left} panel: the results from our
1067: best-fit model are compared with the set of data (filled circles)
1068: presented in Heinz et al. (2007) and with their model
1069: (\emph{long-dashed} line and \emph{dotted} lines). \emph{Right}
1070: panel: our simulated best-fit relation (\emph{solid} line with
1071: dispersion shown by the \emph{grey} area) is compared with data
1072: derived by Rawling \& Saunders (1991). All data have been converted
1073: to our adopted cosmology.} \label{fig|relations}
1074: \end{figure}
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078: \newpage
1079: \begin{figure}
1080: \epsscale{0.4} \plotone{fig5.eps}\caption{\small Cumulative black
1081: hole mass densities computed as a function of redshift. The
1082: \emph{long-dashed} line represents the mass density associated with
1083: optical AGNs, obtained by integrating the Richards et al. (2005)'s
1084: LF above $M_B=-21$ (i.e., $\log P_{1.4\, {\rm GHz}}/({\rm W/Hz/sr})
1085: \sim 23.1$ and $\log L_{\rm k}/({\rm erg/s})\sim 43.9$, on using
1086: eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin})). The \emph{solid} and \emph{dotted} lines are
1087: the results of integrating above the same luminosity threshold the
1088: LFs by De Zotti et al. (2005) and Dunlop \& Peacock (1990),
1089: respectively. The value of $\epsilon=0.1$ and our best-fit value
1090: \epsi=0.10 have been used for all curves. The boxes show the local
1091: black hole mass density $\rho_{\rm BH}$ in massive spheroids
1092: (\emph{dark grey} area) and 30\% of this value (\emph{light grey}
1093: area).} \label{fig|rhokin}
1094: \end{figure}
1095: %
1096: %\begin{figure}
1097: %\epsscale{0.6} \plotone{fig5_1.eps}\caption{\small Parameter plane
1098: %for $f_{\rm k}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ and $g$. The
1099: %\emph{striped} area is the one where $f_{\rm k}<0$. The
1100: %\emph{grey} areas show the regions not allowed by the constraints on
1101: %the radiative efficiency. The lower solid lines are contour levels
1102: %for $f_{\rm k}$, with values as labeled. A fixed value of
1103: %\epsi=0.15 has been used.} \label{fig|fkin}
1104: %\end{figure}
1105:
1106: \newpage
1107:
1108: \begin{figure}
1109: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{fig6.eps}\caption{\small \emph{Left panel}:
1110: differential accretion density as a function of redshift.
1111: \emph{Right panel}: the corresponding cumulative number density at
1112: $z\sim 0$ of black holes derived from the equation representing the
1113: building-up of $\rho_{\bullet}(z)$ by gravitational interactions of
1114: their host galaxies (see Vittorini, Shankar \& Cavaliere 2005, and
1115: Shankar et al. 2007). The line styles in both panels have the same
1116: meaning as in Fig.~\ref{fig|rhokin}. The \emph{grey} band shows the
1117: cumulative local mass function with its uncertainty region taken
1118: from Shankar et al. (2007).} \label{fig|NM}
1119: \end{figure}
1120:
1121: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
1122:
1123: %\end{doublespace}
1124:
1125: \end{document}
1126:
1127:
1128: \subsection{HOW ARE AGN JETS PRODUCED?}
1129: \label{subsec|jets}
1130:
1131: It is still a matter of intense debate whether AGN jets are mainly
1132: powered by extraction of rotational energy from a rapidly spinning
1133: BH, the so-called Blandford \& Znajek (1977) process, and/or
1134: magnetohydrodynamic winds arising from the inner regions of the
1135: accretion disk (e.g., Blandford \& Payne 1982, Livio et al. 1999).
1136: To constrain the dominant process that generates the jets, we
1137: propose here an argument which expresses the jet kinetic power as a
1138: sum of two terms. The first one accounts for energy extracted from
1139: the rotation via the magnetic field $B$ threading the BH horizon,
1140: and the other proportional to the rest mass energy by a constant
1141: $f_{\rm k}$ (Livio et al. 1999, Cavaliere \& D'Elia 2002). The
1142: kinetic luminosity can therefore be written as
1143: \begin{equation}
1144: L_{\rm k}=P_{\rm BZ}+P_{\rm disk}=\frac{1}{128}B^2r_g^2a^2c+f_{\rm
1145: kin}\dot{M}_{\rm a}c^2. \label{eq|JetPower0}
1146: \end{equation}
1147: where the first term of the second equality in
1148: Eq.~(\ref{eq|JetPower0}) summarizes the complex analysis of
1149: Blandford and Znajek (1977; e.g., Thorne, Price, \& MacDonald 1986);
1150: here $r_g$ is the BH gravitational radius and $a$ the dimensionless
1151: spin parameter, defined as $a=J/J_{\rm max}$ , with $J_{\rm max}=G
1152: M_{\rm BH}/c^2$, $G$ the gravitational constant and $c$ the speed of
1153: light. In the following we will show that the result given in
1154: Eq.~(\ref{eq|gkin}) supports magnetohydrodynamic winds as the
1155: dominant process in producing jets.
1156:
1157: Let us take as reference an approximation in which we assume the
1158: magnetic energy to be a fraction of the total density energy budget,
1159: i.e., $B^2/8\pi\sim s\rho c^2$, with $0\lesssim s \lesssim 1$. Note
1160: that the condition $s\sim 1$ is hardly satisfied in true physical
1161: systems, as other sources of energy, such as radiation, make a
1162: significant contribution to the total energy. The maximum rate of
1163: accretion close to the BHs is given by $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}\sim \Delta
1164: \Omega r_g^2\rho c$, for a given accretion geometry of solid angle
1165: $\Delta \Omega$. The latter expression, together with the
1166: equipartition condition, enables us to express the "magnetic" term
1167: in Eq.~(\ref{eq|JetPower0}) as
1168: \begin{equation}
1169: P_{\rm BZ}=\frac{s8\pi}{128\Delta \Omega}a^2\dot{M}_{\rm a}c^2=g
1170: a^2\dot{M}_{\rm a}c^2\, .
1171: \label{eq|PBZ}
1172: \end{equation}
1173: The parameter $g$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq|PBZ}) takes into account the
1174: uncertainties in the geometry of the system and the actual fraction
1175: of the magnetic energy density with respect to the total budget.
1176: Then by plugging Eq.~(\ref{eq|PBZ}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq|JetPower0}) we
1177: get our full expression for the kinetic power expressed as a
1178: function of only the accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm a}$ (see also,
1179: e.g., Livio et al. 1999, Maraschi 2001, Maraschi \& Tavecchio 2003,
1180: Maraschi 2004),
1181: \begin{equation}
1182: L_{\rm k}=(ga^2+f_{\rm k})\dot{M}_{\rm a} c^2=\epsilon_{\rm
1183: kin}\dot{M}_{\rm a} c^2\, . \label{eq|JetPower}
1184: \end{equation}
1185: %By fixing $\epsilon_{\rm k}$, we can then constrain $f_{\rm k}$
1186: %by varying $g$ and $a$.
1187: %Eq.~(\ref{eq|JetPower}) is useful because it can provide
1188: %significant constraints on which is the dominant process which
1189: %powers the jet kinetic energy, i.e. if mass/energy flows directly
1190: %from the accretion disk or it is reprocessed through a magnetic
1191: %extraction process. It is clear that once a geometry of the system
1192: %is fixed, constraining \epsi translates into a constraint on $f_{\rm
1193: %kin}$, and in turn kinetic efficiency of jets, i.e.
1194: %\begin{equation}
1195: %f_{\rm k}=\epsilon_{\rm k} \epsilon-ga^2\gtrsim 0\, .
1196: %\label{eq|fkin}
1197: %\end{equation}
1198: %We also assume that the fraction of energy extracted via radiation
1199: %is linked to the last stable orbit, and therefore to the
1200: %dimensionless spin parameter $a\propto J/M_{\rm BH}$, with $J$ and
1201: %$M_{\rm BH}$ the BH angular momentum and mass, respectively; so we
1202: %are left with $g$ as the only free parameter. The parameter $f_{\rm
1203: %kin}$ is constrained to be $0\lesssim f_{\rm k}\lesssim
1204: %\epsilon_{\rm k}=g_{\rm
1205: %kin}\epsilon$, by definition. %It should be stressed that on one hand
1206: %the expression of the Blandford and Znajek (1977) kinetic power is
1207: %still at the level of a "dimensional" argument, on the other there
1208: %is no theoretical estimate of a jet production efficiency for a
1209: %generic accretion flow. Therefore arguments for the prevailing of
1210: %one or the other term are to regarded as tentative.
1211:
1212: In Fig.~\ref{fig|fkin} we show the variation of $f_{\rm kin}=g_{\rm
1213: k}\epsilon-ga^2$ (we remind that $\epsilon_{\rm kin}=g_{\rm
1214: k}\epsilon$) for our best-fit value \epsi=0.15, as a function of the
1215: radiative efficiency $\epsilon$ and the constant $g$. Just for
1216: reference, the long-dashed horizontal line in Fig.~\ref{fig|fkin}
1217: indicates the "special" case of $g=1/64$, valid for accretion in
1218: pure spherical geometry and maximum magnetic energy density ($s\sim
1219: 1$).
1220: %; other geometries
1221: %for the accretion flow would make the constant $g$ even smaller (see
1222: %Maraschi 2004 and references therein).
1223: The striped area in Fig.~\ref{fig|fkin} shows the region of the
1224: parameter space where $f_{\rm k}$ is negative, and therefore is not
1225: accepted. If, in addition, one again assumes that radio-loud AGNs
1226: share the same radiative efficiency as radio-quiet ones, the
1227: observed constraints from the So{\l}tan argument, $0.06\lesssim
1228: \epsilon \lesssim 0.11$ (e.g., Shankar et al. 2007; see also
1229: \S~\ref{subsec|soltan}), confine the space of acceptable values only
1230: to the white area. Note at this point that, being $\epsilon$ linked
1231: to the spin parameter $a$ by the equations of general relativity for
1232: a rotating BH (e.g., Bardeen et al. 1972, see upper border of
1233: Fig.~\ref{fig|fkin}), $f_{\rm k}$ is left as a function of $g$ only.
1234: The solid lines show the contour levels for $f_{\rm k}$. It can be
1235: seen that the acceptable values for $f_{\rm kin}$ range within
1236: $0.003\lesssim f_{\rm k}\lesssim 0.01$. In these regimes $f_{\rm
1237: k}\gtrsim ga^2\sim 0.016\times 0.6^2\sim 0.006$, which makes the
1238: contribution from the magnetic term smaller, or at the most
1239: comparable, with the one from magnetohydrodynamic winds. This
1240: conclusion holds true even if we allow for an higher radiative
1241: efficiency (say, $\epsilon\sim 0.4$ and $a\sim 1$), as it can be
1242: checked comparing the values of $ga^2\sim 0.015$ with the contour
1243: levels for $f_{\rm k}$ ($\gtrsim$ 0.04) which one gets in the
1244: right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig|fkin}.
1245:
1246: Another extreme scenario could be the one for which the only
1247: possible process to form a jet in a BH is via extraction of
1248: rotational energy (i.e., $f_{\rm k}\sim 0$ in
1249: Eq.~(\ref{eq|JetPower})). In this case our constraint on \epsi would
1250: imply $g \sim g_{\rm k}\epsilon/a^2 \lesssim 0.04-0.06$, which is
1251: close to the value expected for the "special" case discussed above.
1252: In any event, empirical analysis object-by-object on large samples,
1253: as the ones proposed by Celotti et al. (1998) and Maraschi \&
1254: Tavecchio (2003), are needed to discern among these extreme
1255: different scenarios and finally shed light on the main mechanisms at
1256: work in radio-loud AGNs.
1257: