1:
2: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: %\usepackage{txfonts}
7: %\usepackage{longtable}
8:
9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
10:
11: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{emulateapj}
12: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
13:
14: %%\usepackage{graphicx,natbib,longtable}
15:
16: \def\suzaku{{\it Suzaku }}
17: \def\swift{{\it Swift }}
18: \def\magic{MAGIC }
19: \def\xmm{{\it XMM-Newton }}
20: \def\rxte{{\it RXTE }}
21: \def\sax{{\it Beppo{SAX }}}
22: \def\integral{{\it Integral }}
23: \def\cgro{{\it CGRO }}
24: \def\exo{{\it EXOSAT }}
25: \def\rosat{{\it ROSAT }}
26: \def\lum{erg s$^{-1}$}
27: \def\flux{erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}
28: \def\nh{cm$^{-2}$}
29: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}
30: \def\deg{$^{\circ}$}
31: \def\arcmin{$^{\prime}$}
32: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
33: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
34: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
35: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
36:
37:
38: \begin{document}
39:
40: \title{Simultaneous multiwavelength observations of the blazar
41: 1ES\,1959+650 at a low TeV flux}
42:
43: \normalsize
44: \author{G. Tagliaferri\altaffilmark{1}, L. Foschini\altaffilmark{2}, G. Ghisellini\altaffilmark{1}, L. Maraschi\altaffilmark{3},
45: G. Tosti\altaffilmark{4}
46: }
47: %
48: \author{and}
49: %
50: \author{
51: J.~Albert\altaffilmark{5},
52: E.~Aliu\altaffilmark{6},
53: H.~Anderhub\altaffilmark{7},
54: P.~Antoranz\altaffilmark{8},
55: C.~Baixeras\altaffilmark{9},
56: J.~A.~Barrio\altaffilmark{8},
57: H.~Bartko\altaffilmark{10},
58: D.~Bastieri\altaffilmark{11},
59: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{12},
60: W.~Bednarek\altaffilmark{13},
61: A.~Bedyugin\altaffilmark{16},
62: K.~Berger\altaffilmark{5},
63: C.~Bigongiari\altaffilmark{11},
64: A.~Biland\altaffilmark{7},
65: R.~K.~Bock\altaffilmark{10,}\altaffilmark{11},
66: P.~Bordas\altaffilmark{14},
67: V.~Bosch-Ramon\altaffilmark{14},
68: T.~Bretz\altaffilmark{5},
69: I.~Britvitch\altaffilmark{7},
70: M.~Camara\altaffilmark{8},
71: E.~Carmona\altaffilmark{10},
72: A.~Chilingarian\altaffilmark{15},
73: J.~A.~Coarasa\altaffilmark{10},
74: S.~Commichau\altaffilmark{7},
75: J.~L.~Contreras\altaffilmark{8},
76: J.~Cortina\altaffilmark{6},
77: M.T.~Costado\altaffilmark{17,}\altaffilmark{26},
78: V.~Curtef\altaffilmark{12},
79: V.~Danielyan\altaffilmark{15},
80: F.~Dazzi\altaffilmark{11},
81: A.~De Angelis\altaffilmark{18},
82: C.~Delgado\altaffilmark{17},
83: R.~de~los~Reyes\altaffilmark{8},
84: B.~De Lotto\altaffilmark{18},
85: D.~Dorner\altaffilmark{5},
86: M.~Doro\altaffilmark{11},
87: M.~Errando\altaffilmark{6},
88: M.~Fagiolini\altaffilmark{19},
89: D.~Ferenc\altaffilmark{20},
90: E.~Fern\'andez\altaffilmark{6},
91: R.~Firpo\altaffilmark{6},
92: M.~V.~Fonseca\altaffilmark{8},
93: L.~Font\altaffilmark{9},
94: M.~Fuchs\altaffilmark{10},
95: N.~Galante\altaffilmark{10},
96: R.J.~Garc\'{\i}a-L\'opez\altaffilmark{17,}\altaffilmark{26},
97: M.~Garczarczyk\altaffilmark{10},
98: M.~Gaug\altaffilmark{17},
99: M.~Giller\altaffilmark{13},
100: F.~Goebel\altaffilmark{10},
101: D.~Hakobyan\altaffilmark{15},
102: M.~Hayashida\altaffilmark{10},
103: T.~Hengstebeck\altaffilmark{21},
104: A.~Herrero\altaffilmark{17,}\altaffilmark{26},
105: D.~H\"ohne\altaffilmark{5},
106: J.~Hose\altaffilmark{10},
107: S.~Huber\altaffilmark{5},
108: C.~C.~Hsu\altaffilmark{10},
109: P.~Jacon\altaffilmark{13},
110: T.~Jogler\altaffilmark{10},
111: R.~Kosyra\altaffilmark{10},
112: D.~Kranich\altaffilmark{7},
113: R.~Kritzer\altaffilmark{5},
114: A.~Laille\altaffilmark{20},
115: E.~Lindfors\altaffilmark{16},
116: S.~Lombardi\altaffilmark{11},
117: F.~Longo\altaffilmark{18},
118: M.~L\'opez\altaffilmark{8},
119: E.~Lorenz\altaffilmark{7,}\altaffilmark{10},
120: P.~Majumdar\altaffilmark{10},
121: G.~Maneva\altaffilmark{22},
122: K.~Mannheim\altaffilmark{5},
123: M.~Mariotti\altaffilmark{11},
124: M.~Mart\'\i nez\altaffilmark{6},
125: D.~Mazin\altaffilmark{6},
126: C.~Merck\altaffilmark{10},
127: M.~Meucci\altaffilmark{19},
128: M.~Meyer\altaffilmark{5},
129: J.~M.~Miranda\altaffilmark{8},
130: R.~Mirzoyan\altaffilmark{10},
131: S.~Mizobuchi\altaffilmark{10},
132: A.~Moralejo\altaffilmark{6},
133: D.~Nieto\altaffilmark{8},
134: K.~Nilsson\altaffilmark{16},
135: J.~Ninkovic\altaffilmark{10},
136: E.~O\~na-Wilhelmi\altaffilmark{6},
137: N.~Otte\altaffilmark{10,}\altaffilmark{21},
138: I.~Oya\altaffilmark{8},
139: M.~Panniello\altaffilmark{17,}\altaffilmark{27},
140: R.~Paoletti\altaffilmark{19},
141: J.~M.~Paredes\altaffilmark{14},
142: M.~Pasanen\altaffilmark{16},
143: D.~Pascoli\altaffilmark{11},
144: F.~Pauss\altaffilmark{7},
145: R.~Pegna\altaffilmark{19},
146: M.~Persic\altaffilmark{18,}\altaffilmark{23},
147: L.~Peruzzo\altaffilmark{11},
148: A.~Piccioli\altaffilmark{19},
149: E.~Prandini\altaffilmark{11},
150: N.~Puchades\altaffilmark{6},
151: A.~Raymers\altaffilmark{15},
152: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{12},
153: M.~Rib\'o\altaffilmark{14},
154: J.~Rico\altaffilmark{6},
155: M.~Rissi\altaffilmark{7},
156: A.~Robert\altaffilmark{9},
157: S.~R\"ugamer\altaffilmark{5},
158: A.~Saggion\altaffilmark{11},
159: T.~Y.~Saito\altaffilmark{10},
160: A.~S\'anchez\altaffilmark{9},
161: P.~Sartori\altaffilmark{11},
162: V.~Scalzotto\altaffilmark{11},
163: V.~Scapin\altaffilmark{18},
164: R.~Schmitt\altaffilmark{5},
165: T.~Schweizer\altaffilmark{10},
166: M.~Shayduk\altaffilmark{21,}\altaffilmark{10},
167: K.~Shinozaki\altaffilmark{10},
168: S.~N.~Shore\altaffilmark{24},
169: N.~Sidro\altaffilmark{6},
170: A.~Sillanp\"a\"a\altaffilmark{16},
171: D.~Sobczynska\altaffilmark{13},
172: F.~Spanier\altaffilmark{5},
173: A.~Stamerra\altaffilmark{19},
174: L.~S.~Stark\altaffilmark{7},
175: L.~Takalo\altaffilmark{16},
176: F. Tavecchio\altaffilmark{1},
177: P.~Temnikov\altaffilmark{22},
178: D.~Tescaro\altaffilmark{6},
179: M.~Teshima\altaffilmark{10},
180: D.~F.~Torres\altaffilmark{25},
181: N.~Turini\altaffilmark{19},
182: H.~Vankov\altaffilmark{22},
183: A.~Venturini\altaffilmark{11},
184: V.~Vitale\altaffilmark{18},
185: R.~M.~Wagner\altaffilmark{10},
186: T.~Wibig\altaffilmark{13},
187: W.~Wittek\altaffilmark{10},
188: F.~Zandanel\altaffilmark{11},
189: R.~Zanin\altaffilmark{6},
190: J.~Zapatero\altaffilmark{9} \\
191: (The {\it MAGIC} Collaboration)
192: }
193:
194:
195:
196: \altaffiltext{1}{INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Bianchi 46, 23807 Merate (LC), Italy}
197: \altaffiltext{2}{INAF/IASF-Bologna, Via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy}
198: \altaffiltext{3}{INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Brera 28, 20121 Milano, Italy}
199: \altaffiltext{4}{Osservatorio Astronomico, Universit\`a di Perugia, Via B. Bonfigli, 06126 Perugia, Italy}
200: %
201: \altaffiltext{5} {Universit\"at W\"urzburg, D-97074 W\"urzburg, Germany}
202: \altaffiltext{6} {IFAE, Edifici Cn., E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain}
203: \altaffiltext{7} {ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Switzerland}
204: \altaffiltext{8} {Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain}
205: \altaffiltext{9} {Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
206: \altaffiltext{10} {Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}
207: \altaffiltext{11} {Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy}
208: \altaffiltext{12} {Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany}
209: \altaffiltext{13} {University of \L\'od\'z, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland}
210: \altaffiltext{14} {Universitat de Barcelona, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}
211: \altaffiltext{15} {Yerevan Physics Institute, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}
212: \altaffiltext{16} {Tuorla Observatory, Turku University, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
213: \altaffiltext{17} {Inst. de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38200, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
214: \altaffiltext{18} {Universit\`a di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy}
215: \altaffiltext{19} {Universit\`a di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy}
216: \altaffiltext{20} {University of California, Davis, CA-95616-8677, USA}
217: \altaffiltext{21} {Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
218: \altaffiltext{22} {Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria}
219: \altaffiltext{23} {INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico and INFN, I-34131 Trieste, Italy}
220: \altaffiltext{24} {Universit\`a di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}
221: \altaffiltext{25} {ICREA \& Institut de Cienci\`es de l'Espai (IEEC-CSIC), E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
222: \altaffiltext{26} {Depto. de Astrofisica, Universidad, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
223: \altaffiltext{27} {deceased}
224:
225:
226: \begin{abstract}
227: We present the results from a multiwavelength campaign on the TeV blazar
228: 1ES 1959+650, performed in May, 2006. Data from the optical, UV, soft- and hard-X-ray and
229: very high energy (VHE) gamma-ray (${\rm E} > 100$ GeV) bands
230: were obtained with the \suzaku and \swift satellites, with the \magic telescope
231: and other ground based facilities. The source spectral energy distribution (SED),
232: derived from \suzaku and \magic observations at the end of May 2006, shows the usual
233: double hump shape, with the synchrotron peak at a higher flux level than the Compton peak.
234: With respect to historical values, during our campaign the source exhibited
235: a relatively high state in X-rays and optical, while in the VHE
236: band it was at one of the lowest level so far recorded.
237: We also monitored the source for flux-spectral variability on a time window of
238: 10 days in the optical-UV and X-ray bands and 7 days in the VHE band. The source
239: varies more in the X-ray, than in the optical band, with the 2-10 keV
240: X-ray flux varying by a factor of $\sim 2$. The synchrotron peak is located
241: in the X-ray band and moves to higher energies as the source gets
242: brighter, with the X-ray fluxes above it varying more rapidly than the X-ray fluxes
243: at lower energies. The variability behaviour observed in the X-ray band
244: cannot be produced by emitting regions varying independently, and suggests instead
245: some sort of ``standing shock'' scenario.
246: The overall SED is well represented by an homogeneous one-zone synchrotron inverse
247: Compton emission model, from which we derive physical parameters that are typical
248: of high energy peaked blazars.
249: \end{abstract}
250:
251: \keywords{Galaxies: active --- galaxies: jets --- (galaxies:) BL Lacertae objects:
252: individual (1ES 1959+650) --- X-rays: galaxies}
253:
254:
255: \section{Introduction}
256:
257: It is widely accepted that the spectral energy distribution (SED) of blazars
258: is dominated by a non-thermal continuum, produced within a relativistic jet closely
259: aligned with the line of sight, making these objects very good
260: laboratories to study the physics of relativistic jets. The overall
261: emission, from radio to $\gamma$--rays and, in some cases, to the
262: multi--TeV band, shows the presence of two well--defined broad
263: components (von Montigny et al. 1995; Fossati et al. 1998). Usually,
264: for the blazars that are detected in the TeV bands, the first
265: components peaks in the UV -- soft-X--ray bands
266: (HBL: high energy peaked blazars, Padovani \& Giommi (1995)
267: and the second one in
268: the GeV--TeV region. The blazar emission is very successfully
269: interpreted so far in the framework of Synchrotron Inverse Compton
270: models. The lower energy peak is unanimously attributed to synchrotron
271: emission by relativistic electrons in the jet, while the second
272: component is commonly believed to be Inverse Compton emission (IC)
273: from the same electron population (e.g., Ghisellini et al. 1998),
274: although different scenarios have been proposed (e.g. B\"ottcher 2007).
275:
276: Since the discovery of the first blazar emitting TeV radiation,
277: Mrk~421 (Punch et al. 1992), TeV blazars have been the target of
278: intense observational and theoretical investigations. Indeed, the
279: possibility of coupling observations of the emission produced by very high energy
280: electrons, in the VHE (very high energy) band (up to Lorentz factors of the order of $10^7$),
281: with observations in the soft and hard X--ray bands offers a unique tool to probe
282: the cooling and acceleration processes of relativistic particles. In fact the
283: synchrotron peak of these sources is usually located in the soft X--ray, while it is
284: in the hard X--ray band that the synchrotron emission by the most energetic electrons
285: can be studied and that the low energy part of the
286: Compton emission component can start to dominate.
287:
288: Studies conducted simultaneously in the soft and hard X--ray and in
289: the VHE bands are of particular importance, since in the simple
290: Synchrotron-Self Compton (SSC) framework one expects that variations
291: in X--rays and TeV should be closely correlated, being produced by the
292: same electrons (e.g. Tavecchio et al. 1998). In fact even the first
293: observations at X--ray and TeV energies yielded significant evidence
294: of correlated and simultaneous variability of the TeV and X--ray
295: fluxes (Buckley et al. 1996; Catanese et al. 1997). During the
296: X-ray/TeV 1998 campaign on Mrk\,421 a rapid flare was detected both at
297: X--ray and TeV energies (Maraschi et al. 1999). Subsequent observations
298: confirmed these first evidences also in other sources. Note however
299: that the correlation seems to be violated in some cases, as indicated
300: by the observation of an ``orphan'' (i.e. not accompanied by a
301: corresponding X--ray flare) TeV event in 1ES 1959+650 (Krawczynski et
302: al. 2004).
303: In the case of PKS\,2155-304 a giant TeV flare recorded by HESS
304: (Aharonian et al. 2007), with a TeV flux "night-average" intensity of a factor of
305: $\sim 17$ larger than those of previous campaigns, was accompanied by an increase of the X-ray flux of
306: only a factor of five without a significant change of the X-ray spectrum
307: (Foschini et al. 2007). In the one-zone SSC scenario this can be accomplished
308: with an increase of the Doppler factor and the associated relativistic
309: electrons together with a decrease of the magnetic field. Therefore,
310: it is important to obtain simultaneous observations over the largest
311: possible UV and X-ray range together with simultaneous VHE observation
312: to probe the correlation between the synchrotron and VHE emission.
313:
314: To this end we organised a multiwavelength campaign to observe the blazar
315: 1ES\,1959+650 in the optical, UV, soft and hard X-ray up to the VHE gamma-ray
316: (${\rm E} > 100$ GeV) bands. This is a bright
317: and flaring X-ray and VHE source that has already
318: been observed many times in these bands.
319: It was discovered in the radio band as part of a 4.85 GHz survey
320: performed with the 91 m NRAO Green Bank telescope (Gregory \& Condon
321: 1991; Becker, White \& Edwards 1991).
322: In the optical band it is highly variable and shows a complex structure composed
323: by an elliptical galaxy (M$_R =-23$, $z$=0.048) plus a disc and an absorption dust lane
324: (Heidt et al. 1999). The mass of the central black hole has been estimated to
325: be in the range $1.3-4.4 \times 10^8 \, {\rm M_\odot}$ as derived either from the
326: stellar velocity dispersion or from the bulge luminosity (Falomo et al. 2002).
327: The first X-ray measurement was performed by {\it Einstein}-IPC
328: during the Slew Survey (Elvis et al. 1992). Subsequently, the source was
329: observed by \rosat, {\it Beppo}SAX, {\it RXTE, ARGOS, XMM-Newton}.
330: In particular two {\it Beppo}SAX pointings, simultaneous with optical
331: observations, were triggered in May-June 2002 because the source was in a high X-ray state.
332: These data showed that the synchrotron peak was in the range 0.1-0.7 keV
333: and that the overall optical and X-ray spectrum up to 45 keV was due to
334: synchrotron emission with the peak moving to higher energy with the higher
335: flux (Tagliaferri et al. 2003). The overall SED, with non simultaneous VHE
336: data could be modelled with a homogeneous, one-zone synchrotron inverse Compton model.
337: %{\bf
338: The results of a multiwavelength campaign performed in May-June 2003 are presented in
339: Gutierrez et al. (2006). This campaign was triggered by the active state of the source in the X-ray
340: band and it was found that the X-ray flux and X-ray photon index are correlated. A similar result
341: was found by Giebels et al. (2002) using{\it RXTE} and {\it ARGOS} data. This correlation shows
342: that the X-ray spectrum in the 1-16 keV band is harder when the source is brighter.
343: %}
344: In the VHE band the source was detected by the HEGRA, Whipple and MAGIC
345: telescopes (Aharonian et al. 2003; Holder et al. 2003a, Albert et al. 2006).
346: One of the most important results of these observations is probably the ``orphan"
347: flare mentioned above, seen in the VHE band and not in X-rays (Krawczynski et al. 2004).
348:
349: 1ES\,1959+650 is therefore one of the most interesting and frequently
350: observed high energy sources of recent years.
351: With the aim of obtaining a better description of the
352: broad band X-ray continuum and in particular of observing simultaneously the
353: synchrotron and IC components, we asked for simultaneous \suzaku and \magic
354: observations that were carried out in May 23-25, 2006. Around the same epoch
355: we obtained various Target of Opportunity (ToO) short pointings
356: with {\it SWIFT} and observed the source also in the optical R-band from ground.
357: A preliminary analysis of these data is reported in Hayashida et al. (2007).
358: In the following we report the data analysis (Sec.2) and the results (Sec.3).
359: The discussion and conclusions are given in Sec. 4, where we model the SED in
360: the framework of a homogeneous, one-zone SSC model.
361: Throughout this work we use
362: $H_{\rm 0}\rm =70\; km\; s^{-1}\; Mpc^{-1} $, $\Omega _{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm M} = 0.3$.
363:
364:
365: \section{Observations and data reduction}
366:
367: \subsection{ {\it Suzaku} }
368:
369: The \suzaku payload (Mitsuda et al. 2007) carries four X-ray
370: telescopes sensitive in the 0.3-12 keV band (XIS, Koyama et al. 2007),
371: with CCD cameras in the focal plane, together with a non-imaging
372: instrument (HXD, Takahashi et al. 2007), sensitive in the 10-600 keV
373: band, composed by a Si-PIN photo-diodes detector (probing the 10-60
374: keV band) and a GSO scintillator detector (sensitive above 30
375: keV). Three XIS units (XIS0, 2 and 3) have front-illuminated CCDs,
376: while XIS1 uses a back-illuminated CCD, more sensitive at low
377: energies.
378:
379: 1ES 1959+650 was observed from 2006 May 23 01:13:23 UT to 2006
380: May 25 04:07:24 UT (sequence number 701075010). The total on-source
381: time was 160 ksec.
382:
383: The HXD/PIN lightcurve shows a rapid increase of the noise after about
384: 100 ksec (possibly due to the in-orbit radiation damage\footnote{see
385: {\tt http://www.astro.isas.ac.jp/suzaku/log/hxd/}}) and the data after
386: this event cannot be used for the analysis. HXD/GSO data are not used
387: in the following analysis, since the performances and the background
388: of the GSO are still under study.
389:
390: The analysis have been performed with the data obtained through the
391: last version of the processing (v1.2) and the last release of the
392: HEASoft software (v6.1.2) and calibrations. A more extended discussion
393: of the procedure used can be found in Tavecchio et al. (2007).
394:
395:
396: \subsubsection{\suzaku-XIS}
397:
398: The reduction of the XIS data
399: followed the prescriptions reported in ``The Suzaku
400: Data Reduction Guide''\footnote{{\tt
401: http://suzaku.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/suzaku/analysis/abc/}; \newline see
402: also {\tt http://www.astro.isas.ac.jp/suzaku/analysis/}}. Using the
403: HEASoft tool {\tt xselect} we select good time intervals, excluding
404: epochs of high background (when the satellite crosses the South
405: Atlantic Anomaly or the object is too close to the rim of the
406: Earth). After screening the net exposure time is 99.3 ksec. During the
407: observation the source show a flare of small amplitude with rather
408: small spectral variability (see below): therefore we extracted the
409: spectra corresponding to the whole observation. Events are then
410: extracted in a circle centred on the source with a radius of
411: 6'. Background events are extracted in a similar circle centred in a
412: region devoid of sources. We checked that the use of different source
413: and background regions do not significantly affect the resulting
414: spectra. Response (RMF) and auxiliary (ARF) files are produced using
415: the tools developed by the \suzaku team ({\tt xisrmfgen} and {\tt
416: xissimarfgen}) distributed with the last version of HEASoft. ARFs are
417: already corrected for the degradation of the XIS response using the
418: tool {\tt xiscontamicalc}.
419:
420: For the spectral analysis we use the XIS data in the range 0.7-10 keV. Below 0.7 keV there
421: are still unsolved calibration problems. Due to the high signal to noise of
422: the data the residuals of the fits also reveal the presence of a deep
423: edge around 1.8 keV, whose origin is clearly instrumental. Therefore
424: we perform the fits excluding the data points in the range 1.7-2
425: keV. A power law (PL) continuum with Galactic absorption gives unacceptable
426: results. If we allow the absorption to vary we obtain a good fit to the data
427: ($\chi ^2_r$=1.01), but the value of the N$_{\rm H}$ is significantly in excess
428: to the Galactic value of $1 \times 10^{21} \ {\rm cm^{-2}}$.
429: However, given that we do not expect to have intrinsic absorption in this source,
430: while we do expect to see a bending of the X-ray spectrum over this energy range
431: (e.g. Tagliaferri et al. 2003, Tramacere et al. 2007), we also fitted a broken-PL
432: model with the absorption fixed to the Galactic value. This model provides a good
433: fit to the data with a break at $\sim 1.8$ keV (note that this is also confirmed
434: by the analysis of the {\it Swift}-XRT data, see next section, therefore this is not due
435: to the instrument feature mentioned above).
436: Clearly, the X-ray spectrum of 1ES1959+650 is showing a curvature, therefore we
437: also fitted a log-parabolic law model that provides a good description of HBL
438: X-ray spectra (Massaro et al. 2004, Donato et al. 2005). Indeed, also this model
439: provides a good fit with the absorption fixed to the Galactic value
440: (see Tab. \ref{fit_suzaku} for a summary of the best-fit results).
441:
442:
443:
444: \subsubsection{Suzaku HXD/PIN}
445:
446: The HXD/PIN data are reduced following the procedure suggested by the
447: \suzaku team. The HXD/PIN spectrum is extracted after the selection of
448: good time intervals (analogously to the XIS procedure). To the
449: extracted spectrum (obtained through {\tt xselect}) we applied the
450: suggested dead time correction (of the order of 5\%). The net exposure
451: time after screening is 40.2 ksec.
452:
453: Response and non X-ray background (NXB) files are directly provided by
454: the \suzaku team. Note that, since the background level of HXD/PIN is
455: extremely low, the background event files are generated with a ten
456: times scaled level than the actual background to avoid introducing a
457: large statistical error. The EXPOSURE keyword in the background file
458: has to be changed before the analysis. An important issue in the
459: analysis of the HXD/PIN data concerns the estimate of the Cosmic X-ray
460: Background, whose spectrum peaks just in this band. We followed the
461: procedure suggested by the \suzaku team (see also Kataoka et
462: al. 2007), simulating the expected contribution of the CXB from the
463: entire PIN Field of View ($34'\times 34'$), assuming the {\it HEAO-1}
464: spectrum between 3 and 60 keV (Boldt 1987, Gruber et al. 1999).
465: At the end, the net counts represent
466: about 10\% of the total counts, with the source detected up to $\sim 50$ keV.
467: Roughly, the CXB flux account for 5\% for the HXD/PIN background.
468:
469: To perform a joint XIS and HXD/PIN (0.7-50 keV energy band) fit we extract XIS
470: spectra for $t<10^5$ s. Fitting with a broken power law as above, the PIN points
471: lie below the model, requiring a steeper spectrum. As shown in Fig. \ref{xis_hxd},
472: a good fit is obtained using a model with three power-laws ({\tt bkn2pow} on
473: {\tt XSPEC}). This figure shows the good agreement between the four XIS instruments,
474: with residuals that are of the order of only a few percent. Thanks to the high
475: statistics of our data, it also indicates that some sistematic effects still exist
476: in the XIS calibration.
477: As for the XIS only data, to fit the continuous spectral curvature between
478: 0.7 and 50 keV, we also used a log-parabolic law model. This provides a
479: good fit to the joint XIS and HXD/PIN spectrum (see Tab. \ref{fit_suzaku});
480: although the last few points are below the best fitted model, indicating that
481: above $\sim 35$ keV the X-ray spectrum is decaying very rapidly, with some
482: indication of an exponential cut-off.
483:
484:
485: \subsection {\it Swift}
486:
487: We requested a number of observations as target of opportunity with
488: {\it Swift} (Gehrels et al. 2004) around the \suzaku and \magic campaign.
489: A total of 9 short observations were carried out between May 19 and
490: May 29, 2006. We also re-analysed a Swift observation performed one
491: year before, on April 19, 2005 (Tramacere et al. 2007). The source is
492: clearly detected each time both by the X-Ray Telescope (XRT, Burrows et al. 2005)
493: and by the UltraViolet-Optical Telescope (UVOT, Roming et al. 2005), but not
494: by the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT, Barthelmy et al. 2005), therefore
495: the BAT data are not included in our analysis.
496:
497: \subsubsection{{\it Swift}-XRT}
498:
499: The XRT data were processed using the the HEASoft package.
500: The task {\tt xrtpipeline} was used applying the
501: standard calibration, filtering and screening criteria, using
502: the latest calibration files available in the \swift caldb distributed
503: by HEASARC. In each observation, after a few second of exposure in
504: photon counting mode, XRT automatically switched in window timing (WT)
505: mode due to the brightness of the source. We analysed only the WT data,
506: selecting all the events with grades 0-2 and with energy in the range
507: 0.3-10 keV.
508:
509: Each {\it Swift}-XRT observation lasts for a few thousand seconds with a count rate
510: always larger than 7 counts s$^{-1}$, therefore we have good statistics for the X-ray
511: spectrum of each observation.
512: As in the case of the \suzaku-XIS spectrum, the XRT spectra are well fitted either by a
513: simple PL plus a variable interstellar absorption, with a N$_{\rm H}$ value 50\% higher
514: than the Galactic value or, if we fix the absorption to the Galactic value, either by a
515: broken-PL model or a log-parabolic law model.
516: In Tab.~\ref{fit_xrt} we report the broken-PL and the log-parabolic best-fit results.
517: Note that there is a very good match between the {\it Swift}-XRT results and the {\it Suzaku}-XIS
518: ones, showing that the cross-calibration between these two instruments is quite good.
519:
520: \subsection{The \magic telescope}
521:
522: The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov)
523: telescope is an Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope (IACT) with a 17-m diameter mirror
524: with an energy threshold of $\sim 50$ GeV. The telescope is located on
525: the Canary Island of La Palma (28.2$^{\circ}$~N, 17.8$^{\circ}$~W, 2225 m\,a.s.l.)
526: (Albert et al. 2007a).
527:
528: 1ES1959+650 was observed with the MAGIC telescope for 7 nights from May 21st to 27th, 2006
529: for this campaign. The zenith angle during the observations was in the range from $36^{\circ}$
530: to $43.5^{\circ}$.
531: Observations were performed in wobble mode (Daum et al. 1997), where the object was observed at an
532: $0.4^{\circ}$ offset from the camera center.
533: After the quality selection of the data the total effective observation time was 14.3 hours.
534: The analysis was performed using the standard MAGIC analysis software (Albert et al. 2007a).
535: Based on the information of shower image parameters (Hillas et al. 1985), a multi-tree classification method
536: (Random Forest) was applied for the discrimination against the dominating background of hadronic
537: cosmic-ray events and for the energy estimation of the $\gamma$-ray events (Albert et al. 2007b).
538: The $\gamma$-ray excess is derived from the $\theta^2$ distribution where the parameter $\theta$
539: represents the angular distance between the source position in the sky and the reconstructed arrival
540: position of the air shower, estimated using the ``DISP" method (Fomin et al. 1994).
541:
542: An excess of 663 events over 5283 normalized background events yielding a significance of 7.7 $\sigma$
543: was obtained for the spectrum calculation.
544: Tighter cuts which only selected data with a shower image size $> 350$ photoelectrons
545: (corresponding to a gamma-ray energy peak of about 400 GeV) resulted in an increased 10.4 $\sigma$ significance.
546:
547: The measured differential energy spectrum averaged over the 7-night observations
548: by the MAGIC telescope is shown in Figure~\ref{magic_spec}. It is well described
549: by a simple power law from 150 GeV to 3 TeV with a photon index of $\Gamma = 2.58\pm0.18$.
550: The best fit values are reported in Fig~\ref{magic_spec}. Compared to the previous
551: MAGIC measurement of 1ES1959+650 in a steady state in 2004 (Albert et al. 2006), the observed
552: flux in 2006 is about 60\% of the flux in 2004 while the photon indices agree within the errors.
553:
554: \subsection{{\it Swift}-UVOT and ground based optical observations}
555:
556: The UVOT contains three optical (UBV) and three UV (UVW1, UVM2, UVW2)
557: lenticular filters, which cover the wavelength range between 1600
558: and 6000 \AA. All six filters were used each time
559: (but for the observations of May 19 \& 29, 2006, when the latter UV
560: filter was not used). The source was detected in all filters. These data
561: were analysed using the {\tt uvotmaghist} task (HEASoft v. 6.3 with calibration
562: files updated on June 27, 2007) with a source region of 5" for
563: optical and 10" for UV filters. The background was extracted from a source
564: free circular region with radius equal to 40". To take into account
565: systematic effects, we added a 10\% error in flux (resulting in about 0.1
566: mag). In Tab. \ref{uvot_tab} we report the journal of the UVOT observations,
567: the derived magnitudes and fluxes, including the galaxy
568: subtracted flux values (see below).
569:
570:
571: 1ES\,1959+650 is one of the blazars that is regularly monitored in the
572: Cousins R band with the AIT (0.40\,m) of the Perugia Observatory (Tosti et al. 1996)
573: and with both the KVA telescope on La Palma and the Tuorla 1.03 m telescope as a part
574: of the Tuorla blazar monitoring program\footnote{see {\tt http://users.utu.fi/~kani/1m}}.
575: In Fig. \ref{lc_optical} we show the R light curve
576: obtained with these telescopes in the period from June 2004 to August 2006. The observations
577: carried out between May 5 and June 30, 2006, i.e. around our multiwavelength campaign, are
578: reported in Tab. \ref{optical} and shown as an inset in Fig. \ref{lc_optical}.
579: To measure properly the optical SED of the blazar it is necessary to
580: subtract from the observed fluxes the contribution of the underlying
581: host galaxy, that for 1ES1959+650 is detectable even with the short focal
582: length of our 40 cm telescope. To this end we adopted the same procedure
583: that we applied in Tagliaferri et al. (2003) and derived the dereddened
584: (A$_R$=0.473, from Schlegel et al. 1998) host-galaxy subtracted fluxes of the blazar in the R band
585: (we subtracted a galaxy contribution of 1.7 mJy in the R band, see also Nilsson et al. 2007).
586: These values are also reported in Tab. \ref{optical}.
587:
588: We adopted the same procedure for the UVOT data, although the galaxy contribution
589: was subtracted only for the UBV filters (for the galaxy contribution in these filters we
590: used the ``standard" colors for an elliptical galaxy following Fukugita et al. 1995),
591: given that it is negligible in the UV filters.
592:
593: \section{Results}
594:
595: The good agreement between the \suzaku and {\it Swift}-XRT results is shown in Fig.~\ref{zoom},
596: where we report the highest and the lowest X-ray status as recorded by XRT, together
597: with the X-ray spectrum observed by {\it Suzaku}, which is near to the higher status.
598: Note that we do not have strictly simultaneous spectra, therefore we did not attempt
599: to fit simultaneously the \suzaku and {\it Swift}-XRT data. The wide energy range of \suzaku
600: simultaneously includes the broad peak and the following rapid decay of the
601: synchrotron component. This together with the optical/UV data of \swift and on-ground
602: observations allow us to properly monitor the synchrotron component of the SED.
603: In Fig.~\ref{zoom_x} we plot all nine X-ray spectra observed by XRT
604: from May 19 to May 29, 2006. Besides the variability of a factor of 2 in flux,
605: this figure clearly shows that the peak of the synchrotron component, which is
606: well within the XRT band (0.3-10 keV), moves to higher energies with the increasing
607: flux. Moreover, it is also evident that the flux at higher energies, i.e. above the
608: synchrotron peak, increases and decreases more rapidly than the fluxes at lower energies.
609: A behaviour that has already been noted in other HBLs (e.g. Ravasio et al.
610: 2004, Brinkmann et al. 2005, Zhang et al. 2005).
611: This is confirmed also by the \suzaku observation. In fact, during this long monitoring
612: of more than two days, the source showed also some rapid variability.
613: Fig.~\ref{suzaku_lc} reports the soft (0.2-2 keV) and hard (2-10) X-ray light curves
614: of 1ES 1959+650 as recorded with the XIS1. The data track a flare of small amplitude
615: ($\sim 10\%$) with a rising time of $t_r\simeq 20-30$ ks. The variability is faster
616: in the 2-10 keV band than in the 0.2-2 keV band, as also shown by the hardness ratio
617: (bottom panel), note in particular the sudden drop visible at $t\simeq 1.5\times 10^5$ s.
618: Again, this is in agreement with the behaviour shown by the XRT data (i.e. higher
619: variability at energies above the synchrotron peak).
620:
621: Our optical (R band) monitoring from June 2004 to August 2006, shows that
622: the source was in a relatively active state (see Fig. \ref{lc_optical}).
623: During the more intense monitoring of May-June 2006, centred around our
624: multiwavelength campaign,
625: the source showed a variability of 0.1-0.2 magnitude around a mean value of 14.4
626: (including the galaxy). In particular, in the period May 25 - June 1, the R-flux
627: increased by about 40\% (see Tab. \ref{optical} and inset of Fig. \ref{lc_optical}),
628: at odd with the
629: 2-10 keV X-ray flux, that instead shows a decrease in the period May 25-29.
630: This can again be explained by the synchrotron peak moving at lower energies
631: (i.e. to the left side): the X-ray flux after the peak decreases, while the
632: optical flux, which is before the peak, increases.
633: During the \swift 10 days monitoring, the source
634: remained constant in the UVOT filters at values
635: that are the same as the one recorded one year before (see Tab. \ref{uvot_tab})
636: and that are fully consistent with the fluxes
637: observed in the R band (see Figs \ref{zoom} \& \ref{sed}). Given the
638: uncertainties of the UVOT measurements, with these data we can say that
639: the source did not vary by more than 50\% in the UVOT filters during this period.
640: Clearly, the source is more variable in the soft X-ray band, about a factor of 2 on
641: a time scale of days (see Tab. \ref{fit_xrt} and Fig. \ref{zoom}). This
642: is not surprising for HBLs, that are known to be highly
643: variable in this band. In fact, if we look at the SED reported in
644: Fig. \ref{zoom}, we can see that the synchrotron component peaks
645: between 1-2 keV, therefore it is natural that we
646: should see more variability in the X-ray than in the optical-UV
647: band (of course if variability is caused by a spectral change above the peak).
648:
649: In the VHE band the average integrated flux above 300 GeV is $(1.27 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-11}
650: {\rm cm^{-2} \ s^{-1}}$, which corresponds to about
651: 10\% of the Crab Nebula flux. This corresponds to one of the lowest level so far observed in
652: VHE band, about a factor two lower than the lowest flux detected previously both with
653: HEGRA in the years 2000-2001 and MAGIC in 2004 and well below the highest level detected
654: in May 2002 (Aharonian et al. 2003, Albert et al. 2006).
655: The diurnal light curves of VHE $\gamma$-rays above 300 GeV is shown in Fig.~\ref{magic_lc},
656: no significant strong variability can be seen.
657: However, due to the low source flux level, we could only have seen
658: variability of a factor of 2-3.
659:
660:
661: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
662:
663: The full SED of 1ES 1959+650 as measured at the end of May 2006 is reported
664: in Fig.~\ref{sed}, together with other historical data. During our
665: multiwavelength campaign we simultaneously observed the SED from the
666: optical, to the UV, soft and hard X-rays and VHE bands, monitoring
667: both the synchrotron and Compton components. The historical data in this
668: figure show very strong changes in the X-ray band, while in the
669: optical this is much more attenuated. A behaviour that is also found in the
670: results obtained from our observing campaign.
671:
672: During our multiwavelegth campaign the source is found to be in a high
673: state with respect to the historical behaviour both in X-ray and optical
674: (e.g. Tagliaferri et al. 2003 and Fig. \ref{lc_optical}), although not at the
675: highest state as observed in the X-ray (e.g. Holder et al. 2003b, see Fig. \ref{sed}).
676: In the VHE band, instead, the source is at one of the lowest state so far recorded.
677: We also found that the X-ray fluxes at energies above the synchrotron peak
678: vary more rapidly than the X-ray fluxes below the peak. Also the VHE band shows historical
679: strong variability, in particular if we consider that in this band
680: there are fewer observations than in the optical or X-ray ones. However,
681: from our data we do not see strong (i.e. a factor of 2-3) variability in
682: the VHE band. Our \magic data are probably
683: monitoring the part of the SED slightly above the peak of the Compton
684: component. Therefore, one would expect to see a high level of
685: variability. The lack of variability
686: in the \magic data and the low flux level recorded both indicate that
687: the source was not very active in this band. Overall we can say that
688: during our campaign the source was quite stable (i.e. did not vary by more than
689: a factor of 2) from the optical to the VHE band.
690:
691: The observed X--ray variability behaviour allows a few
692: interesting considerations about the properties of the
693: emitting regions.
694: First, note that the variability is not random, but follows
695: a raising/decay trend on a timescale of $\sim$10 days (see the \swift-XRT results).
696: In this observed time $\Delta t$, a single blob moving with a
697: bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma\sim 18$ (see below)
698: moves by a distance $\Delta z \sim c\Delta t \Gamma^2\sim 2.7$ pc.
699: Therefore we cannot assume that we are observing
700: a single moving blob travelling that far, since the blob
701: would expand, loose energy by adiabatic losses, and change
702: (decrease) its magnetic field. This in turn would decrease the produced
703: flux and would lengthen the variability timescale.
704: Also the internal shock model (Spada et al. 2001,
705: Guetta et al. 2004) can not explain the variability we are observing.
706: In fact, in this model the radiation is produced in a shock resulting
707: from the collision of two shells moving at slightly different velocities.
708: In this case the variability is predicted to be erratic, therefore to
709: explain the variability we are seen we have to finely tune
710: the different $\Gamma$ of the shells.
711: We are thus led to consider the possibility that the
712: observed radiation originates in the same region of the
713: jet, through some kind of ``standing shock".
714: For instance, we might think to the interaction of a fast
715: spine and a shear layer occurring at about the same
716: distance from the central powerhouse (see Ghisellini,
717: Tavecchio \& Chiaberge 2005 for mode details, including
718: the possibility of radiative deceleration of the spine
719: through the ``Compton rocket" effect in TeV blazars).
720: %{\bf
721: A ``standing shock" scenario has already been proposed by
722: Krawczynski et al. (2002) in order to explain the tight correlation
723: between X-ray and TeV flares observed in Mrk501 and it is discussed
724: in some detail also by Sokolov et al.( 2004).
725: %}
726:
727: As we did with the previous multiwavelength observing campaigns
728: on 1ES\,1959+650 that we organised based on the {\it Beppo}SAX
729: observations (Tagliaferri et al. 2003), we can try to fit our SED
730: with a homogeneous, one-zone synchrotron inverse Compton model.
731: During the {\it Beppo}SAX campaigns, in order to derive the SSC physical
732: parameters we had to assume a value for the Compton component, that we
733: derived by rescaling a non-simultaneous VHE spectrum based on the
734: X-ray flux. This time we have also the VHE observations, therefore
735: both SSC components are constrained by real data. As shown by
736: Fig. \ref{sed}, the X-ray spectrum as observed by \suzaku and \swift
737: is about a factor of 2 higher than the one measured with \sax and also
738: the synchrotron peak has moved to somewhat higher energy, confirming
739: the previous results of a higher energy peak with higher fluxes
740: (e.g. Tagliaferri et al. 2003), that is typical for HBLs (see the
741: dramatic case of MKN\,501, Pian et al. 1998). The optical fluxes are
742: similar to the one reported for the 2002 SED. The observed VHE
743: spectrum is similar, but lower, to that one of the 2002 SED.
744: In summary the 2006 SED has optical fluxes that are similar
745: to that ones of the 2002, the X-ray fluxes are a factor of 2 higher
746: and the VHE fluxes are a factor of $\sim 2$ lower. In the assumed
747: one-zone SSC model, the source is a sphere with
748: radius $R$ moving with bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ and seen at an
749: angle $\theta$ by the observer, resulting in a Doppler factor
750: $\delta$. The magnetic field is tangled and uniform while the injected
751: relativistic particle are assumed to have a (smooth) broken power law
752: spectrum with normalisation $K$, extending from $\gamma _{\rm min}$ to
753: $\gamma _{\rm max}$ and with indexes $n_1$ and $n_2$ below and above
754: the break at $\gamma _b$.
755: Assuming this model, the SED of May, 2006 can be well represented using
756: the following parameters: $\delta=18$, R$=7.3 \times 10^{15}$ cm, B=0.25 G,
757: K=$2.2 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$ and an electron distribution extending from
758: $\gamma _{\rm min} = 1$ to $\gamma _{\rm max} = 6.0 \times 10^5$, with a
759: break at $\gamma _{\rm b}= 5.7 \times 10^4$ and slopes $n_1=2$ and $n_2=3.4$.
760: The intrinsic luminosity is $L' = 5.5 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
761: If we compare these values with the one we derived for the 2002 SED (though
762: in that case we use a slightly different emission model), we saw that the
763: parameters are very similar, with a source that is slightly more
764: compact, a lower magnetic field and an almost identical Doppler
765: factor. Similar values are also found to explain the SED of PKS2155-304
766: during and after the strong TeV flare observed in July, 2006; although
767: in that case we found less steep slopes for the electrons and an higher
768: value of $\delta$ (see Foschini et al. 2007). Once again, the physical
769: parameters that we
770: derived assuming a one-zone SSC model are typical of HBL objects.
771: Finally, the historical SEDs of 1ES1959+650 shows that
772: in this source the synchrotron emission is
773: dominating above the Compton one.
774:
775: \acknowledgements
776: We thank Neil Gehrels and the whole \swift team for the ToO observations
777: and the \suzaku team for their assistance in the analysis of our \suzaku data.
778: We thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the ORM.
779: We acknowledge financial support from the ASI-INAF contract I/088/06/0.
780: The MAGIC project is supported by the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN,
781: the Spanish CICYT, the Swiss ETH Research Grant TH34/04 and the Polish MNiI
782: Grant 1P03D01028.
783:
784:
785:
786: \begin{thebibliography}{}
787:
788: \bibitem[]{776} Aharonian F., et al., 2003, A\&A, 406, L9
789: \bibitem[]{777} Aharonian F., et al., 2007, ApJ, 664, L71
790: \bibitem[]{778} Albert, J., et al., 2006, ApJ, 639, 761
791: \bibitem[]{779} Albert, J., et al. 2007a, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0705.3244)
792: \bibitem[]{780} Albert, J., et al. 2007b, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys, Res. A, submitted, (astro-ph/0709.3719)
793: \bibitem[]{781} Barthelmy S., et al. 2005a, SSRv, 120, 143
794: \bibitem[]{782} Becker R.H., White R.L. \& Edwards A.L., 1991, ApJS, 75, 1
795: \bibitem[]{783} Boldt, E.\ 1987, IAU Symp.~124: Observational Cosmology, 124, 611
796: \bibitem[]{784} B\"ottcher, M., 2007, Ap\&SS, 309, 95
797: \bibitem[]{785} Brinkmann, W., Papadakis, I.E., Raeth, C., Mimica, P., Haberl, F., 2005, A\&A, 443, 397
798: \bibitem[]{786} Buckley, J.H., et al., 1996, ApJ, 472, L9
799: \bibitem[]{787} Burrows D.N., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165
800: \bibitem[]{788} Catanese M. et al., 1997, ApJ, 487, L143
801: \bibitem[]{789} Daum, A., et al. 1997, AstroPart. Phys., 8, 1
802: \bibitem[]{790} Donato, D., Sambruna, R.M., Gilozzi, M., 2005, A\&A, 433, 1163
803: \bibitem[]{791} Elvis M., Plummer D., Schachter J. \& Fabbiano G., 1992, ApJS, 80, 257
804: \bibitem[]{792} Falomo, R., Kotilainen, J.K., Treves, A., 2002, ApJ, 566, 738
805: \bibitem[]{793} Fomin, V.~P. et al., 1994, AstroPart. Phys., 2, 137
806: \bibitem[]{794} Foschini L., et al., 2007, ApJ, 657, L81
807: \bibitem[]{795} Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., \& Ghisellini, G.\ 1998, \mnras, 299, 433
808: \bibitem[]{796} Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., Ichikawa, T., 1995, PASP 107, 945
809: \bibitem[]{797_01} Gehrels, N., et al. 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
810: \bibitem[]{797_02} Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., \& Comastri, A.\ 1998, \mnras, 301, 451
811: \bibitem[]{798_01} Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F. \& Chiaberge, M., 2005, A\&A, 432, 401
812: \bibitem[]{798_02} Giebels, B., et al., 2002, \apj, 571, 763
813: \bibitem[]{799} Gregory P.C. \& Condon J.J., 1991, ApJS, 75, 1011
814: \bibitem[]{800} Gruber, D.E., Matteson, J.~L., Peterson, L.~E., \& Jung, G.~V.\ 1999, \apj, 520, 124
815: \bibitem[]{801_01} Guetta, D., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D. \& Celotti, A., 2004, A\&A, 421, 877
816: \bibitem[]{801_02} Gutierrez, K.J., et al., 2006, \apj, 644, 742
817: \bibitem[]{802} Hayashida, M., et al., 2007, proceedings of the ``30$^{th}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conf.'', in press, (astro-ph/0709.2349)
818: \bibitem[]{803} Hartman R.C. et al., 1999, ApJS, 123, 79
819: \bibitem[]{804} Heidt J., Nilsson K., Sillanp\"{a}\"{a} A., Takalo L.O., Pursimo T., 1999, A\&A, 341, 683
820: \bibitem[]{805} Hillas, A.~M. 1985, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (La Jolla), 3, 445
821: \bibitem[]{806} Holder J., Bond I.H., Boyleet P.J., et al., 2003a, ApJ, 583, L9
822: \bibitem[]{807} Holder J., Bond I.H., Boyleet P.J., et al., 2003b, Proceedings of the
823: 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Eds: T. Kajita, Y. Asaoka, A. Kawachi, Y. Matsubara, and
824: M. Sasaki (Tsukuba, Japan 2003), p. 2619 (astro-ph/0305577)
825: \bibitem[]{810_01} Kneiske, T.M., Bretz, T., Mannheim, K., Hartmann, D.H., 2004, A\&A, 413, 807
826: \bibitem[]{810_02} Krawczynski, H., Coppi, P.S., Aharonian, F., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 721
827: \bibitem[]{811} Krawczynski, H., et al., 2004, ApJ, 601, 151
828: \bibitem[]{812} Koyama, K. et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S23
829: \bibitem[]{813} Maraschi, L., et al., 1999, ApJ, 526, L81
830: \bibitem[]{814} Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P., Nesci, R., 2004, A\&A, 413, 489
831: \bibitem[]{815} Mitsuda, K., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S1
832: \bibitem[]{816} Nilsson, K., et al. 2007, A\&A 475, 199
833: \bibitem[]{817} Padovani, P., Giommi, P., 1995, ApJ, 444, 567
834: \bibitem[]{818} Pian, E., Vacanti, G., Tagliaferri, G., et al., 1998, ApJ, 492, L17
835: \bibitem[]{819} Punch M. et al., 1992, Nature, 358, 477
836: \bibitem[]{820} Ravasio, M., Tagliaferri, G., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., 2004, A\&A, 424, 841
837: \bibitem[]{821} Roming P.N., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95
838: \bibitem[]{822_01} Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
839: \bibitem[]{822_02} Sokolov, A., Marscher, A., P., McHardy, I. M., 2004, \apj, 613, 725
840: \bibitem[]{823} Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D. \& Celotti, A., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559
841: \bibitem[]{824} Takahashi, T. et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S35
842: \bibitem[]{825} Tagliaferri G., Ravasio M., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Giommi, P.,
843: Massaro, E., Nesci, R., Tosti, G., 2003, A\&A, 412, 711
844: \bibitem[]{827} Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., Kataoka, J., Foschini, L., Sambruna, R.M.,
845: Tagliaferri, G., 2007, ApJ 665, 980
846: \bibitem[]{829} Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., \& Ghisellini, G.\ 1998, ApJ, 509, 608
847: \bibitem[]{830} Tosti, G., Pascolini, S., \& Fiorucci, M., 1996, PASP, 108, 706
848: \bibitem[]{831} Tramacere, A., Giommi, P., Massaro, E., et al. 2007, A\&A, 467, 501
849: \bibitem[]{832} von Montigny et al., 1995, ApJ, 440, 525
850: \bibitem[]{833} Zhang, Y.H., Treves, A., Celotti, A., Qin, Y.P., Bai, J.M., 2005, ApJ, 637, 699
851:
852: \end{thebibliography}
853:
854:
855: \clearpage
856:
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858:
859: \begin{table}
860: \caption{\scriptsize Best fit parameters for the XIS data of the whole
861: \suzaku observation.
862: Description of columns: (1): Model used to fit the XIS data
863: (pl=power law; bpl=broken power law; log-par=log-parabolic law; GA=absorption fixed at the
864: Galactic value, $N_H=10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$; A: free absorption in the
865: source rest frame;
866: (2) Photon index for the pl model, or
867: low-energy photon index for the bpl model, or log-parabolic slope. (3) Value of the $N_H$ (in
868: units of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$), or high-energy photon index for the bpl model, or log-parabolic curvature.
869: (4) Break energy (keV) for the bpl model. (5) Third photon index for the 2-bpl model.
870: (6) Second break energy (keV) for the 2-bpl model. (8) Flux in the 2-10 keV band,
871: in units of $10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.}
872: \begin{center}
873: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
874: \hline
875: Model & $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma _1$ or $a$ & $N_{H}$ or $\Gamma_2$ or $b$ & $E_b$ or $E_{b1}$ & $\Gamma_3$
876: & $E_{b2}$ & $\chi ^2_r/d.o.f.$ & $F_{2-10}$ \\
877: (1)&(2)&(3)&(4)&(5)&(6)&(7)&(8)\\
878: \hline \hline
879: \multicolumn{8}{c}{Suzaku XIS}\\
880: \hline
881: &&&&&&&\\
882: pl+A & $2.197\pm 0.001$ & 1.555$^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$ & && & 0.96/5455 & 2 \\
883: bpl+GA & $1.958\pm 0.003$ & 2.205$^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ & 1.83$\pm 0.01$ && & 1.01/5454 & 2 \\
884: log-par & $1.96 \pm 0.01$ & $0.20 \pm 0.01$ & && & 0.99/5456 & 2 \\
885: &&&&&&&\\
886: \hline
887: \multicolumn{8}{c}{Suzaku XIS+HXD/PIN}\\
888: \hline
889: &&&&&&&\\
890: 2-bpl+GA & $1.94 \pm 0.001$ & $2.195 \pm 0.02$ & 1.83$\pm 0.03$ & $2.7 \pm 0.03$ & $16 \pm 3$ & 0.97/4183 & 2 \\
891: log-par & $1.95 \pm 0.01$ & $0.21 \pm 0.01$ & & & & 0.98/4186 & 2 \\
892: &&&&&&&\\
893: \hline
894: \end{tabular}
895: \end{center}
896: \label{fit_suzaku}
897: \end{table}
898:
899: %
900:
901: \begin{table}
902: \caption{\scriptsize Best fit parameters for the XRT data of each {\it Swift} observation,
903: with the absorption fixed at the Galactic value, $N_H=10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
904: Description of columns: (1) Observing date, (2) Low-energy photon index for the bpl model,
905: or log-par slope, (3) high-energy photon index for the bpl model, or log-par curvature.
906: (4) Break energy (keV) for the bpl model. (6) Flux in the 2-10 keV band,
907: in units of $10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.}
908: \begin{center}
909: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
910: \hline
911: Date & $\Gamma _1$ or $a$ & $\Gamma_2$ or $b$ & $E_b$ & $\chi ^2_r/d.o.f.$ & $F_{2-10}$ \\
912: (1)&(2)&(3)&(4)&(5)&(6)\\
913: \hline
914: \hline
915: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Swift XRT broken power law best-fits}\\
916: \hline
917: &&&&&\\
918: 19/04/2005 01:05 & $2.00 \pm 0.04$ & $2.38 \pm 0.04$ & $1.38^{-0.16}_{+0.13}$ & 0.87/369 & 1.2 \\
919: 19/05/2006 16:09 & $1.97 \pm 0.07$ & $2.34 \pm 0.08$ & $1.45^{-0.30}_{+0.35}$ & 0.87/219 & 1.1 \\
920: 21/05/2006 03:36 & $1.86 \pm 0.07$ & $2.23 \pm 0.05$ & $1.25^{-0.20}_{+0.30}$ & 1.09/284 & 1.5 \\
921: 23/05/2006 10:09 & $1.86^{-0.08}_{+0.04}$ & $2.14 \pm 0.03$ & $1.15^{-0.23}_{+0.14}$ & 1.05/451 & 2.3 \\
922: 24/05/2006 10:33 & $1.86 \pm 0.03$ & $2.23 \pm 0.05$ & $1.81^{-0.18}_{+0.18}$ & 0.98/374 & 2.4 \\
923: 25/05/2006 10:38 & $1.86^{-0.08}_{+0.04}$ & $2.20 \pm 0.04$ & $1.29^{-0.23}_{+0.15}$ & 1.01/439 & 2.0 \\
924: 26/05/2006 09:05 & $1.68^{-0.10}_{+0.13}$ & $2.16 \pm 0.02$ & $0.90^{-0.18}_{+0.04}$ & 1.10/439 & 2.0 \\
925: 27/05/2006 12:24 & $1.95 \pm 0.04$ & $2.38 \pm 0.03$ & $1.23^{-0.11}_{+0.10}$ & 1.09/387 & 1.5 \\
926: 28/05/2006 01:10 & $1.95 \pm 0.04$ & $2.37 \pm 0.03$ & $1.23^{-0.09}_{+0.10}$ & 0.99/382 & 1.5 \\
927: 29/05/2006 01:15 & $2.03 \pm 0.04$ & $2.42 \pm 0.04$ & $1.23^{-0.13}_{+0.13}$ & 1.06/332 & 1.4 \\
928: &&&&&\\
929: \hline
930: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Swift-XRT log-parabolic law best-fits}\\
931: \hline
932: &&&&&\\
933: 19/04/2005 01:05 & $2.09 \pm 0.02$ & $0.33 \pm 0.04$ & & 0.88/370 & 1.2 \\
934: 19/05/2006 16:09 & $2.04 \pm 0.03$ & $0.34 \pm 0.08$ & & 0.86/220 & 1.1 \\
935: 21/05/2006 03:36 & $1.97 \pm 0.03$ & $0.31 \pm 0.06$ & & 1.07/285 & 1.5 \\
936: 23/05/2006 10:09 & $1.96 \pm 0.02$ & $0.22 \pm 0.03$ & & 1.05/452 & 2.2 \\
937: 24/05/2006 10:33 & $1.89 \pm 0.02$ & $0.31 \pm 0.04$ & & 0.95/375 & 2.4 \\
938: 25/05/2006 10:38 & $1.95 \pm 0.02$ & $0.29 \pm 0.04$ & & 0.99/440 & 2.0 \\
939: 26/05/2006 09:05 & $2.00 \pm 0.02$ & $0.26 \pm 0.04$ & & 1.10/440 & 1.9 \\
940: 27/05/2006 12:24 & $2.09 \pm 0.03$ & $0.36 \pm 0.04$ & & 1.07/388 & 1.4 \\
941: 28/05/2006 01:10 & $2.08 \pm 0.02$ & $0.35 \pm 0.04$ & & 1.03/383 & 1.5 \\
942: 29/05/2006 01:15 & $2.15 \pm 0.02$ & $0.33 \pm 0.05$ & & 1.08/333 & 1.4 \\
943: &&&&&\\
944: \end{tabular}
945: \end{center}
946: \label{fit_xrt}
947: \end{table}
948:
949: \begin{table}
950: \caption{\scriptsize Optical properties of 1ES\,1959+65 (from the UVOT data). The data are averaged
951: over the pointings of each day. The $1\sigma$ uncertainties in the parameter estimates,
952: including systematics, are of 10\% in flux (corresponding to about 0.1 mag).
953: For each filter are shown: observed magnitude, dereddened magnitude, monochromatic flux.
954: The monochromatic flux subtracted from the contribution of the host galaxy is calculated
955: only for the optical filters, since this is negligible at the UV frequencies.}
956: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
957: \hline
958: Date & $V$ & $V_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm V}$ & $F_{\rm V-HG}$ & $B$ & $B_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm B}$ & $F_{\rm B-HG}$ \\
959: & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] & [mJy] & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] & [mJy] \\
960: \hline
961: April 19, 2005 & $14.9$ & $14.3$ & $5.7$ & $4.6$ & $15.7$ & $14.9$ & $4.1$ & $3.7$ \\
962: May 19, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.3$ & $6.1$ & $5.0$ & $15.4$ & $14.7$ & $5.0$ & $4.6$ \\
963: May 21, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.2$ & $6.3$ & $5.2$ & $15.4$ & $14.7$ & $5.2$ & $4.8$ \\
964: May 23, 2006 & $14.9$ & $14.3$ & $5.9$ & $4.8$ & $15.4$ & $14.7$ & $4.9$ & $4.5$ \\
965: May 24, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.3$ & $6.2$ & $5.1$ & $15.4$ & $14.7$ & $5.2$ & $4.7$ \\
966: May 25, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.3$ & $6.2$ & $5.1$ & $15.4$ & $14.7$ & $5.2$ & $4.8$ \\
967: May 26, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.2$ & $6.6$ & $5.5$ & $15.4$ & $14.6$ & $5.3$ & $4.8$ \\
968: May 27, 2006 & $14.7$ & $14.2$ & $6.7$ & $5.6$ & $15.3$ & $14.6$ & $5.5$ & $5.0$ \\
969: May 28, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.2$ & $6.5$ & $5.4$ & $15.3$ & $14.6$ & $5.4$ & $5.0$ \\
970: May 29, 2006 & $14.8$ & $14.2$ & $6.5$ & $5.4$ & $15.3$ & $14.6$ & $5.6$ & $5.2$ \\
971: \hline
972: \hline
973: Date & $U$ & $U_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm U}$ & $F_{\rm U-HG}$ & $UVW1$ & $UVW1_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm UVW1}$ & \\
974: & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] & [mJy] & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] & \\
975: \hline
976: April 19, 2005 & $14.8$ & $13.9$ & $3.7$ & $3.6$ & $15.1$ & $13.9$ & $2.6$ & \\
977: May 19, 2006 & $14.7$ & $13.8$ & $4.0$ & $3.9$ & $15.0$ & $13.8$ & $2.9$ & \\
978: May 21, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.7$ & $4.3$ & $4.2$ & $14.9$ & $13.7$ & $3.1$ & \\
979: May 23, 2006 & $14.7$ & $13.8$ & $4.1$ & $4.0$ & $15.0$ & $13.8$ & $2.9$ & \\
980: May 24, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.7$ & $4.3$ & $4.2$ & $14.9$ & $13.7$ & $3.1$ & \\
981: May 25, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.7$ & $4.3$ & $4.2$ & $14.9$ & $13.7$ & $3.1$ & \\
982: May 26, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.7$ & $4.4$ & $4.3$ & $14.9$ & $13.7$ & $3.1$ & \\
983: May 27, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.6$ & $4.6$ & $4.5$ & $14.8$ & $13.6$ & $3.3$ & \\
984: May 28, 2006 & $14.6$ & $13.7$ & $4.5$ & $4.4$ & $14.8$ & $13.6$ & $3.3$ & \\
985: May 29, 2006 & $14.5$ & $13.6$ & $4.7$ & $4.6$ & $14.8$ & $13.6$ & $3.3$ & \\
986: \hline
987: \hline
988:
989: Date & $UVM2$ & $UVM2_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm UVM2}$ & $UVW2$ & $UVW2_{\rm d}$ & $F_{\rm UVW2}$ && \\
990: & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] & [mag] & [mag] & [mJy] && \\
991: \hline
992: April 19, 2005 & $15.0$ & $13.6$ & $2.8$ & $15.0$ & $13.3$ & $3.5$ && \\
993: May 19, 2006 & $15.0$ & $13.5$ & $3.0$ & {} & {} & {} && \\
994: May 21, 2006 & $14.9$ & $13.5$ & $3.1$ & $14.9$ & $13.2$ & $3.9$ && \\
995: May 23, 2006 & $14.9$ & $13.5$ & $3.1$ & $14.9$ & $13.2$ & $3.9$ && \\
996: May 24, 2006 & $14.9$ & $13.4$ & $3.2$ & $14.8$ & $13.1$ & $4.2$ && \\
997: May 25, 2006 & $14.9$ & $13.4$ & $3.3$ & $14.8$ & $13.1$ & $4.2$ && \\
998: May 26, 2006 & $14.8$ & $13.4$ & $3.3$ & $14.8$ & $13.1$ & $4.2$ && \\
999: May 27, 2006 & $14.9$ & $13.4$ & $3.2$ & $14.8$ & $13.0$ & $4.5$ && \\
1000: May 28, 2006 & $14.8$ & $13.4$ & $3.4$ & $14.8$ & $13.1$ & $4.3$ && \\
1001: May 29, 2006 & $14.8$ & $13.3$ & $3.6$ & {} & {} & {} && \\
1002:
1003: \hline
1004: \end{tabular}
1005: \label{uvot_tab}
1006: \end{table}
1007:
1008:
1009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1010:
1011:
1012: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1013: \tablewidth{0pt}
1014: \tablecolumns{5}
1015: \tablecaption{Optical properties of 1ES\,1959+65.\label{optical}}
1016: \tablehead{
1017: \colhead{Date} &
1018: \colhead{$R$} &
1019: \colhead{$R_{\rm d}$} &
1020: \colhead{$F_{\rm R}$} &
1021: \colhead{$F_{\rm R-HG}$} \\
1022: \colhead{ } &
1023: \colhead{[mag]} &
1024: \colhead{[mag]} &
1025: \colhead{[mJy]} &
1026: \colhead{[mJy]}
1027: }
1028: \startdata
1029: \sidehead{Perugia observations}
1030: May 5, 2006 & $14.40\pm 0.03$ & $13.93$ & $8.3$ & $6.6\pm 0.2$\\
1031: May 6, 2006 & $14.31\pm 0.04$ & $13.84$ & $9.0$ & $7.3\pm 0.3$\\
1032: May 16, 2006 & $14.51\pm 0.04$ & $14.03$ & $7.5$ & $5.8\pm 0.3$\\
1033: May 17, 2006 & $14.50\pm 0.04$ & $14.02$ & $7.6$ & $5.9\pm 0.3$\\
1034: May 23, 2006 & $14.59\pm 0.06$ & $14.11$ & $7.0$ & $5.3\pm 0.4$\\
1035: May 25, 2006 & $14.47\pm 0.04$ & $14.00$ & $7.7$ & $6.1\pm 0.3$\\
1036: May 27, 2006 & $14.47\pm 0.04$ & $14.00$ & $7.7$ & $6.1\pm 0.3$\\
1037: May 30, 2006 & $14.39\pm 0.04$ & $13.92$ & $8.3$ & $6.6\pm 0.3$\\
1038: May 31, 2006 & $14.39\pm 0.03$ & $13.92$ & $8.3$ & $6.7\pm 0.2$\\
1039: June 1, 2006 & $14.33\pm 0.03$ & $13.86$ & $8.8$ & $7.1\pm 0.2$\\
1040: June 8, 2006 & $14.39\pm 0.03$ & $13.92$ & $8.3$ & $6.7\pm 0.2$\\
1041: June 12, 2006 & $14.45\pm 0.03$ & $13.98$ & $7.9$ & $6.2\pm 0.2$\\
1042: June 13, 2006 & $14.44\pm 0.04$ & $13.98$ & $8.0$ & $6.3\pm 0.3$\\
1043: June 14, 2006 & $14.39\pm 0.04$ & $13.92$ & $8.3$ & $6.6\pm 0.3$\\
1044: June 15, 2006 & $14.41\pm 0.03$ & $13.94$ & $8.2$ & $6.5\pm 0.2$\\
1045: June 22, 2006 & $14.44\pm 0.07$ & $13.98$ & $8.0$ & $6.3\pm 0.5$\\
1046: June 23, 2006 & $14.34\pm 0.06$ & $13.87$ & $8.7$ & $7.1\pm 0.4$\\
1047: June 24, 2006 & $14.37\pm 0.04$ & $13.90$ & $8.5$ & $6.8\pm 0.3$\\
1048: June 26, 2006 & $14.31\pm 0.04$ & $13.84$ & $8.9$ & $7.3\pm 0.3$\\
1049: June 30, 2006 & $14.37\pm 0.03$ & $13.90$ & $8.5$ & $6.8\pm 0.2$\\
1050: \sidehead{Tuorla observations}
1051: May 05, 2006 & $14.26 \pm 0.02$ & 13.78 & 9.4 & $7.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1052: May 06, 2006 & $14.22 \pm 0.02$ & 13.74 & 9.8 & $8.1 \pm 0.1$ \\
1053: May 17, 2006 & $14.39 \pm 0.02$ & 13.92 & 8.4 & $6.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1054: May 19, 2006 & $14.40 \pm 0.02$ & 13.93 & 8.3 & $6.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1055: May 20, 2006 & $14.38 \pm 0.02$ & 13.90 & 8.4 & $6.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1056: May 22, 2006 & $14.39 \pm 0.02$ & 13.92 & 8.3 & $6.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1057: May 23, 2006 & $14.41 \pm 0.02$ & 13.94 & 8.2 & $6.5 \pm 0.1$ \\
1058: May 24, 2006 & $14.39 \pm 0.02$ & 13.92 & 8.4 & $6.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1059: May 25, 2006 & $14.35 \pm 0.02$ & 13.88 & 8.7 & $7.0 \pm 0.1$ \\
1060: May 25, 2006 & $14.34 \pm 0.02$ & 13.87 & 8.7 & $7.0 \pm 0.1$ \\
1061: May 27, 2006 & $14.36 \pm 0.02$ & 13.88 & 8.6 & $6.9 \pm 0.1$ \\
1062: May 28, 2006 & $14.34 \pm 0.02$ & 13.87 & 8.7 & $7.0 \pm 0.1$ \\
1063: May 29, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.1 & $7.4 \pm 0.1$ \\
1064: May 30, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.82 & 9.1 & $7.4 \pm 0.1$ \\
1065: May 31, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.82 & 9.1 & $7.4 \pm 0.1$ \\
1066: June 01, 2006 & $14.27 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1067: June 02, 2006 & $14.27 \pm 0.02$ & 13.79 & 9.4 & $7.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1068: June 03, 2006 & $14.28 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1069: June 05, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.1 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1070: June 06, 2006 & $14.27 \pm 0.02$ & 13.79 & 9.4 & $7.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1071: June 07, 2006 & $14.28 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1072: June 11, 2006 & $14.28 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1073: June 12, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.1 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1074: June 15, 2006 & $14.33 \pm 0.02$ & 13.86 & 8.8 & $7.1 \pm 0.1$ \\
1075: June 16, 2006 & $14.31 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.0 & $7.3 \pm 0.1$ \\
1076: June 18, 2006 & $14.32 \pm 0.02$ & 13.84 & 8.9 & $7.2 \pm 0.1$ \\
1077: June 19, 2006 & $14.30 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.1 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1078: June 20, 2006 & $14.29 \pm 0.02$ & 13.82 & 9.2 & $7.5 \pm 0.1$ \\
1079: June 21, 2006 & $14.31 \pm 0.02$ & 13.83 & 9.0 & $7.3 \pm 0.1$ \\
1080: June 22, 2006 & $14.27 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1081: June 23, 2006 & $14.27 \pm 0.02$ & 13.80 & 9.3 & $7.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
1082: June 24, 2006 & $14.28 \pm 0.02$ & 13.81 & 9.2 & $7.5 \pm 0.1$ \\
1083: June 25, 2006 & $14.26 \pm 0.02$ & 13.78 & 9.4 & $7.7 \pm 0.1$ \\
1084: \tablebreak
1085: June 27, 2006 & $14.24 \pm 0.02$ & 13.77 & 9.6 & $7.9 \pm 0.1$ \\
1086: June 28, 2006 & $14.25 \pm 0.02$ & 13.78 & 9.5 & $7.8 \pm 0.1$
1087: \enddata
1088: \tablecomments{The data are averaged over the pointings of each day.
1089: The $1\sigma$ uncertainties in the parameter estimates. The column indicate the observed magnitude,
1090: dereddened magnitude, monochromatic flux, monochromatic flux minus the contribution of the host galaxy.}
1091: \end{deluxetable}
1092:
1093: \clearpage
1094:
1095: \begin{figure}
1096: \includegraphics[width=12truecm,angle=270]{f1.ps}
1097: \caption{A two-broken power law model provides a good fit to
1098: the combined 4-XIS and HXD/PIN spectra. Note the good agreement between
1099: the four XIS instruments, with residuals that are of the order of only a
1100: few percent, although the high statistics of our data indicate that some
1101: systematic effects are still present in the XIS calibration.
1102: }
1103: \normalsize
1104: \label{xis_hxd}
1105: \end{figure}
1106:
1107: \begin{figure}
1108: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f2.ps}
1109: \caption{Differential energy spectrum of 1ES1959+650 as obtained by the MAGIC telescope.
1110: The spectrum is averaged over the whole dataset from the 2006 campaign. The blue solid line represents a power-law
1111: fit to the measured spectrum. The fit parameters are listed in the figure. For comparison,
1112: the measured MAGIC Crab spectrum (Albert et al. 2007a) is shown as a red dashed line.
1113: }
1114: \normalsize
1115: \label{magic_spec}
1116: \end{figure}
1117:
1118: \begin{figure}
1119: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f3.ps}
1120: \caption{
1121: The R optical light curve recorded with the AIT-Perugia telescope and
1122: with both the KVA telescope on La Palma and the Tuorla 1.03 m telescope as a part of the Tuorla blazar
1123: monitorin program in the period June 2004 - August 2006. The data reported in the figure are just
1124: the observed values and are not corrected for the galactic absorption nor for the host galaxy contribution
1125: (in order to have a better match, for plotting
1126: reasons, we subtracted a value of 0.05 from the Tuorla and KVA values in this plot).
1127: The inset shows the light curve between
1128: the two vertical lines, whose values are also reported in Table \ref{optical} (note that in this table
1129: we did not subtract the constant value as in the figure) and that
1130: are centred around the X-ray and VHE observations.}
1131: \normalsize
1132: \label{lc_optical}
1133: \end{figure}
1134:
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f4.ps}
1137: \caption{In this figure we report the highest and lowest
1138: optical-UV-X-ray status of 1ES\,1959+650 as observed by \swift in the period 19-29 May, 2006.
1139: Note that, while in the X-ray band there is a variability of a factor of two, in the optical
1140: the source does not vary significantly. For comparison we also report the averaged X-ray
1141: spectrum as observed by \suzaku on May 23-25, 2006, which is consistent with
1142: the higher XRT spectrum observed on May, 24. The wider energy range of {\it Suzaku}, constrains
1143: very well the synchrotron component of the SED, around and after the synchrotron peak.}
1144: \normalsize
1145: \label{zoom}
1146: \end{figure}
1147:
1148: \begin{figure}
1149: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f5.ps}
1150: \caption{The 0.3-7 keV X-ray spectrum as derived from the \swift XRT observations of
1151: May 19-29, 2006. In the left panel the flux increases from one spectrum to the next one
1152: (observations of May 19, 21, 23 and 24). On the contrary, in the right panel the flux decreases from
1153: one spectrum to the next one (observations of May 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28). Note how the synchrotron peak
1154: moves to higher energies with the flux increase (left panel) and that the flux at higher energies varies more
1155: rapidly than the fluxes at lower energies, in particular in the right panel.}
1156: %
1157: \normalsize
1158: \label{zoom_x}
1159: \end{figure}
1160:
1161: \begin{figure}
1162: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f6.ps}
1163: \caption{
1164: \suzaku-XIS1 soft (0.2-2 keV) and hard (2-10) X-ray light curves.
1165: The small amount of variability detected ($\sim 10\%$) is faster
1166: at the higher energies, as also shown by the hardness ratio
1167: (bottom panel).}
1168: \normalsize
1169: \label{suzaku_lc}
1170: \end{figure}
1171:
1172:
1173: \begin{figure}
1174: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f7.eps}
1175: \caption{Diurnal VHE (${\rm E} > $300 GeV) light curve of 1ES1959+650 from the MAGIC observations.
1176: A horizontal dashed line indicates the average flux level during the campaign,
1177: }
1178: \normalsize
1179: \label{magic_lc}
1180: \end{figure}
1181:
1182:
1183: \begin{figure}
1184: \includegraphics[width=16truecm]{f8.ps}
1185: \caption{SED of 1ES 1959+650 as measured at the end of
1186: May 2006, together with other historical data. Optical-UV data are
1187: from on-ground (cyan triangle) and UVOT/Swift (blue triangles).
1188: The average \suzaku spectrum (red) and the {\it Swift} spectra taken on May
1189: 24 and May 29 are reported. Green points (filled circles) report the observed \magic
1190: spectrum, while the red points (empty triangles) have been corrected
1191: for the absorption by the IR background using the ``low model'' of
1192: Kneiske et al. (2004). Historical data are taken from Tagliaferri et
1193: al. (2003) (radio-optical), Krawczynski et al. (2002) (X-rays),
1194: Beckmann et al. 2002 (X-rays) and Aharonian et al. (2003) (TeV, highest level).
1195: The line reports the synchrotron+SSC model (see text).
1196: %{\bf
1197: The spectra reported for the X-ray and TeV bands correspond to the
1198: highest and lowest flux so far recorded for this source in these bands.
1199: %}
1200: }
1201: \normalsize
1202: \label{sed}
1203: \end{figure}
1204:
1205: \end{document}
1206:
1207:
1208:
1209:
1210:
1211: