1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %% Filename:      ms.tex

3: %% Author:        Darrin Casebeer <casebeer@nhn.ou.edu>

4: %% Created at:    Mon Feb  6 13:47:31 2006

5: %% Modified at:   Thu Jan 17 09:03:58 2008

6: %% Modified by:   Eddie Baron <baron@ou.edu>

7: %% Version:       

8: %% Description:   

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

11: %\usepackage{amsmath}

12: %\usepackage{lmacs}

13: %\usepackage{graphicx}

14: 

15: % GENERAL DEFINITIONS

16: % Time-stamp: <14/08/2006 10:48 baron>

17: 

18: %\RequirePackage{xspace}

19: \RequirePackage{amsmath} 

20: \RequirePackage{amsfonts}

21: \RequirePackage{amssymb}

22: 

23: \def\ifundefined#1{\expandafter\ifx\csname#1\endcsname\relax}

24: 

25: % \newif\ifpdf

26: % \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

27: %    \pdffalse      % we aren't running pdflatex

28: % \else

29: %    \pdfoutput=1   % we are running pdflatex

30: %    \pdftrue

31: % \fi

32: 

33: 

34: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}

35: \def\ga{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}

36: 

37: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

38: 

39: \ifundefined{ensuremath}\def\ensuremath#1{\relax\ifmmode{#1}}

40: \else${#1}$\fi\else\relax\fi

41: \ifundefined{nuc}\def\nuc#1#2{\relax\ifmmode{}^{#1}{\protect\textrm{#2}}

42:   \else${}^{#1}$#2\fi}\else\relax\fi

43: %\ifundefined{nuc}\def\nuc#1#2{\relax\ensuremath{{}^{#1}}}%

44: %{\protect\textrm{#2}}\else${}^{#1}$#2\fi}\else\relax\fi

45: \def\doublespace{\setlength{\baselineskip}{23pt}}

46: \def\singlespace{\setlength{\baselineskip}{14pt}}

47: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}  \newcommand{\gcm}{g~cm$^{-3}$}

48: \newcommand{\kmps}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}

49: \newcommand{\is}{\mathrm{s}$^{-1}$}

50: \newcommand{\iyr}{\mathrm{yr}$^{-1}$}

51: \newcommand{\msol}{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}}

52: \newcommand{\foe}{\ensuremath{10^{51}}}

53: \newcommand{\nni}{\nuc{56}\mathrm{Ni}}

54: \newcommand{\xni}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{Ni}}}}

55: \def\ang{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\AA}}}

56: \def\Tmod{\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{model}}}}

57: \def\Teff{\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{model}}}}

58: \def\teff{\ensuremath{T_{\mathrm{model}}}}

59: \def\tstd{\ensuremath{\tau_{\mathrm{std}}}}

60: \def\Rzero{\ensuremath{R_0}} \newcommand{\RSi}{$\Re_{Si}$}

61: \newcommand{\RCa}{$\Re_{Ca}$} \newcommand{\vno}{\ensuremath{v_0}}

62: \def\alog#1{\times 10^{#1}} \newcommand{\phx}{\texttt{PHOENIX}}

63: \newcommand{\snia}{SN~I\lowercase{a}}

64: \newcommand{\sneia}{SNe~I\lowercase{a}}

65: \newcommand{\gamray}{$\gamma$-ray} \newcommand{\halpha}{H$\alpha$}

66: \newcommand{\hbeta}{H$\beta$} \newcommand{\articlesize}{

67: \doublespace

68: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.4in}

69: \voffset=-0.75in \hoffset=-0.55in}

70: \newcommand{\checkit}{\fbox{{\tiny$\surd$}}}

71: \newcommand{\rem}[1]{\textsl{[\textbf{#1}]}}

72: 

73: 

74: 

75: \citestyle{aa} \bibliographystyle{apj}

76: 

77: \begin{document}

78: 

79: 

80: \title{A Self-Consistent NLTE-Spectra Synthesis Model of FeLoBAL QSOs}

81: 

82: \author{Darrin Casebeer \email{casebeer@nhn.ou.edu}

83:   E. Baron\altaffilmark{1},   Karen Leighly,  Darko

84:   Jevremovic\altaffilmark{2}, David Branch }

85: 

86: \affil{University of Oklahoma, Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics

87:   and Astronomy,  Norman, OK 73019, USA }

88: 

89: \altaffiltext{1}{Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley

90:   National Laboratory, MS 50F-1650, 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley, CA

91:   94720-8139 USA}

92: 

93: \altaffiltext{2}{Current Address: Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7,

94:   11160 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro}

95: 

96: 

97: \keywords{AGN: FIRST J121442.3+280329, ISO J005645.1$-$273816}

98: \newcommand{\itemspace}{8.5in}

99: \newcommand{\FQBS}{FIRST~J121442.3+280329} 

100: \newcommand{\ISO}{ISO~J005645.1-273816}

101: \newcommand{\VR}{$\mathrm{V \propto R}$}

102: 

103: \begin{abstract}

104:   We present detailed radiative transfer spectral synthesis models for

105:   the Iron Low Ionization Broad Absorption Line (FeLoBAL) active

106:   galactic nuclei (AGN) \FQBS\ and \ISO.  Detailed NLTE spectral

107:   synthesis with a spherically symmetric outflow reproduces the

108:   observed spectra very well across a large wavelength range.  While

109:   exact spherical symmetry is probably not required, our model fits

110:   are of high quality and thus very large covering fractions are strongly

111:   implied by our results.  We constrain the kinetic energy and mass in

112:   the ejecta and discuss their implications on the accretion rate.

113:   Our results support the idea that FeLoBALs may be an evolutionary

114:   stage in the development of more ``ordinary'' QSOs.

115: 

116: \end{abstract}

117: \section{Introduction}

118: 

119: %Among the many varieties of active galactic nuclei (AGN) there is a

120: %relatively small class of red objects with broad absorption lines,

121: %largely identified as the result of strong Fe~II lines. These objects

122: %have been dubbed the iron low ionization broad absorption line

123: %(FeLoBAL) AGN. Since AGN are primarily discovered by their blue

124: %colors, selection effects in surveys to date may well misrepresent the

125: %actual population of these objects. It has been suggested that

126: %FeLoBALs may represent an evolutionary phase in the AGN phenomena

127: %\citep{BeckerFBQS00,gregg02} \checkit.  \citet{dekool} modeled a

128: %particular FeLoBAL (\FQBS) 

129: %using a traditional template fitting approach. In this interpret ion

130: %absorptions and emissions occur in different regions. \citet{branch02}

131: %modeled \FQBS\ using a parameterized, spherically symmetric, resonant

132: %scattering, synthetic spectrum code \citep[SYNOW,][]{fisher00}. SYNOW is

133: %a Schuster-Schwarzschild code that takes complete account of multiple

134: %scattering in lines but does no continuum transfer. \citet{casebeer}

135: %applied this same model to the FeLoBAL \ISO. 

136: 

137: %In order to extend the ideas of \citet{branch02}, we have used the

138: %generalized stellar 

139: %atmospheres code \phx\ to model two FeLoBALs across a wide spectral

140: %range. \phx\ solves the fully relativistic NLTE radiative 

141: %transfer problem including the effects of both lines and continua in

142: %moving flows. For a discussion of the

143: %use of both SYNOW and \phx\ in the context of modeling supernova

144: %spectra see \citet*{bbj03}.

145: %We find that a single spherically symmetric model

146: %assuming homologous expansion fits both \FQBS\ and \ISO\

147: %from the UV to the optical and that NLTE effects are important.

148: 

149: Spectroscopic observations of quasars show that about 10--20\% have

150: broad absorption troughs in their rest-frame UV spectra

151: \citep[see][for example]{trump06}. These absorption lines are almost exclusively

152: blueshifted from the rest wavelength of the associated atomic

153: transition, indicating the presence of an outflowing wind in our line

154: of sight to the nucleus. The line-of-sight velocities range from zero

155: to up to tens of thousands of kilometers per second

156: \citep[e.g.,][]{narayanan04}.

157: 

158: While understanding these outflows is of fundamental interest for

159: understanding the quasar central engine, it is also potentially

160: important for understanding the role of quasars in the Universe.  The

161: observation that the black hole mass is correlated with the velocity

162: dispersion of stars in the host galaxy bulge

163: \citep[e.g.,][]{magorrian98,fm00,gebhardt00} indicates a co-evolution

164: of the galaxy and its central black hole.  The close co-evolution

165: implies there must be feedback between the quasar and the host galaxy,

166: even though the sphere of gravitational influence of the black hole is

167: much smaller than the galaxy.  Energy arguments, however, show that is

168: quite feasible that the black hole can influence the galaxy; as

169: discussed by \citet{begelman03},  the accretion energy of the black

170: hole easily exceeds the binding energy of the host galaxy's bulge.

171: 

172: The nature of the feedback mechanism that carries the accretion energy

173: to the galaxy is not known.  Since AGNs are observed to release matter

174: and kinetic energy into their environment via outflows, it is

175: plausible that these outflows contribute to the feedback in an

176: important way. One of the difficulties in using quasar outflows in

177: this context is that they are sufficiently poorly understood that

178: there are significant uncertainties in such basic properties as the

179: total mass outflow rate and the total kinetic energy.

180: 

181: % Therefore,

182: %although models are already being constructed to explain the

183: %co-evolution of QSOs and galactic spheroids in terms of quasar outflows

184: %\citep[e.g.,][]{granato04,so04} these models suffer from 

185: %uncertainties in the kinetic energy of the outflows.  In fact,

186: %\citet{so04} say ``The greatest uncertainty (in their model) is

187: %$\epsilon_K=L_K/L_{Bol}$, the fraction of the total bolometric

188: %luminosity \dots that appears as kinetic luminosity.''

189: 

190: What is the kinetic luminosity of the broad absorption line quasar

191: winds?  That turns out to be very difficult to constrain.  While the

192: presence of the blueshifted absorption lines unequivocally indicates

193: the presence of high-velocity outflowing gas, the other fundamentally

194: important properties of the gas, including the density, column

195: density, and covering fraction are very difficult to constrain.

196: 

197: The density is difficult to constrain because the absorption lines are

198: predominately resonance transitions, and their strengths are not very

199: sensitive to density.  Without knowing the density, the distance of

200: the gas from the central engine cannot be constrained; the same

201: ionization state can be attained by dense gas close to the central

202: engine, or rare gas far from the central engine.  Density estimates

203: are possible when absorption lines are seen from non-resonance

204: transitions, but even then, they can differ enormously.  For example,

205: \citet{dekool01} analyzed metastable \ion{Fe}{2} absorption lines in

206: FBQS~0840$+$3633, and inferred a electron density $<1000-3000\rm\,

207: cm^{-3}$ and a distance from the central engine of several hundred pc.

208: In contrast, \citet{eracleous03} analyze the metastable \ion{Fe}{2}

209: absorption in Arp~102B with photoionization models and infer a

210: density of at least $10^{11}\rm \, cm^{-3}$ and a distance of less

211: than $7 \times 10^{16}\rm \, cm$.

212: 

213: 

214: The global covering fraction is also difficult to constrain directly from the

215: quasar spectrum; we know the gas, at least, partially covers our line of sight, but we have

216: little information about other lines of sight.  Covering fraction

217: constraints are generally made based on population statistics.  In a

218: seminal paper, \citet{weymann91} showed that for most BALQSOs, the

219: emission line properties are remarkably similar to non-BALQSOs.  Thus,

220: the fact that 10--20\% of quasar spectra contain broad absorption

221: lines is interpreted as evidence that there is a wind that covers

222: 10--20\% of sight lines to all similar quasars, and whether or not we

223: see absorption lines depends on our orientation.   Alternatively, some

224: BAL quasars have notably different line emission than the average

225: quasar; examples are the low-ionization BALQSOs studied by e.g.,

226: \citet{boroson92b}.  These objects may instead represent an evolutionary

227: stage of quasars, as the quasar emerges from the cloud of gas and dust

228: in which it formed \citep{becker97}.

229: 

230: While it seems that the column density should be easy to constrain,

231: more recent work has shown that it can be very difficult to measure.

232: It was originally thought that non-black absorption troughs indicated

233: a relatively low column density for the absorbing gas \cite[equivalent

234:   hydrogen column densities of $10^{19-20}\rm \,cm^{-2}$,

235:   e.g.,][]{hamann98}.  But it has now been found that the non-black

236: troughs indicate velocity-dependent partial covering, where the

237: absorption covers part of the emission region, and the uncovered part

238: fills in the trough partially \citep[e.g.,][]{arav99}.  Thus, the

239: column density appears to be high, but it is very difficult to

240: constrain directly from the data except in a few very specialized

241: cases \citep[see for example][]{gabel06,arav05}.

242: 

243: How can we make progress on this problem?  It is becoming clear that

244: because of the difficulties described above, the traditional

245: techniques for analysis of troughs (e.g., curve of growth) and

246: modeling (e.g., photoionization modeling to produce absorption line

247: ratios and equivalent widths) are limited.  An approach that may be

248: profitable is to construct a physical model for the outflow, and

249: constrain the parameters of the model using the data.

250: 

251: Our first foray into constructing physical models for quasar winds was

252: performed by \citet{branch02}.  In that paper, the

253: FeLoBAL\footnote{FeLoBALs are distinguished by the presence of

254:   absorption in low-ionization lines such as \ion{Al}{3} and

255:   \ion{Mg}{2} as well as absorption by excited states of \ion{Fe}{2}

256:   and \ion{Fe}{3}.} FIRST~J121442$+$280329 was modeled using SYNOW, a

257: parameterized, spherically-symmetric, resonant-scattering, synthetic

258: spectrum code more typically used to model supernovae

259: \citep{fisher00}.  The difference between this treatment and a more

260: typical one applied to the same data by \citet{dekool02b} is that

261: SYNOW assumes that emission and absorption are produced in the same

262: outflowing gas.  In contrast, the approach taken by \citet{dekool02b}

263: assumes that absorption is imprinted upon a typical continuum+emission

264: line quasar spectrum; that is, the absorbing gas is separated from the

265: emission-line region. In fact, based on the analysis of the

266: \ion{Fe}{2} metastable absorption lines, they find that the  absorber

267: is 1--30 parsecs from the central engine, much farther than the quasar

268: broad emission-line region. Note that FIRST~J121442$+$280329 is not

269: the only object that can be  modeled using SYNOW; \citet{casebeer04}

270: present a SYNOW model of another FeLoBAL, ISO~J005645.1$-$273816.

271: 

272: The SYNOW model is attractive because it is simple; only one component

273: is needed to model both the emission and absorption lines.  However,

274: this model is limited.  The primary purpose of the SYNOW program is to

275: identify lines in complicated supernova spectra.  Thus, individual

276: ions can be added to a SYNOW run at will in order to see if features

277: from emission and absorption from those ions is present.  It does not

278: solve the physics of the gas, so physical parameters beyond the

279: existence of a particular species and its velocity extent cannot be

280: extracted from the results.

281: 

282: We test the ideas of \citet{branch02} and \citet{casebeer04} by using

283: the generalized stellar atmosphere code \texttt{PHOENIX} to model the

284: spectra of the two FeLoBALs that were successfully modeled using

285: SYNOW, and including spectra that extend to rest-frame optical

286: wavelengths for FIRST~J121442$+$280329.  {\tt PHOENIX} is a much

287: different code than \texttt{SYNOW} in that it contains all the

288: relevant physics to determine the spectrum of outflowing gas.  It

289: solves the fully relativistic NLTE radiative transfer problem

290: including the effects of both lines and continua in moving flows.  For

291: a discussion of the use of both \texttt{SYNOW} and \texttt{PHOENIX} in

292: the context of modeling supernovae spectra, see \citet*{bbj03}.  We

293: find that \texttt{PHOENIX} is able to model the spectra from these

294: objects surprisingly well, and we are able to derive several important

295: physical parameters from the model.

296: 

297: In \S  \ref{Models} we describe the \texttt{PHOENIX} model in detail.

298: In \S  \ref{Modelfits} we describe our determination of the

299: best-fitting model.  In \S  \ref{Results} we describe the results of

300: our model fitting.  In \S  \ref{Discussion} we discuss the physical

301: implications of the model, how it   relates to other BAL spectra and

302: where it fits in the BAL picture.  An appendix 

303: includes a flowchart of a \phx\ calculation.

304: 

305: \section{Models \label{Models}}

306: 

307: Photoionization codes have been essential in understanding emission

308: and absorption features in the spectra of active galaxies.  {\it

309: Cloudy} \citep{ferland98,ferland03} is widely used.

310: \phx\ solves the

311: radiative transfer equations exactly, and tries to have the most

312: accurate radiative data possible.  As a radiative transfer code, \phx\

313: correctly produces line profiles due to relativistic differential

314: expansion. It is this feature that we are making use of here.

315: 

316: In this paper we model the situation envisioned by \citet{branch02}:

317: the emission and absorption occur in a fairly optically thick

318: expanding shell illuminated from the inside by the continuum; as

319: discussed in \S 5.4, this situation may be a consequence of quasar

320: evolution, occurring when the quasar ejects a shroud of dust and gas

321: \citep[e.g.,][]{voit93}.   

322: 

323: \phx\ is a spectral synthesis

324: code; the direct output is a model spectrum.  The only way to obtain

325: fluxes or equivalent widths of lines in a \phx\ model is to measure

326: them directly from the synthetic spectrum in the same way that they

327: are measured from the observed spectrum.  Measuring emission and

328: absorption lines from complex quasar spectra is well known to be

329: rather uncertain, as a consequence of blending and uncertain placement

330: of the continuum.  So in \phx, this step is bypassed, and the

331: synthetic spectrum is compared directly with the observed spectrum.

332: Second, the input parameters are somewhat different.  

333: In \phx, density is given as a function of the radius in

334: concordance with the assumed velocity profile as a function of radius.

335: An analogy to the photoionizing flux is a little difficult to

336: construct.   As noted in the next section, two of the important

337: parameters are the reference radius $R_0$, the radius at which

338: the continuum optical depth at 5000\AA\ is unity, and the model

339: temperature $T_{model}$, defined in terms of the total

340: bolometric luminosity in the observer's frame,

341: $L$, and the reference radius.  Thus, $L$ or $T$ are

342: somewhat analogous to the photoionizing flux, because for a fixed

343: reference radius, they give the intensity of the continuum at the

344: reference radius.  Finally, the column density can be evaluated for

345: particular values of the optical depth.  

346: 

347: 

348: \subsection{The Model Parameters} 

349: 

350: Our models are spherically symmetric, with homologous expansion ($v

351: \propto r$).  Homologous expansion is analogous to the Hubble

352: expansion.  The model atmospheres are characterized by the following

353: parameters \citep[see][for details]{bsn99em04}: (i) the reference

354: radius $R_0$, the radius at which the continuum optical depth in

355: extinction ($\tstd$) at 5000\AA\ is unity; (ii) the model temperature

356: $\teff$, defined by the luminosity, L and the

357: reference radius, $R_0$, [$\teff=(L/(4\pi R_0^2 \sigma))^{1/4}$],

358: where $\sigma$ is Stefan's constant; (iii) the density structure

359: parameter $v_e$, [$\rho(v) \propto e^{-v/v_e)}$]; (iv) the expansion

360: velocity, $v_0$, at the reference radius;  (v) the pressure, $P_{out}$,

361: at the outer edge of the atmosphere; (vi) the LTE-line threshold

362: ratio, equal to $5\times 10^{-6}$; (vii) the albedo for line

363: scattering (metal lines only, here set to 0.95); (viii) the

364: statistical velocity $\zeta=50$~\kmps, treated as depth-independent

365: isotropic microturbulence, and (ix) the elemental abundances, assumed

366: to be solar as

367: given by \citet{gn93}.

368: 

369: We emphasize that for extended model atmospheres one should not

370: assign, \emph{a priori}, a physical interpretation to the parameter

371: combination of \teff\ and $R_0$. While \teff\ has a well defined

372: physical meaning for plane-parallel stellar atmospheres, its

373: definition for extended atmospheres is connected to the particular

374: definition of the radius $R_0$ \citep[see][]{bsw91}. In addition, the

375: reference radius $R_0$ in our models is defined using an extinction

376: optical depth scale at $\lambda=5000$\AA\ and is not directly

377: comparable to observationally derived radii. Therefore the model

378: temperature is not well defined for extended atmospheres and must be

379: regarded only as a convenient numerical parameter.  We chose the

380: maximum extinction optical depth so that model would be just optically

381: thick to continuum scattering in order to replicate the optical

382: spectrum observed in these objects (see \S~\ref{results:fqbs}).

383: 

384: 

385: \subsection{Comparison of our model with \citet{dekool02b}}

386: 

387: \subsubsection{The \citeauthor{dekool02b} approach}

388: 

389: Because we want to compare and contrast our model with

390: \citet{dekool02b} we must first briefly describe their analysis.  We

391: repeat the description of their analysis from   \citet{branch02}

392: here. In their analysis, \citet{dekool02b} used effective continuous

393: spectra that consisted of a power-law continuum plus \ion{Fe}{2} and

394: \ion{Mg}{2} Broad Emission Lines (BELs).  The \ion{Mg}{2} BEL was the

395: sum of two Gaussians 

396: centered on the two components of the \ion{Mg}{2}

397: $\lambda$$2798$\AA\ doublet $(\lambda$$2796$\AA, $\lambda$$2803\AA)$.

398: Two different templates for the \ion{Fe} {2} BELs were considered.

399: The first consisted of a linear combination of five sets of

400: \ion{Fe}{2}  BELs from theoretical model calculations (Verner et al.

401: 1999), and the second was the observed \ion{Fe}{2} BEL spectrum of the

402: strong emission-line QSO 2226--3905 \citep{graham96}.  For the

403: absorption features, \citet{dekool02b} obtained a template

404: distribution of line optical depth with respect to velocity in the

405: Broad Absorption Line Region (BALR) from the observed absorption

406: profile of \ion{Fe}{2} 

407: $\lambda$3004\AA, an apparently unblended line of moderate

408: strength. Given the assumption that only absorption takes place in the

409: BALR, the optical depth was obtained from $\tau$(v) = $\log$

410: F$_\lambda$, where F$_\lambda$ is the fractional  residual flux in the

411: absorption feature. The resulting optical depth distribution extended

412: from about 1200 to 2700 \kmps\ and peaked near 2100 \kmps. This optical

413: depth distribution, scaled in amplitude, was used for all absorption

414: lines. For each of the absorbing ions that were introduced

415: \ion{Fe}{2}, \ion{Mg}{2}, \ion{Cr}{2}, and \ion{Mn}{2} the column

416: density was a fitting parameter. The relative strengths of the lines

417: of each ion turned out to be consistent with LTE.

418: 

419: Three models that differed in their details \citep{dekool02b} were

420: presented, with similar results. The column densities of \ion{Fe}{2},

421: \ion{Cr}{2}, and \ion{Mn}{2} were well constrained. (The column

422: density of \ion{Mg}{2} could not be well constrained because the only

423: \ion{Mg}{2} absorption, due to $\lambda$2798, is saturated.) The

424: excitation temperature was found to be near 10,000 K. Two local

425: covering factors, representing the fractions of the power-law source

426: and the BELR that are covered by the BALR as viewed by the observer,

427: were introduced to reproduce the observed nonblack saturation, that is

428: the fact

429: that in the observed spectrum, even very strong absorption features do

430: not go to zero flux. Both local covering factors were found to be $0.7

431: \pm 0.1$.

432: 

433: A detailed view of the spectral fit for one of the models was

434: presented, and practically all of the observed absorptions were

435: reasonably well accounted for. In order  to interpret the results of

436: \FQBS.  of their spectrum fits, \citet{dekool02b}  used the

437: photoionization--equilibrium code \emph{Cloudy}  to compute a grid of

438: constant-density slab models irradiated by a range of ionizing

439: spectra. The ionization parameter $U$, the hydrogen density $n$ and

440: the hydrogen column density $N_H$ were found to satisfy  $2.0 < \log U <

441: 0.7$, $7.5 < \log n < 9.5$, and $21.4 < \log N_H <  22.2$,

442: respectively. From these values, the distance of the BALR from the

443: center of the QSO was inferred to be between 1 and 30 pc.

444: 

445: \subsubsection{The PHOENIX approach}

446: 

447: \texttt{PHOENIX} calculations are very detailed,  starting from

448: first principles. We compare it with the rather simplified, template

449: fitting approach of \citet{dekool02b} \citep[see

450: also:][]{korista92,arav01,dekool01} and discuss differences in the

451: approaches. More details of \texttt{PHOENIX} are presented in an 

452: Appendix.

453: 

454: In contrast to the approach by \citet{dekool02b} we model the

455: continuum, the emission lines, and the absorption lines

456: simultaneously.  The \ion{Fe}{2} emission lines in our model are

457: calculated self-consistently using our rather large model

458: atom. The velocity width of the emission

459: lines is determined by the 

460: outflow characteristics.  In fact, the radiative transfer through the

461: moving clouds is what gives the lines their width and therefore the

462: calculations from the model are directly comparable with the observed

463: spectrum. In addition we have run in excess of 100 models during the

464: fitting process fitting the continuum, emission and absorption line

465: features simultaneously, compared with the linear combination of the

466: five calculations run with the sophisticated \emph{Cloudy} models in the

467: \citet{dekool02b} approach.  None of our models are based on observed

468: emission line spectra and as such we do not have the problems

469: associated with the correct placement and removal of the continuum.

470: 

471: We have none of the fitting parameters associated with the emission

472: line fits displayed in

473: \citet{dekool02b}. We rely on a global fit to the overall spectrum

474: from a model calculated from first principles, to determine how our

475: model compares with observation.

476: 

477: Our approach does not use a

478: template fit to the absorption

479: line spectrum $\tau$(v) = $\log$ F$_\lambda$.  In our model the

480: spectrum is calculated directly from self-consistently solving the

481: radiative transfer problem with scattering in an expanding atmosphere

482: from first principles. The full spectral energy distribution,

483: including continua, emission, absorption, and the effects of

484: differential expansion are solved for simultaneously and then the

485: results are compared to the observed spectra. Our optical depth

486: profile as a function of 

487: velocity is determined based on the physical conditions of the gas and

488: the radiation field at a given velocity, not on the observed spectrum of

489: the object \emph{a priori}.

490: 

491: Our model grid is specified in terms of \tstd\ and the spatial extent

492: is then determined by the implicit condition that \tstd($R_0$)$ =

493: 1.0$. Thus, the inner and outer spatial boundaries are determined by

494: the input \tstd\ grid and vary not only from model to model but within

495: a given model from iteration to iteration as we reach

496: convergence. Given the density parameterization, the pressure and

497: temperature are determined by the NLTE equation of state from

498: iteration to iteration. The models are very well converged. In

499: contradistinction to the template fitting of method \citet{dekool02b},

500: since we do 

501: not have a spatially fixed inner boundary and the \tstd\ grid is fixed,

502: we do not have \emph{a priori}, a fixed ionization parameter or column

503: density.

504: 

505: \section{Determining the Best Fit Model\label{Modelfits}}

506: 

507: 

508: 

509: In order to find  the appropriate model parameters we began with the

510: parameters of \citet{branch02} 

511: % ($v_{max}=2800 \kmps, v_{phot}=1000 \kmps,

512: % t_{bb}=8000\ K, t_{exc}=10000\ K$) 

513: and restricted our initial calculations

514: to pure LTE, which is much less computationally demanding and hence

515: allows us to produce large grids which are then calculated in full

516: NLTE.  Given an LTE grid, we then chose a subset of ``best fit'' (by

517: eye) models which we proceeded to calculate in full NLTE.  Once we

518: felt subjectively that we had the best model fit we turned to a more

519: objective method of determining the best fit.  Over 100 models were

520: run during this process.

521: 

522: 

523: Determining a goodness of fit criterion for spectra is a non-trivial

524: task. A pure $\chi^2$ method is not ideal because a good fit of a

525: synthetic spectrum to an observed spectrum should ideally fit on all

526: scales. That is, the continuum shape (colors) should be correct as

527: well as all the line features. Since our synthetic spectral models

528: include detailed physics of the interaction of the lines and continua,

529: we strive to fit both. Since we don't know the errors due to flux

530: calibration, reddening, etc., a $\chi^2$ would not have the

531: traditional meaning in terms of

532: probability. Figure~\ref{fig:show_fit_proc} illustrates how the

533: direct comparison of models to observations clearly leads to the best

534: fit spectrum. While the two models with \teff = 4600 and \teff = 4700

535: look quite close, we used a $\chi^2$-like test found the smallest

536: distance between the model and the observed treating the normalization

537: as a nuisance parameter.

538: 

539: 

540: 

541: 

542: %  In addition the normalization constant is related

543: % to the luminosity distance between the model (for which we know the

544: % luminosity) and the observation.  Therefore we are calculating a

545: % luminosity distance to the observed object for the given set of input

546: % parameters. However this method is only as good as the flux calibration of

547: % the object. Therefore to more accurately calculate the luminosity distance

548: % we use the SEAM method (see section \S  \ref{Discussion})

549: % which calculates the luminosity

550: % distance from the photometry of the object.

551: 

552: \section{Results\label{Results}}

553: 

554: \subsection{\FQBS\label{results:fqbs}}

555: 

556: We first turn our attention to the FeLoBAL quasar

557: \FQBS\ \citep{BeckerFBQS00,White} UV and optical spectra. We adopted a

558: redshift for \FQBS\ of $z=0.692$ as measured from the peak of the

559: \ion{Mg}{2} emission feature.  We corrected for a Galactic extinction

560: of $E(B-V)=0.023$ \citep{ExtEBminV} obtained from NED using the

561: reddening curve of \citet{cardelli89} supplemented by the work of

562: \citet{odonnell94}.  We smoothed all observed spectra using a

563: near-Gaussian smoothing procedure with a width of 300 \kmps.

564: 

565: The model calculations and fits were done according to the method

566: discussed  in \S~\ref{Modelfits}. Figure~\ref{FQBSUV} compares our

567: best-fitting synthetic \phx\ spectrum and the restframe UV spectrum of

568: \FQBS.  The best-fit parameters for \FQBS\ were: $\teff=4600$~K,

569: $R_0=1.4\times10^{17}$~cm, $v_e=300$~\kmps, and $v_{0}=2100$~\kmps

570: (for completeness these values are also shown in Table \ref{BESTFITTING}).

571: 

572: % \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

573: % \tablecaption{\label{gridTable}Grid model results} \tablewidth{0pt}

574: 

575: % \tablehead{ \colhead{Object} & \colhead{ \teff (K)} & \colhead{Radius

576: %     (cm)} &                                \colhead{FOM}}

577: 

578: % \startdata \FQBS & $4500$  & $1.4\times 10^{17}$ & 24.4\\ \FQBS &

579: % $4600$  & $1.4\times 10^{17}$ & 6.2 \\ \FQBS & $4700$  & $1.4\times

580: % 10^{17}$ & 6.9 \\                    \ISO & $4500$  & $1.4\times

581: % 10^{17}$ & 25.9 \\                    \ISO & $4600$  & $1.4\times

582: % 10^{17}$ & 12.4 \\                    \ISO & $4700$  & $1.4\times

583: % 10^{17}$ & 14.1 \\                    \enddata

584: % \end{deluxetable}

585: 

586: 

587: With this radius and model temperature, the luminosity of the model is

588: $L=6.3\times10^{45}$~\ ergs~s$^{-1}$.  Overall, the synthetic model

589: compares favorably with the restframe UV observation of \FQBS; in

590: particular the \ion{Fe}{2} lines, both from ground and excited states,

591: fit very well. The \ion{Mg}{2} $\lambda 2798$ feature appears to be

592: too strong in emission and yet too weak in absorption. This could be a

593: sign of asymmetry in the atmosphere, \citet{branch02} and

594: \citet{dekool02b} found a similar result in their

595: calculations.  Figure~\ref{FQBSOPT} compares the \FQBS\

596: rest-frame optical observations to the synthetic model.  The synthetic

597: model calculation is a reasonable fit to the optical observation. The

598: features at $4600$\AA\ are reproduced in the synthetic spectrum, yet

599: are not as strong as observed and \ion{H}{1} absorption appears

600: to be too strong in the synthetic spectrum.  However, this is dependent on

601: our placement of the continuum and it should be noted that the

602: observed optical spectrum is very noisy.  The observations of

603: \citet{hall07} show that Balmer absorption features do exist in optical

604: spectra of one FeLoBAL QSO which is very similar to the QSOs studied

605: here.

606: 

607: In order to reproduce the optical observation with our model we placed

608: our lower boundary condition (that the specific intensity is given by

609: the solution to the diffusion equation at the inner edge of our opaque

610: core) at the somewhat low value of $\tstd = 10$. Ideally we place that

611: opaque core at $\tstd \ga 100$, but when we did that we found that the

612: model spectrum longward of 2800 \AA\ no longer  fit the

613: observation. In particular the optical flux was very attenuated and

614: had deep P-Cygni profiles unlike the observation.

615:  FeLoBALs, although very

616: optically thick by  AGN standards, are therefore thought to be

617: optically thinner than, for 

618: example, the atmosphere of a Type II supernova. Models in which the

619: continuum optical depth is high ($\tau_{std}=100$) fail to reproduce

620: the optical, and the UV spectra redward of Mg II of FeLoBALs. This

621: could be an indication that our inner boundary condition would be

622: better replaced by an AGN-like continuum, but that is beyond the scope

623: of the present work.

624: 

625: 

626: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}

627: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{\label{BESTFITTING} PHOENIX

628:   best-fitting model parameters.}  \tablehead{

629:   \colhead{$R_0$}&\colhead{$v_{0}$}&\colhead{$v_e$}&\colhead{log($L_{bol}$)}}

630: \startdata

631: $1.4\times10^{17}$~cm&$2100$~\kmps&$300$~\kmps&$45.8$~\

632: ergs~s$^{-1}$\\

633: 

634: \enddata

635: \end{deluxetable}

636: 

637: 

638: \subsubsection{Importance of NLTE effects}

639: It is important to correctly model

640: photoionization and recombination in the models.

641: Figure~\ref{FQBSCaII} shows the importance of NLTE effects in

642: correctly modeling spectra. The solid line has all the species that we

643: included in these calculations in NLTE, whereas the dashed line has

644: everything in NLTE except for Ca I-III.  For species treated in LTE

645: the Saha-Boltzmann equations are solved in order to calculate the

646: atomic level populations instead of the full rate equations.  An LTE

647: treatment of calcium  results in  under-estimation of the ionization

648: of calcium in the model which creates a large quantity of

649: \ion{Ca}{2} in the line forming region. Therefore the \ion{Ca}{2} H\&K

650: features appear in the LTE spectrum. When NLTE is turned on for Ca

651: I--III in the PHOENIX model, the level populations are controlled by

652: the hotter radiation field (photoionized) from deeper layers and 

653: calcium is overionized compared to the local gas temperature.  Therefore the

654: \ion{Ca}{2} H\&K features, which are resonance transitions, disappear

655: from the synthetic spectrum.   The synthetic model which treats Ca

656: I--III in NLTE closely reproduces the optical observation whereas the

657: synthetic model without the NLTE Ca I--III clearly overestimates the

658: strength of the H\&K lines.

659: 

660: \subsection{\ISO}

661: 

662: The optical spectrum of \ISO\ was obtained in September 2000 with the

663: FORS1 instrument installed on the VLT UT1/Antu \citep{Duc}.  We

664: adopted a redshift of $z=1.776$ which was determined by the

665: \ion{C}{4}, \ion{Fe}{2} $\lambda 2627$ line, and \ion{Mg}{2} emission

666: lines.  We corrected for an Galactic extinction of $E(B-V)=0.017$

667: \citep{ExtEBminV} using the standard reddening curve

668: \citep{cardelli89,odonnell94}.  We smoothed all observed spectra using

669: a  near-Gaussian smoothing procedure with a width of 300 \kmps.

670: 

671: The \ion{Mg}{2} feature has a similar shape when compared with

672: \FQBS\ and \ISO\ appears to have similar \ion{Fe}{2} features when

673: compared with \FQBS.  Because of the similarities between \ISO\ and

674: \FQBS\ we compare the synthetic model spectrum which fit \FQBS\ with

675: the rest frame UV spectrum of \ISO.  This comparison is shown in

676: Figure \ref{ISOUV}.  Following the same fitting procedure outlined in

677: \S~\ref{Modelfits} and the same grid of models used for \FQBS\, we

678: found that the parameters which were a best fit for \FQBS\ also were a

679: best fit for \ISO.  The \ion{Fe}{2} lines fit very well for this

680: object and the \ion{Mg}{2} emission feature was too strong while the

681: absorption was too weak. This is very similar to the fit to the UV

682: spectrum of \FQBS.

683: 

684: The similarities between the UV spectra of \FQBS\ and \ISO\ are

685: interesting. \FQBS\ and \ISO\ may be a subtype of FeLoBAL AGN with

686: very similar characteristics.   For emphasis, in Figure \ref{FQBSISO}

687: we show the synthetic model spectrum with the combined \FQBS\ UV and

688: optical spectra and the \ISO\ UV spectrum. The high quality fit, over

689: a wide wavelength range, is compelling.  It is however unlikely that

690: the \phx\ models would compare favorably with the total composite

691: spectrum of \ISO. \ISO\ was discovered in the infrared and the UV

692: spectrum is diminished with respect to the infrared \citep{Duc};

693: however the IR emission could be enhanced by  dust emission in a

694: physically separate region.

695: 

696: 

697: \subsection{Physical Conditions \label{PHYSCOND}}

698: 

699: The physical conditions in atmosphere are calculated from the solution of

700: the radiative transfer equation, the equilibrium rate equations, and

701: the equation of radiative equilibrium for the best fit 

702: input parameters given in Table \ref{BESTFITTING}.

703: The \phx\ model for \ISO\ and \FQBS\ has the following physical

704: dynamics: outflow mass $550\ M_{\odot}$, kinetic energy

705: $30\times10^{51}$ ergs, and a mass loss rate of

706: $\dot{M}=159$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$ above the ``photosphere''

707: ($\tau_{std}=1$).  In addition the \phx\ model yields an outflow mass of

708: $3000\ M_{\odot}$, kinetic energy of $100\times10^{51}$ ergs,  and a mass

709: loss rate of $\dot{M}=466$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$ above $\tau_{std}=10$.  The

710: \phx\  model has  an equivalent hydrogen column density of

711: $2\times10^{24}$\ cm$^{-2}$ for the region above the ``photosphere''

712: ($\tau_{std}=1$) and a maximum equivalent hydrogen column density of

713: $2\times10^{25}$\ cm$^{-2}$ for the  entire atmosphere

714: ($\tau_{std}=10$). These values are displayed in Table~\ref{PHYSCONDTAB}.

715: 

716: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}

717: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{PHOENIX Physical

718:   Conditions.\label{PHYSCONDTAB}} \tablehead{

719:   \colhead{$\tau_{std}$}&\colhead{Outflow Mass}&\colhead{Kinetic

720:     Energy}&\colhead{$\dot{M}$}&\colhead{Column Density}} \startdata

721: 1&$547\ M_{\odot}$&$30\times10^{51}$

722: ergs&$159$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$&$2\times10^{24}$\

723: cm$^{-2}$\\ 10&$3000\ M_{\odot}$&$100\times10^{51}$

724: ergs&$466$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$&$2\times10^{25}$\ cm$^{-2}$

725: \enddata

726: \end{deluxetable}

727: 

728: %starthere

729: 

730: 

731: \section{Discussion \label{Discussion}}

732: 

733: The model fits are especially good considering the few free parameters

734: in the \texttt{PHOENIX} model. The reader should keep in mind that we

735: are not fitting each absorption line separately, but rather construct

736: a global fit to the entire spectrum using  the parameters given in

737: Table~\ref{BESTFITTING}. This includes the absorption, the emission,

738: and the continuum, all fit with these few parameters.  In fact, our

739: model spectrum is created by the solution to the radiative transfer

740: equation at every wavelength point across the spectrum simultaneously.  

741: 

742: In this section, we discuss some of the physical constraints from

743: these models,  how observed polarization in FeLoBALs fits in with this

744: model, provide a few inferences about other FeLoBALs and then 

745: discuss some implications for quasar populations and evolution.

746: 

747: \subsection{Physical Constraints Inferred}

748: 

749: Although we have assumed a specific density profile, the radial

750: extension of our model is very small ($v_{max} = 2800$~\kmps\ and

751: $v_{0} = 2100$~\kmps); thus the model does not strongly probe the

752: density structure of the ejecta, except to infer that the density

753: profile is rather flat. \citet{branch02}  assumed a power-law density

754: profile with $\rho \propto (\frac{v}{v_0})^{-n}$, with $n=2$, whereas

755: our effective power-law index at the pseudo-photosphere $\tstd=1$ is

756: $v_0/v_e = 7$, nominally significantly steeper, but since the radial

757: extension of our model is so small the discrepancy should not be

758: considered important. What is perhaps more interesting is that our

759: value of $v_0$ is quite a bit higher than that of \citet{branch02} who

760: used a photospheric velocity of 1000~\kmps. Interestingly, they had to

761: impose a minimum velocity of $1800$~\kmps\ on \ion{Fe}{2} and

762: \ion{Cr}{2} and they chose the same value of $v_{max}=2800$~\kmps. The

763: lower photospheric velocity is likely to be a consequence of the 

764: Schuster-Schwarzschild approximation \citep{mihalas78sa} of

765: SYNOW. That is, in SYNOW all emission of photons occurs at the

766: photosphere and the atmosphere consists merely of a

767: ``reversing-layer'' where there is no creation or destruction of

768: photons, only resonant scattering. In

769: contrast, \phx\ allows 

770: line formation throughout the atmosphere, and lines typically form in

771: the ``line-forming region'' ($3.0 < \tstd < 0.1$) depending on their

772: strength. The much lower ``photospheric'' temperature that we find is

773: robust since SYNOW does no continuum transfer and thus the

774: ``temperature'' in a SYNOW model is not physically meaningful; it just

775: is a way of parameterizing the underlying continuum. However,

776: \phx\ solves the full NLTE radiative transfer problem and particularly

777: our result that the \ion{Ca}{2} H+K feature is only reproduced in NLTE

778: indicates that we have the right physical conditions in our model.

779: 

780: The synthetic model has $547 M_{\odot}$ and kinetic energy

781: $30\times10^{51}$ ergs above the ``photosphere''

782: ($\tau_{std}=1$). With $R_0=1.4\times10^{17}$~cm and maximum velocity

783: $v_{max}=2800$~\kmps\ we estimate a crossing time of $t \simeq

784: \ R_0/v_{max}=15.5$~yr. We estimate the mass loss rate using $\dot{M}

785: \simeq M/t=35$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$ which is $1/5$  the mass loss rate in

786: our \phx\ model of $\dot{M}=159$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$. The kinetic energy

787: luminosity is estimated to be $\dot{E_k}\simeq

788: E_{k}/t=4.3\times10^{43}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ which is two orders of

789: magnitude lower than the bolometric luminosity of the model

790: $L_{bol}=6.3\times10^{45}$~erg~s$^{-1}$; thus the flow could be

791: luminosity driven. Even more interesting is that the velocity we find

792: is very similar to characteristic velocities of hot stellar winds

793: which are thought to be  driven by line absorption in the atmosphere

794: \citep{walborn95}.

795: 

796: \citet{branch02} found a luminosity of $6 \times 10^{46}$~erg~s$^{-1}$

797: from the photometry of \FQBS\ and using the quasar composite spectrum

798: of \citet{MF87} to  perform the K-correction and the relation $L_{bol}

799: = 9 \lambda L_\lambda$ at 5100\AA\ \citep{kaspi00b}. Using the quasar

800: composite spectrum of \citet{francisetal91} we find $\mathrm{L_{bol} =

801:   4.4 \times   10^{46}}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for \FQBS\ and $\mathrm{L_{bol}

802:   = 1.7 \times   10^{45}}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for \ISO.  Since the spectra

803: are so similar, but the total luminosities inferred differ by a factor

804: of 10, suggesting that the K-correction is important, as it is

805: dependent on the shape of the spectral energy distribution.

806: 

807: Our models have a maximum column density of

808: $2\times10^{25}$~cm$^{-2}$ for the entire atmosphere and a column

809: density of 

810: $2\times10^{24}$~cm$^{-2}$ for the region above the

811: ``photosphere'' $\tau_{std}=1$. As discussed in \S~\ref{results:fqbs},

812: the maximum  

813: column density is constrained by our fit to the optical spectrum. A

814: higher column density would yield  higher continuum and line

815: optical depths and the continuum would be much weaker than

816: observed.  Thus, the requirement that a photosphere be present places

817: a limit on the minimum column density of $2\times10^{24}$~cm$^{-2}$,

818: and the optical spectrum places a limit on the maximum 

819: column density of $2\times10^{25}$~cm$^{-2}$ of the wind.

820: These constraints make these models Thompson thick, and is sufficient

821: to make these objects appear to be X-ray faint as observed

822: \citep{green01,gallagher06}.

823: 

824: We can now calculate a luminosity distance using a variant of the

825: Spectral-fitting Expanding Atmosphere Method (SEAM) used to derive

826: distances to supernovae

827: \citep{b93j3,l94d01,b94i2,mitchetal87a02,bsn99em04}. SEAM is a

828: sophisticated variant of the classical Baade-Wesselink method

829: \citep{baadeepm}. Our approach here differs from the conventional SEAM

830: method in the crucial respect that in the supernova case, we know both

831: that homology is an excellent approximation shortly after the

832: explosion and we know that there was an explosive ejection at a time

833: $t_0$ (which SEAM determines). Here, homology has been taken to be an

834: expedient Ansatz and $R_0$ has been set semi-empirically. 

835: There is no reason

836: \emph{a priori} to expect that FeLoBALs are the result of a single

837: ejection event and thus the radius in our models is much more poorly

838: known than in the case of supernovae. However the radial extent does

839: determine the overall density, and if we were able to identify

840: features which are good density indicators we may be able to place the

841: results of this method on firmer ground. Of course, we are sensitive

842: to systematic errors in the overall flux calibration and in the total

843: reddening. Errors due to reddening tend to cancel out, since the more

844: we must deredden the observed spectrum, the hotter we must make the

845: synthetic spectrum, which compensates for the dimmer observed

846: spectrum. Thus, below we will test the value used for $R_0$ by using

847: the synthetic spectra to  calculate synthetic photometry and the

848: predicted bolometric magnitudes in a number of bands. Comparing these

849: magnitudes to the observed photometry, we obtain a distance.  This result is

850: sensitive to $R_0$ and thus if we find reasonable values for the

851: distance we can have confidence in our choice of $R_0$, and hence that

852: we have the right density. The outflow rate we find is then also

853: reasonable. Thus, this provides an important check on our

854: parameters. 

855: 

856: The SEAM method uses observed photometry and the synthetic spectrum to

857: calculate synthetic photometry as well as K-corrections. From this we

858: find a distance modulus $\mu$ which is simply related to the

859: luminosity distance. Using $m_B = 17.06$ for \FQBS\ we find $\mu =

860: 42.56$ or $d_L = 3.25$~Gpc, which compares favorably with the

861: luminosity distance inferred for our adopted cosmology

862: ($\mathrm{H_0=70,\ \Omega_M=0.3,\ \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7}$) of $d_L =

863: 4.2$~Gpc. Using $m_B = 22.74$ for \ISO\ we find $\mu = 46.59$ or $d_L

864: = 20.8$~Gpc, which is a bit high compared with the luminosity distance

865: inferred for our adopted cosmology $d_L = 13.4$~Gpc. As we noted

866: above, it seems likely that the K-corrections are important and thus

867: we obtain a distance for the relatively nearby \FQBS\ which is good to

868: about 30\%, but for the more distant \ISO\ the distance is off by

869: 55\%. Nevertheless, that fact that the distances agree to better than

870: a factor of two indicates that our model predicts roughly the right

871: size as well as the right SED for both objects.

872: 

873: Since our \phx\ synthetic spectra are quite a good fit, we may also

874: determine the bolometric luminosity using our synthetic spectra to

875: perform synthetic photometry and calculate K-corrections. With this

876: method we find that $L_{bol} = 1.2 \times 10^{46}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for

877: \FQBS\ and $L_{bol} = 2.9 \times 10^{45}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for \ISO.

878: 

879: We obtained $L_{bol}$ in two different ways, both of which were

880: consistent with each other. However the two objects have nearly

881: identical SEDs in the regions that we can observe

882: (Fig.~\ref{FQBSISO}). Why does the 

883: synthetic $L_{bol}$ differ by a factor of $10$? The values for $R_0$

884: which are the same for the synthetic models must actually differ

885: slightly between the two objects, or, as noted above, the K-correction

886: is important.

887: 

888: We use our model luminosity to estimate a few quantities. If we assume

889: that our model luminosity is the Eddington luminosity then the black

890: hole mass and the accretion rate are $M_E = 5 \times

891: 10^{7}$~\msol\ and $\dot{M_E} = 1.1$~\msol~yr$^{-1}$.  These are

892: roughly consistent with usual estimates for quasars,  even if we scale

893: the luminosity up by a factor of 3 that we infer from photometry.

894: 

895: \subsection{Polarization\label{sec:polar}}

896: 

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: \citeauthor{lamy04} (\citeyear{lamy04,lamy00}) found that the polarization 

901: increases in the absorption troughs do not rule out the model described in

902: this paper. They constructed a

903: ``two-component'' wind model.

904: In their model, the broad absorption

905: occurs in a dense equatorial wind emerging from the accretion disk,

906: while scattering and polarization mainly take place in a polar

907: region. Our model is consistent with the two component

908: model \citep{lamy04} in which the observer looks through a

909: equilateral wind  and sees a polar component which is dominated by

910: electron scattering.  A spherically symmetric model is a required

911: computational constraint inherent in \phx; thus we assume 100\%

912: global covering.  The polarization results indicate that some

913: asymmetry must be present; nevertheless, the presence of P-Cygni

914: profiles where the absorption troughs go almost to zero flux

915: indicate that the covering fraction is high. 

916: 

917: Our model will not change much if we relax the 100\% global covering

918: fraction and  have the same electron scattering polar component

919: described in \citet{lamy04}.  In fact, reducing the covering factor

920: would most likely provide a better fit, as it would reduce the

921: emission feature in \ion{Mg}{2} that was shown in \S 4.1 to be slightly

922: too big.

923: 

924: \subsection{Other FeLoBAL QSOs}

925: 

926: FeLoBALs are observed to  have a wide range of spectra \citep{hall02}.

927: We fit only 

928: the spectra of two objects in this paper; in this section, we comment

929: briefly on whether or not the \phx\ model is likely to be able to

930: explain the spectra of other objects.  

931: 

932: \citet{hall07} report blueshifted broad absorption lines troughs in

933: Balmer lines in the quasar SDSS~J125942.80+121312.6.  Our \phx\ model

934: predicts Balmer absorption in at least H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ as seen

935: in Fig.\ 2.    Thus our model may very well be able to explain the

936: spectra of this object too.  

937: 

938: The value of the  global covering fraction is very likely to be

939: responsible for the differences between the spectra that we have

940: modelled here, and those of other  FeLoBAL QSOs

941: \citep{hazard87,cowie94,becker97,hall02}. Specifically, many FeLoBALs

942: appear to have only absorption features, and the emission features are

943: week.  The high global covering fraction inherent in the \phx\ model

944: predicts rather prominent emission features and P-Cygni profiles.

945: Reducing the global covering while viewing the outflow from the

946: equatorial region would reduce the emission line strengths while

947: retaining the strong absorption features. 

948: 

949: So-called overlapping trough QSOs \citep{hall02} may also  be able to

950: be explained by this paradigm. We investigated them with our models and

951: yet where unable to come up with a satisfactory solution, because the

952: emission in our 100\% global covering method is too high. Therefore

953: the covering fraction in these type of quasars might be  not quite as

954: large as for the objects modeled here.   In addition they appear to

955: have higher velocity winds and possibly higher optical depths.

956: 

957: If the covering fraction is not 100\%, then from some lines of sight

958: we may see the nucleus directly. The strong \ion{Fe}{2} absorption 

959: observed when the outflow is in the line of sight may be seen as as

960: emission in this case, and ultrastrong \ion{Fe}{2} emission may be

961: seen. The idea of linking \ion{Fe}{2} emission with BAL outflows not

962: in the line of sight has been suggested for the prototypical

963: Narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) I Zw 1 \citep{boroson92b}.

964: 

965: 

966: \subsection{Implications for Quasar Populations and

967:   Evolution \label{BAL}} 

968: 

969: Broad absorption lines are found in the spectra of 10--20\% of the

970: quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[e.g.][]{trump06}.  The simplest

971: interpretation of this fact is that all quasars have an outflow that

972: occults 10--20\% of quasar lines of sight (the orientation model).

973: Alternatively, the outflow may cover a larger percentage of sight

974: lines, and the broad absorption lines may only be present during some

975: small fraction of the quasar lifetime during which it is blowing gas

976: out of the nucleus \citep[e.g.,][]{voit93, becker00, gregg06}.  As

977: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:polar}, our model requires a large global

978: covering fraction, although it does not have to be 100\%.  Here we

979: briefly review the support for both scenarios, and discuss how  our

980: results fit into models for quasars in general.

981: 

982: \citet{weymann91} compare the emission-line and continuum properties

983: of spectra from 42 BALQSOs with those of 29 normal QSOs.  They find

984: that the emission-line and continuum properties are very similar

985: between the BALQSOs and the non-BALQSOs.  This result forms a key

986: support for the orientation model.   Another important piece of

987: evidence that supports the idea that BALQSOs and non-BALQSOs differ

988: only in their orientation is the fact that X-ray spectra from some

989: BALQSOs are highly absorbed, but apparently intrinsically identical to

990: those of non-BALQSOs \citep{gallagher02}.

991: 

992: However, the \citet{weymann91} sample is very small, and the number of

993: BALQSOs for which X-ray spectra of sufficient quality to obtain

994: absorption column information is also small.  Thus, while the

995: orientation model is widely accepted, and may be applicable to many

996: BALQSOs, the evidence for the evolutionary model, at least for some

997: subclasses of BALQSOs, is growing.  The best candidate for objects

998: characterizing the evolutionary model and not fitting into the

999: orientation model are the low-ionization BALQSOs.  Early on, these

1000: were noted to have optical and UV emission-line and continuum

1001: properties different than ordinary quasars

1002: \citep{weymann91,boroson92b}; for example, they tend to have strong

1003: \ion{Fe}{2} 

1004: emission and weak \ion{O}{3}]. They also tend to be more reddened than

1005: non-BALQSOs and HiBALs \citep{reichard03}, and they are uniformly more

1006: X-ray weak than HiBALs \citep{gallagher06}.  In addition, they are

1007: very rare; \citet{trump06} find only about 1\% of quasars are LoBALs.

1008: Thus, the usual argument used in favor of the orientation model, the

1009: similarity of spectra from BALQSOs and non-BALQSOs, doesn't work as

1010: well for LoBALs.

1011: 

1012: Further evidence for an evolutionary role of BALQSOs comes from their

1013: radio properties.   If BALQSOs were observed predominately edge-on, as

1014: are radio galaxies, one would expect to see a steep radio spectrum

1015: dominated by the synchrotron emission in the radio lobes.  However,

1016: BALQSOs show both steep and flat radio spectra

1017: \citep[e.g.,][]{becker00}.  Furthermore, Fe II BALQSOs are extremely

1018: rare, and there is evidence among the small sample of an

1019: anti-correlation between the radio-loudness and the strength of the

1020: BAL features that led \citet{gregg06} to propose that quasars in this

1021: state are emerging from cocoons of gas that produces the BALs and

1022: which suppresses the development of radio jets and lobes.  In

1023: addition, \citet{brotherton06} present spectropolometric results

1024: showing polarization parallel to the radio axis, implying a small

1025: angle of inclination; they present an extensive review of the

1026: implications of the radio properties on BALQSO models.

1027: 

1028: Numerous models of quasar evolution admit a time period early in the

1029: life of a quasar when it is heavily shrouded by dust and gas.  Before

1030: we see the bare quasar, we expect to see it in a heavily absorbed

1031: stage.  Outflows may result from the turning on of the QSO

1032: \citep{hazard84}.  LoBALs may be young quasars that are casting off

1033: their cocoons of dust and gas \citep{voit93} and may be related to

1034: ultra-luminous infrared galaxies \citep{egami99}.  \citet{becker97}

1035: suggest that FeLoBALs may be the missing link between galaxies and

1036: quasars.  Recent simulations of mergers and quasar evolution show that

1037: during much of the lifetime of the quasar, it is heavily shrouded by

1038: gas with large column densities \citep[e.g.,][]{hopkins05}.

1039: Observational support for this view comes from the discovery of a

1040: large number (four out of a sample of eight) LoBALs in high redshift

1041: quasars \citep{maiolino04}.

1042: 

1043: Thus, observational evidence and scenarios for quasar evolution imply

1044: that FeLoBALs may be candidates for support of the evolutionary

1045: scenario.  If the quasar observable lifetime is assumed to be $10^7$

1046: years, the fact that FeLoBALs only make up 0.33\% of quasars in the

1047: SDSS \citep{trump06} implies that the time scale for this stage is

1048: approximately $3 \times 10^4$ years.  That should be a lower limit,

1049: however, since these objects may be missed in the SDSS

1050: \citep{trump06}.  This relatively short time period, compared with the

1051: total lifetime of a quasar,  compares favorably with our crossing time

1052: of 15 years.

1053: 

1054: It is clear that a high global covering fraction is compatible with

1055: the evolutionary scenario.  But what about the other parameters

1056: obtained from the model fits?.  One possible problem is that the

1057: radius of the model shows that the outflow occurs well within the

1058: central engine, at approximately $1.4 \times 10^{17}\rm \,cm$.  The

1059: quasar feedback scenario proposed by \citet{fabian99} infers that the

1060: bulk of the gas expelled from the AGN is accelerated beyond the Bondi

1061: radius, which for a $5 \times 10^7\,M_\odot$ black hole is $4 \times

1062: 10^{21}\rm \, cm$.  On the other hand, the amount of gas expelled

1063: during this process could be comparable to the amount of gas contained

1064: by the  entire galaxy, far more than the rather modest $547 M_\odot$

1065: that we infer.  It is quite possible that the accretion/blow out

1066: process is messy and chaotic; there may be a phase in which the

1067: central engine ``burps'', and this results in the features that we

1068: see.

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \section{Conclusions}

1073: 

1074: Using the spectral synthesis code  \texttt{PHOENIX} we compute

1075: synthetic spectra that provide very good fits to the observed

1076: restframe UV and optical spectra of two FeLoBALs.

1077: While our models are limited to exact spherical symmetry, they provide

1078: excellent fits. In order to reconcile our results with the

1079: polarization data on these objects, we require some asymmetry, but

1080: still a high global covering fraction, which would only modestly

1081: affect the flux spectrum.

1082: 

1083: We are able to determine a luminosity distance estimate which is

1084: direct and is accurate to around 50\%. The question arises: could

1085: these objects be used as distance indicators at high z, even if only

1086: as a sanity check on the really high-z Hubble diagram from GRBs?

1087: 

1088: Our results lend support to the inference that FeLoBALs are an

1089: evolutionary stage of the QSO as opposed to a pure orientation

1090: effect. Our model with a smaller covering factor may be able to

1091: explain other BAL QSO such as overlapping trough QSOs.  In addition

1092: our model column densities, which are Compton thick, match those that

1093: are  expected from X-ray non-detections of these objects.

1094: 

1095: For future work we plan to explore metallicity effects on the model

1096: spectrum. This is not trivial, as it is not just a matter of changing

1097: the metallicity and comparing the model. Completely different sets of

1098: dynamical and luminosity parameters may be required to  achieve the

1099: best fitting model spectrum. 

1100: We plan to continue our analysis with the \citet{hall07} spectrum,

1101: which shows $H\beta$ absorption.

1102: We have compared our observed spectrum with the one from that paper

1103: and think that it is an excellent candidate for this type of modeling.

1104: 

1105: \begin{acknowledgments}

1106:   We thank David Jeffery and Sebastian Knop for helpful discussions.

1107:   We thank Pierre-Alain Duc for the \ISO\ spectrum and Mike Eracleous

1108:   for the optical spectrum of \FQBS.  This work was supported in part

1109:   by NASA grants NAG5-3505, NAG5-12127, NAG5-10365 and NSF grants

1110:   AST-0204771, AST-0506028, and AST-0307323. This research used

1111:   resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing

1112:   Center (NERSC), which is supported by the Office of Science of the

1113:   U.S.  Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.  We

1114:   thank them for a generous allocation of computer time. D.J. was

1115:   supported in part by Project number 146001 financed by the Ministry

1116:   of Science and Environmental Protection of Serbia.  This research

1117:   has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is

1118:   operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of

1119:   Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space

1120:   Administration.

1121: \end{acknowledgments}

1122: 

1123: %\bibliography{apj-jour,refs,agn,baron,sn1a,novae,stars,rte,crossrefs}

1124: \begin{thebibliography}{87}

1125: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1126: 

1127: \bibitem[{Allard {et~al.}(2001)Allard, Hauschildt, Alexander, Tamanai, \&

1128:   Schweitzer}]{cond-dusty}

1129: Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.~H., Alexander, D.~R., Tamanai, A., \& Schweitzer, A.

1130:   2001, ApJ, 556, 357

1131: 

1132: \bibitem[{Allard {et~al.}(1997)Allard, Hauschildt, \& Starrfield}]{ahscsarev97}

1133: Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.~H., \& Starrfield, S. 1997, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 35,

1134:   137

1135: 

1136: \bibitem[{{Arav} {et~al.}(1999){Arav}, {Becker}, {Laurent-Muehleisen}, {Gregg},

1137:   {White}, {Brotherton}, \& {de Kool}}]{arav99}

1138: {Arav}, N., {Becker}, R.~H., {Laurent-Muehleisen}, S.~A., {Gregg}, M.~D.,

1139:   {White}, R.~L., {Brotherton}, M.~S., \& {de Kool}, M. 1999, \apj, 524, 566

1140: 

1141: \bibitem[{{Arav} {et~al.}(2005){Arav}, {Kaastra}, {Kriss}, {Korista}, {Gabel},

1142:   \& {Proga}}]{arav05}

1143: {Arav}, N., {Kaastra}, J., {Kriss}, G.~A., {Korista}, K.~T., {Gabel}, J., \&

1144:   {Proga}, D. 2005, \apj, 620, 665

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[{{Arav} {et~al.}(2001)}]{arav01}

1147: {Arav}, N. {et~al.} 2001, \apj, 561, 118

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[{Baade(1926)}]{baadeepm}

1150: Baade, W. 1926, Astr. Nach., 228, 359

1151: 

1152: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2006)Baron, Bongard, Branch, \& Hauschildt}]{bbbh06}

1153: Baron, E., Bongard, S., Branch, D., \& Hauschildt, P. 2006, ApJ, 645, 480

1154: 

1155: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(1999)Baron, Branch, Hauschildt, Filippenko, \&

1156:   Kirshner}]{b94i2}

1157: Baron, E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P.~H., Filippenko, A.~V., \& Kirshner, R.~P.

1158:   1999, ApJ, 527, 739

1159: 

1160: \bibitem[{Baron \& Hauschildt(1998)}]{bhpar298}

1161: Baron, E. \& Hauschildt, P.~H. 1998, ApJ, 495, 370

1162: 

1163: \bibitem[{Baron \& Hauschildt(2004)}]{bh04}

1164: ---. 2004, A\&A, 427, 987

1165: 

1166: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(1995)Baron, Hauschildt, Branch, Austin, Garnavich,

1167:   Ann, Wagner, Filippenko, Matheson, \& Liebert}]{b93j3}

1168: Baron, E., Hauschildt, P.~H., Branch, D., Austin, S., Garnavich, P., Ann,

1169:   H.~B., Wagner, R.~M., Filippenko, A.~V., Matheson, T., \& Liebert, J. 1995,

1170:   ApJ, 441, 170

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2003)Baron, Hauschildt, \& Lowenthal}]{bpar03}

1173: Baron, E., Hauschildt, P.~H., \& Lowenthal, D. 2003, in Stellar Atmospheric

1174:   Modeling, ed. I.~Hubeny, D.~Mihalas, \& K.~Werner (San Francisco: ASP), 385

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(1997)Baron, Hauschildt, \& Mezzacappa}]{bhmasi97}

1177: Baron, E., Hauschildt, P.~H., \& Mezzacappa, A. 1997, in Thermonuclear

1178:   Supernovae, ed. P.~Ruiz-Lapuente, R.~Canal, \& J.~Isern (Dordrecht: Kluwer),

1179:   627

1180: 

1181: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2004)Baron, Nugent, Branch, \& Hauschildt}]{bsn99em04}

1182: Baron, E., Nugent, P., Branch, D., \& Hauschildt, P. 2004, ApJ, 616, L91

1183: 

1184: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2000)}]{bsn99em00}

1185: Baron, E. {et~al.} 2000, ApJ, 545, 444

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[{Baschek {et~al.}(1991)Baschek, Scholz, \& Wehrse}]{bsw91}

1188: Baschek, B., Scholz, M., \& Wehrse, R. 1991, A\&A, 299, 374

1189: 

1190: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(1997){Becker}, {Gregg}, {Hook}, {McMahon}, {White},

1191:   \& {Helfand}}]{becker97}

1192: {Becker}, R.~H., {Gregg}, M.~D., {Hook}, I.~M., {McMahon}, R.~G., {White},

1193:   R.~L., \& {Helfand}, D.~J. 1997, \apjl, 479, L93+

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}}){Becker}, {White}, {Gregg},

1196:   {Brotherton}, {Laurent-Muehleisen}, \& {Arav}}]{BeckerFBQS00}

1197: {Becker}, R.~H., {White}, R.~L., {Gregg}, M.~D., {Brotherton}, M.~S.,

1198:   {Laurent-Muehleisen}, S.~A., \& {Arav}, N. 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 538, 72

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}}){Becker}, {White}, {Gregg},

1201:   {Brotherton}, {Laurent-Muehleisen}, \& {Arav}}]{becker00}

1202: ---. 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 538, 72

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[{{Begelman}(2003)}]{begelman03}

1205: {Begelman}, M.~C. 2003, Science, 300, 1898

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[{{Boroson} \& {Meyers}(1992)}]{boroson92b}

1208: {Boroson}, T.~A. \& {Meyers}, K.~A. 1992, \apj, 397, 442

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[{Branch {et~al.}(2003)Branch, Baron, \& Jeffery}]{bbj03}

1211: Branch, D., Baron, E., \& Jeffery, D.~J. 2003, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray

1212:   Bursts, ed. K.~W. Weiler (New York: Springer-Verlag), 47

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[{{Branch} {et~al.}(2002){Branch}, {Leighly}, {Thomas}, \&

1215:   {Baron}}]{branch02}

1216: {Branch}, D., {Leighly}, K.~M., {Thomas}, R.~C., \& {Baron}, E. 2002, \apjl,

1217:   578, L37

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{{Brotherton} {et~al.}(2006){Brotherton}, {De Breuck}, \&

1220:   {Schaefer}}]{brotherton06}

1221: {Brotherton}, M.~S., {De Breuck}, C., \& {Schaefer}, J.~J. 2006, \mnras, 372,

1222:   L58

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&

1225:   {Mathis}}]{cardelli89}

1226: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[{{Casebeer} {et~al.}(2004){Casebeer}, {Baron}, {Branch}, \&

1229:   {Leighly}}]{casebeer04}

1230: {Casebeer}, D., {Baron}, E., {Branch}, D., \& {Leighly}, K. 2004, in AGN

1231:   Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, ed. G.~T. Richards \& P.~B. Hall,

1232:   ASP Conference Series (San Franciso: ASP), 231

1233: 

1234: \bibitem[{{Cowie} {et~al.}(1994){Cowie}, {Songaila}, {Hu}, {Egami}, {Huang},

1235:   {Pickles}, {Ridgway}, {Wainscoat}, \& {Weymann}}]{cowie94}

1236: {Cowie}, L.~L., {Songaila}, A., {Hu}, E.~M., {Egami}, E., {Huang}, J.-S.,

1237:   {Pickles}, A.~J., {Ridgway}, S.~E., {Wainscoat}, R.~J., \& {Weymann}, R.~J.

1238:   1994, \apjl, 432, L83

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[{{de Kool} {et~al.}(2001){de Kool}, {Arav}, {Becker}, {Gregg},

1241:   {White}, {Laurent-Muehleisen}, {Price}, \& {Korista}}]{dekool01}

1242: {de Kool}, M., {Arav}, N., {Becker}, R.~H., {Gregg}, M.~D., {White}, R.~L.,

1243:   {Laurent-Muehleisen}, S.~A., {Price}, T., \& {Korista}, K.~T. 2001, \apj,

1244:   548, 609

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[{{de Kool} {et~al.}(2002){de Kool}, {Becker}, {Gregg}, {White}, \&

1247:   {Arav}}]{dekool02b}

1248: {de Kool}, M., {Becker}, R.~H., {Gregg}, M.~D., {White}, R.~L., \& {Arav}, N.

1249:   2002, \apj, 567, 58

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[{{Duc} {et~al.}(2002){Duc}, {Hall}, {Fadda}, {Chanial}, {Elbaz},

1252:   {Monaco}, {Pompei}, {Poggianti}, {Flores}, {Franceschini}, {Biviano},

1253:   {Moorwood}, \& {Cesarsky}}]{Duc}

1254: {Duc}, P.-A., {Hall}, P.~B., {Fadda}, D., {Chanial}, P., {Elbaz}, D., {Monaco},

1255:   P., {Pompei}, E., {Poggianti}, B.~M., {Flores}, H., {Franceschini}, A.,

1256:   {Biviano}, A., {Moorwood}, A., \& {Cesarsky}, C. 2002, \aap, 389, L47

1257: 

1258: \bibitem[{{Egami}(1999)}]{egami99}

1259: {Egami}, E. 1999, in IAU Symp. 186: Galaxy Interactions at Low and High

1260:   Redshift, ed. J.~E. {Barnes} \& D.~B. {Sanders}, 475--+

1261: 

1262: \bibitem[{{Eracleous} {et~al.}(2003){Eracleous}, {Halpern}, \&

1263:   {Charlton}}]{eracleous03}

1264: {Eracleous}, M., {Halpern}, J.~P., \& {Charlton}, J.~C. 2003, \apj, 582, 633

1265: 

1266: \bibitem[{{Fabian}(1999)}]{fabian99}

1267: {Fabian}, A.~C. 1999, \mnras, 308, L39

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[{{Ferland}(2003)}]{ferland03}

1270: {Ferland}, G.~J. 2003, \araa, 41, 517

1271: 

1272: \bibitem[{{Ferland} {et~al.}(1998){Ferland}, {Korista}, {Verner}, {Ferguson},

1273:   {Kingdon}, \& {Verner}}]{ferland98}

1274: {Ferland}, G.~J., {Korista}, K.~T., {Verner}, D.~A., {Ferguson}, J.~W.,

1275:   {Kingdon}, J.~B., \& {Verner}, E.~M. 1998, \pasp, 110, 761

1276: 

1277: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Merritt}(2000)}]{fm00}

1278: {Ferrarese}, L. \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9

1279: 

1280: \bibitem[{Fisher(2000)}]{fisher00}

1281: Fisher, A. 2000, PhD thesis, Univ. of Oklahoma, unpublished

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[{{Francis} {et~al.}(1991){Francis}, {Hewett}, {Foltz}, {Chaffee},

1284:   {Weymann}, \& {Morris}}]{francisetal91}

1285: {Francis}, P.~J., {Hewett}, P.~C., {Foltz}, C.~B., {Chaffee}, F.~H., {Weymann},

1286:   R.~J., \& {Morris}, S.~L. 1991, \apj, 373, 465

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[{{Gabel} {et~al.}(2006){Gabel}, {Arav}, \& {Kim}}]{gabel06}

1289: {Gabel}, J.~R., {Arav}, N., \& {Kim}, T.-S. 2006, \apj, 646, 742

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(2002){Gallagher}, {Brandt}, {Chartas}, \&

1292:   {Garmire}}]{gallagher02}

1293: {Gallagher}, S.~C., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Chartas}, G., \& {Garmire}, G.~P. 2002,

1294:   \apj, 567, 37

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(2006){Gallagher}, {Brandt}, {Chartas},

1297:   {Priddey}, {Garmire}, \& {Sambruna}}]{gallagher06}

1298: {Gallagher}, S.~C., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Chartas}, G., {Priddey}, R., {Garmire},

1299:   G.~P., \& {Sambruna}, R.~M. 2006, \apj, 644, 709

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt} {et~al.}(2000){Gebhardt}, {Kormendy}, {Ho}, {Bender},

1302:   {Bower}, {Dressler}, {Faber}, {Filippenko}, {Green}, {Grillmair}, {Lauer},

1303:   {Magorrian}, {Pinkney}, {Richstone}, \& {Tremaine}}]{gebhardt00}

1304: {Gebhardt}, K., {Kormendy}, J., {Ho}, L.~C., {Bender}, R., {Bower}, G.,

1305:   {Dressler}, A., {Faber}, S.~M., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Green}, R.,

1306:   {Grillmair}, C., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Magorrian}, J., {Pinkney}, J., {Richstone},

1307:   D., \& {Tremaine}, S. 2000, \apjl, 543, L5

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[{{Graham} {et~al.}(1996){Graham}, {Clowes}, \& {Campusano}}]{graham96}

1310: {Graham}, M.~J., {Clowes}, R.~G., \& {Campusano}, L.~E. 1996, \mnras, 279, 1349

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[{{Green} {et~al.}(2001){Green}, {Aldcroft}, {Mathur}, {Wilkes}, \&

1313:   {Elvis}}]{green01}

1314: {Green}, P.~J., {Aldcroft}, T.~L., {Mathur}, S., {Wilkes}, B.~J., \& {Elvis},

1315:   M. 2001, \apj, 558, 109

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[{{Gregg} {et~al.}(2006){Gregg}, {Becker}, \& {de Vries}}]{gregg06}

1318: {Gregg}, M.~D., {Becker}, R.~H., \& {de Vries}, W. 2006, \apj, 641, 210

1319: 

1320: \bibitem[{Grevesse \& Noels(1993)}]{gn93}

1321: Grevesse, N. \& Noels. 1993, in Abundances, ed. C.~Jaschek \& M.~Jaschek

1322:   (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 111

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[{{Hall}(2007)}]{hall07}

1325: {Hall}, P.~B. 2007, \aj, 133, 1271

1326: 

1327: \bibitem[{{Hall} {et~al.}(2002)}]{hall02}

1328: {Hall}, P.~B. {et~al.} 2002, \apjs, 141, 267

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{{Hamann}(1998)}]{hamann98}

1331: {Hamann}, F. 1998, \apj, 500, 798

1332: 

1333: \bibitem[{Hauschildt(1992)}]{phhs392}

1334: Hauschildt, P.~H. 1992, JQSRT, 47, 433

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(1995)}]{hbfe295}

1337: Hauschildt, P.~H. \& Baron, E. 1995, JQSRT, 54, 987

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(1999)}]{hbjcam99}

1340: ---. 1999, J. Comp. Applied Math., 109, 41

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{hb04}

1343: ---. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, A\&A, 417, 317

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{hbmathgesel04}

1346: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, Mitteilungen der Mathematischen Gesellschaft in

1347:   Hamburg, 24, 1

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[{Hauschildt \& Baron(2006)}]{hb06}

1350: ---. 2006, A\&A, 451, 273

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[{Hauschildt {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{a}})Hauschildt, Baron, \&

1353:   Allard}]{hbapara97}

1354: Hauschildt, P.~H., Baron, E., \& Allard, F. 1997{\natexlab{a}}, ApJ, 483, 390

1355: 

1356: \bibitem[{Hauschildt {et~al.}(2001)Hauschildt, Lowenthal, \& Baron}]{hlb01}

1357: Hauschildt, P.~H., Lowenthal, D.~K., \& Baron, E. 2001, ApJS, 134, 323

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[{Hauschildt {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{b}})Hauschildt, Schwarz, Baron,

1360:   Starrfield, Shore, \& Allard}]{phhnovetal97}

1361: Hauschildt, P.~H., Schwarz, G., Baron, E., Starrfield, S., Shore, S., \&

1362:   Allard, F. 1997{\natexlab{b}}, ApJ, 490, 803

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[{{Hazard} {et~al.}(1987){Hazard}, {McMahon}, {Webb}, \&

1365:   {Morton}}]{hazard87}

1366: {Hazard}, C., {McMahon}, R.~G., {Webb}, J.~K., \& {Morton}, D.~C. 1987, \apj,

1367:   323, 263

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[{{Hazard} {et~al.}(1984){Hazard}, {Morton}, {Terlevich}, \&

1370:   {McMahon}}]{hazard84}

1371: {Hazard}, C., {Morton}, D.~C., {Terlevich}, R., \& {McMahon}, R. 1984, \apj,

1372:   282, 33

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2005){Hopkins}, {Hernquist}, {Martini}, {Cox},

1375:   {Robertson}, {Di Matteo}, \& {Springel}}]{hopkins05}

1376: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Hernquist}, L., {Martini}, P., {Cox}, T.~J., {Robertson},

1377:   B., {Di Matteo}, T., \& {Springel}, V. 2005, \apjl, 625, L71

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2000){Kaspi}, {Smith}, {Netzer}, {Maoz}, {Jannuzi},

1380:   \& {Giveon}}]{kaspi00b}

1381: {Kaspi}, S., {Smith}, P.~S., {Netzer}, H., {Maoz}, D., {Jannuzi}, B.~T., \&

1382:   {Giveon}, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[{{Korista} {et~al.}(1992){Korista}, {Weymann}, {Morris}, {Kopko},

1385:   {Turnshek}, {Hartig}, {Foltz}, {Burbidge}, \& {Junkkarinen}}]{korista92}

1386: {Korista}, K.~T., {Weymann}, R.~J., {Morris}, S.~L., {Kopko}, M.~J.,

1387:   {Turnshek}, D.~A., {Hartig}, G.~F., {Foltz}, C.~B., {Burbidge}, E.~M., \&

1388:   {Junkkarinen}, V.~T. 1992, \apj, 401, 529

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[{{Lamy} \& {Hutsem{\'e}kers}(2000)}]{lamy00}

1391: {Lamy}, H. \& {Hutsem{\'e}kers}, D. 2000, \aap, 356, L9

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{{Lamy} \& {Hutsem{\'e}kers}(2004)}]{lamy04}

1394: ---. 2004, \aap, 427, 107

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[{Lentz {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}})Lentz, Baron, Branch, \&

1397:   Hauschildt}]{l94d01}

1398: Lentz, E., Baron, E., Branch, D., \& Hauschildt, P.~H. 2001{\natexlab{a}}, ApJ,

1399:   557, 266

1400: 

1401: \bibitem[{Lentz {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}})Lentz, Baron, Branch, \&

1402:   Hauschildt}]{l84a01}

1403: ---. 2001{\natexlab{b}}, ApJ, 547, 402

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[{Lentz {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{c}})}]{l98s01}

1406: Lentz, E. {et~al.} 2001{\natexlab{c}}, ApJ, 547, 406

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[{{Magorrian} {et~al.}(1998){Magorrian}, {Tremaine}, {Richstone},

1409:   {Bender}, {Bower}, {Dressler}, {Faber}, {Gebhardt}, {Green}, {Grillmair},

1410:   {Kormendy}, \& {Lauer}}]{magorrian98}

1411: {Magorrian}, J., {Tremaine}, S., {Richstone}, D., {Bender}, R., {Bower}, G.,

1412:   {Dressler}, A., {Faber}, S.~M., {Gebhardt}, K., {Green}, R., {Grillmair}, C.,

1413:   {Kormendy}, J., \& {Lauer}, T. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[{{Maiolino} {et~al.}(2004){Maiolino}, {Oliva}, {Ghinassi}, {Pedani},

1416:   {Mannucci}, {Mujica}, \& {Juarez}}]{maiolino04}

1417: {Maiolino}, R., {Oliva}, E., {Ghinassi}, F., {Pedani}, M., {Mannucci}, F.,

1418:   {Mujica}, R., \& {Juarez}, Y. 2004, \aap, 420, 889

1419: 

1420: \bibitem[{{Mathews} \& {Ferland}(1987)}]{MF87}

1421: {Mathews}, W.~G. \& {Ferland}, G.~J. 1987, \apj, 323, 456

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[{Mihalas(1978)}]{mihalas78sa}

1424: Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar Atmospheres (New York: W. H. Freeman)

1425: 

1426: \bibitem[{Mitchell {et~al.}(2002)Mitchell, Baron, Branch, Hauschildt, Nugent,

1427:   Lundqvist, Blinnikov, \& Pun}]{mitchetal87a02}

1428: Mitchell, R., Baron, E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P.~H., Nugent, P., Lundqvist,

1429:   P., Blinnikov, S., \& Pun, C. S.~J. 2002, ApJ, 574, 293

1430: 

1431: \bibitem[{Mitchell {et~al.}(2001)Mitchell, Baron, Branch, Lundqvist, Blinnikov,

1432:   Hauschildt, \& Pun}]{mitchetal87a01}

1433: Mitchell, R., Baron, E., Branch, D., Lundqvist, P., Blinnikov, S., Hauschildt,

1434:   P.~H., \& Pun, C. S.~J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 979

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{{Narayanan} {et~al.}(2004){Narayanan}, {Hamann}, {Barlow},

1437:   {Burbidge}, {Cohen}, {Junkkarinen}, \& {Lyons}}]{narayanan04}

1438: {Narayanan}, D., {Hamann}, F., {Barlow}, T., {Burbidge}, E.~M., {Cohen}, R.~D.,

1439:   {Junkkarinen}, V., \& {Lyons}, R. 2004, \apj, 601, 715

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[{Nugent {et~al.}(1997)Nugent, Baron, Branch, Fisher, \&

1442:   Hauschildt}]{nughydro97}

1443: Nugent, P., Baron, E., Branch, D., Fisher, A., \& Hauschildt, P. 1997, ApJ,

1444:   485, 812

1445: 

1446: \bibitem[{{O'Donnell}(1994)}]{odonnell94}

1447: {O'Donnell}, J.~E. 1994, \apj, 422, 158

1448: 

1449: \bibitem[{Petz {et~al.}(2005)Petz, Hauschildt, Ness, \& Starrfield}]{petz05}

1450: Petz, A., Hauschildt, P.~H., Ness, J.-U., \& Starrfield, S. 2005, A\&A, 431,

1451:   321

1452: 

1453: \bibitem[{{Reichard} {et~al.}(2003){Reichard}, {Richards}, {Hall}, {Schneider},

1454:   {Vanden Berk}, {Fan}, {York}, {Knapp}, \& {Brinkmann}}]{reichard03}

1455: {Reichard}, T.~A., {Richards}, G.~T., {Hall}, P.~B., {Schneider}, D.~P.,

1456:   {Vanden Berk}, D.~E., {Fan}, X., {York}, D.~G., {Knapp}, G.~R., \&

1457:   {Brinkmann}, J. 2003, \aj, 126, 2594

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[{Rybicki \& Hummer(1991)}]{rybhum91}

1460: Rybicki, G.~B. \& Hummer, D.~G. 1991, A\&A, 245, 171

1461: 

1462: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&

1463:   {Davis}}]{ExtEBminV}

1464: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[{Short {et~al.}(1999)Short, Hauschildt, \& Baron}]{short99}

1467: Short, C.~I., Hauschildt, P.~H., \& Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 375

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[{{Trump} {et~al.}(2006){Trump}, {Hall}, {Reichard}, {Richards},

1470:   {Schneider}, {Vanden Berk}, {Knapp}, {Anderson}, {Fan}, {Brinkman},

1471:   {Kleinman}, \& {Nitta}}]{trump06}

1472: {Trump}, J.~R., {Hall}, P.~B., {Reichard}, T.~A., {Richards}, G.~T.,

1473:   {Schneider}, D.~P., {Vanden Berk}, D.~E., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Anderson}, S.~F.,

1474:   {Fan}, X., {Brinkman}, J., {Kleinman}, S.~J., \& {Nitta}, A. 2006, \apjs,

1475:   165, 1

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{{Voit} {et~al.}(1993){Voit}, {Weymann}, \& {Korista}}]{voit93}

1478: {Voit}, G.~M., {Weymann}, R.~J., \& {Korista}, K.~T. 1993, \apj, 413, 95

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[{{Walborn} {et~al.}(1995){Walborn}, {Lennon}, {Haser}, {Kudritzki}, \&

1481:   {Voels}}]{walborn95}

1482: {Walborn}, N.~R., {Lennon}, D.~J., {Haser}, S.~M., {Kudritzki}, R.-P., \&

1483:   {Voels}, S.~A. 1995, \pasp, 107, 104

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{{Weymann} {et~al.}(1991){Weymann}, {Morris}, {Foltz}, \&

1486:   {Hewett}}]{weymann91}

1487: {Weymann}, R.~J., {Morris}, S.~L., {Foltz}, C.~B., \& {Hewett}, P.~C. 1991,

1488:   \apj, 373, 23

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[{{White} {et~al.}(2003){White}, {Helfand}, {Becker}, {Gregg},

1491:   {Postman}, {Lauer}, \& {Oegerle}}]{White}

1492: {White}, R.~L., {Helfand}, D.~J., {Becker}, R.~H., {Gregg}, M.~D., {Postman},

1493:   M., {Lauer}, T.~R., \& {Oegerle}, W. 2003, \aj, 126, 706

1494: 

1495: \end{thebibliography}

1496: 

1497: \clearpage

1498: 

1499: \begin{figure}

1500: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{f1}

1501: \caption{\label{FQBSUV} The \phx\ spectrum (solid line) compared with the

1502:   restframe, dereddened, and smoothed, observed \FQBS\ (dotted 

1503:   line)  UV spectrum. }

1504: \end{figure}

1505: \clearpage

1506: 

1507: 

1508: \begin{figure}

1509: \includegraphics{f2}

1510: \caption{\label{FQBSOPT} The \phx\ model (solid line) compared with the

1511:   restframe, dereddened, and smoothed, observed optical spectrum of

1512:   \FQBS\ (dotted line).  }

1513: \end{figure}

1514: 

1515: \clearpage

1516: 

1517: \begin{figure}

1518: \centering

1519: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,angle=0]{f3}

1520: \caption{\label{fig:show_fit_proc} Four models (black lines) are

1521:   shown, normalized to the observed spectrum of FIRST J1214+2803 (grey

1522:   lines) at 3600\AA.  The top and bottom models are seen to provide a

1523:   distinctly poorer fit than the middle two models, especially in the

1524:   2300--2900\AA\ band.  The $T=4600\rm \,K$ and $T=4700\rm \,K$

1525:   provide a much better fit, and although they appear very similar,

1526:   the $T=4600\rm \,K$ was selected as the best fit by minimizing a

1527:   $\chi^2$-like figure of merit.}

1528: \end{figure}

1529: 

1530: \clearpage

1531: 

1532: \begin{figure}

1533: \includegraphics{f4}

1534: \caption{\label{FQBSCaII} The optical spectrum of \FQBS\ (dotted)

1535:   deredshifted, dereddened, and smoothed, versus two synthetic

1536:   \texttt{PHOENIX} models.  The dashed line represents a

1537:   \phx\ model with the ions discussed in \S \ref{Models} in NLTE

1538:   except for the Calcium I-III ions, which are in LTE. The solid

1539:   line shows a model with all of the ions in NLTE that are discussed

1540:   in \S \ref{Models}. The fact that the synthetic spectrum matches the

1541: observed spectrum significantly better indicates the importance of

1542: NLTE in the calculations.}

1543: \end{figure}

1544: 

1545: \clearpage

1546: 

1547: \begin{figure}

1548: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{f5}

1549: \caption{\label{ISOUV} The \phx\ model (solid line) vs  the 

1550:   restframe, dereddened, and smoothed,  UV spectrum of \ISO\ (dotted

1551:   line).}

1552: \end{figure}

1553: 

1554: \clearpage

1555: 

1556: \begin{figure}

1557: \includegraphics{f6}

1558: \caption{\label{FQBSISO} The combined spectra of \FQBS\ and \ISO.  The

1559:   wavelength range spans 1500--5500\AA.  the \phx\ spectrum is the

1560:   solid line, while the \FQBS\ UV through optical spectrum and

1561:   the \ISO\ UV spectrum are dotted.   All spectra are restframe,

1562:   deredshifted, and smoothed.  }

1563: \end{figure}

1564: 

1565: \clearpage

1566: \appendix

1567: 

1568: \section{\label{PhxGlobalIter} The \texttt{PHOENIX} Code} 

1569: 

1570: \phx\ is a mature code.  Development of \phx\ began in 1990 and

1571: continues today.  Discussions of the computational details appear in a

1572: number of publications.   

1573: We include a short description of some of the

1574: computational details for those who are interested in understanding in

1575: more detail how the code works.  This section also includes relevant

1576: references.  Finally, we present a flowchart of a \phx\ computation.

1577: 

1578: \subsection{An introduction to \phx}

1579: 

1580: \phx\ is able to model astrophysical plasmas under a variety of

1581: conditions, including differential expansion at relativistic

1582: velocities

1583: \citep{hb06,hb04,bh04,hbjcam99,hbapara97,phhnovetal97,ahscsarev97}. \phx\

1584: includes very detailed model atoms constructed from the work of Kurucz

1585: \citep{hbfe295,bhmasi97,short99} for a number of almost all the

1586: important species (H, He, CNO, Si, Fe, Co, etc.). In addition, the

1587: CHIANTI or APED databases may be chosen for model atoms at runtime.

1588: The code is optimized and parallelized to run on all available

1589: supercomputers.  \phx\ has a long history of modeling astrophysical

1590: objects including extra-solar giant planets (EGPs), Brown dwarfs

1591: \citep{ahscsarev97,cond-dusty}, novae \citep{petz05}, as well as all

1592: types of supernovae

1593: \citep{b93j3,b94i2,nughydro97,bsn99em00,l94d01,l84a01,l98s01,mitchetal87a01,bbbh06}.

1594: In version 14, we solve the fully relativistic radiative transport

1595: equation for a variety of spatial boundary conditions in both

1596: spherical and plane-parallel geometries for both continuum and line

1597: radiation simultaneously and self-consistently using an operator

1598: splitting technique. We also use an operator splitting technique to

1599: solve the full multi-level NLTE transfer and rate equations for a

1600: large number of atomic species (with a total of more than 10,000

1601: energy levels and more than 100,000 primary NLTE lines), including

1602: non-thermal processes. MPI and OpenMP directives are used, so the code

1603: runs on both distributed and shared memory architectures

1604: \citep{bpar03,hlb01,bhpar298,hbapara97}.  \texttt{PHOENIX} accurately

1605: solves the fully relativistic radiation transport equation along with

1606: the non-LTE rate equations (currently for $\sim 150$ ions) while

1607: ensuring radiative equilibrium (energy conservation).  Typically each

1608: atom has several ionic species in NLTE and is represented by dozens to

1609: hundreds of levels for the Fe-group species. \texttt{PHOENIX} is

1610: currently around 700,000 lines of code which relies on 0.6 GB of

1611: atomic data and 12 GB of molecular data.

1612: 

1613: In the present paper, the multilevel, non-LTE rate equations are solved

1614: self-consistently for H I, He I--II, Mg I--III, Ca I-III, and Fe

1615: I--III  using an accelerated lambda iteration (ALI) method

1616: \citep{rybhum91,phhs392,hbjcam99,hbmathgesel04}. Simultaneously we

1617: solve for the special relativistic condition of radiative equilibrium

1618: \citep{nughydro97} using a modified Uns\"old-Lucy temperature

1619: correction scheme.  Relativistic effects, in particular the effects of

1620: advection and aberration, are important in the high velocity flows

1621: observed in these quasars.

1622: %We have obtained good convergence for the

1623: %models presented in this paper.

1624: 

1625: The generalized non-LTE equation of state (EOS) is solved for 40

1626: elements and up to 26 ionization stages per element for a total of

1627: hundreds of species.  For the conditions present in the models,

1628: molecules are unimportant, and we neglect them in order reap

1629: substantial savings in CPU time.  Negative ions are always

1630: included. The numerical solution of the EOS is based on Brent's method

1631: for the solution of nonlinear equations which is very robust and fast.

1632: 

1633: In addition to the non-LTE lines, the models include,

1634: self-consistently, line blanketing of the most important ($\approx

1635: 10^6$) lines selected from the latest atomic and ionic line list of

1636: Kurucz. The entire list contains close to 42 million lines but not all

1637: of them are important for the case at hand. Therefore, before every

1638: temperature iteration, a smaller list is formed from the original

1639: list. A set of optical depths in the line-forming region of the gas is

1640: chosen, then using the density and temperature for these depths, the

1641: absorption coefficient in the line center, $\kappa_l$, is calculated

1642: for every line and compared to the corresponding continuum (LTE+NLTE)

1643: absorption coefficient, $\kappa_c$. A line is transferred to the

1644: ``small list'' if the ratio $\kappa_l/\kappa_c$ is larger than a

1645: pre-specified value (in these calculations $5\times10^{-6}$, selecting

1646: over half a million lines).  In the subsequent radiative transfer

1647: calculations all lines selected in this way are taken into account as

1648: individual lines and all others from the large line list are

1649: neglected. This selection procedure is repeated at each iteration

1650: where the pressure or temperature changes by a prescribed amount in

1651: order to always include the most important lines. We treat line

1652: scattering in these LTE lines by setting the albedo for single

1653: scattering, $\alpha = 0.95$.

1654: 

1655: \subsection{A \phx\ Flowchart}

1656: 

1657: This section gives the reader a brief explanation of how the

1658: \phx\ code computes a model spectrum. For a more complete

1659: understanding the authors recommend the reader peruse

1660: \citet{hbjcam99}.  Our iteration scheme for the solution of the

1661: multi-level non-LTE problem can be summarized as follows: (1) for

1662: given  population levels [$n_i$] and  electron densities [$n_e$], solve the

1663: radiative transfer equation at each wavelength point and update the

1664: radiative rates and the approximate rate operator, (2) solve the

1665: linear system for the atomic level populations for a given electron

1666: density, (3) compute new electron densities 

1667: by  the generalized partition function method,  (4) calculate the

1668: temperature corrections needed to bring the current iteration into

1669: radiative equilibrium, (5) repeat until a fixed number of iterations

1670: is reached (and check that all quantities have converged). It is crucial

1671: to account for coherent scattering processes during the solution of

1672: the wavelength dependent radiative transfer equation, it explicitly

1673: removes a global coupling from the iterations.

1674: 

1675: As the first step in our outermost iteration loop (the model

1676: iteration) we use the current best guess of [T, $n_i$] as function of

1677: radius to solve the hydrostatic or hydrodynamic equations to calculate

1678: an improved run of P$_{gas}$ with radius.  Simultaneously, the population

1679: numbers are updated to account for changes in P$_{gas}$. The next major

1680: step is the computation of the radiation field for each wavelength

1681: point (the wavelength loop), which has the prerequisite of a spectral

1682: line selection procedure for LTE background lines. Immediately after

1683: the radiation field at any given wavelength is known, the radiative

1684: rates and the rate operators are updated so that their calculation is

1685: finished after the last wavelength point. In the next steps, the

1686: population numbers are updated by solving the rate equations for each

1687: NLTE species and new electron densities are computed, this gives

1688: improved estimates for [$n_i$]. The last part of the model iteration is

1689: the temperature correction scheme outlined above (using opacity

1690: averages etc. that were computed in the wavelength loop) which

1691: delivers an improved temperature structure. If the errors in the

1692: constraint equations are larger than a prescribed accuracy, the

1693: improved [T, $n_i$] are used in another model iteration. Using this

1694: scheme, about 10-20 model iterations are typically required to reach

1695: convergence to better than about 1\% relative errors, depending on the

1696: quality of the initial guess of the independent variables and the

1697: complexity of the model.

1698: 

1699: 

1700: %\subsection{Intermediate Models}

1701: %new figures will go here related to 

1702: %(LION IN THE DESERT) showing how we converge the model by eye.

1703: %This will be incorporated into the section where we describe how we determine 

1704: %best fit models

1705: %This will be mostly graphical but will emphasize the text.

1706: 

1707: 

1708: \begin{figure}

1709: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textheight]{f7}

1710: \caption{\label{PHXGlobal} Flowchart for a global iteration of

1711:   \texttt{PHOENIX}.  }

1712: \end{figure}

1713: 

1714: 

1715: \end{document}

1716: