1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

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

3: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

5: %%\usepackage{graphicx}

6: %%\usepackage{natbib}

7: 

8: \shorttitle{XMM-Newton Observations of Radio Pulsars} \shortauthors{Gil, Haberl, Melikidze et al.}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: \author{J.~Gil\altaffilmark{1}, F.~Haberl\altaffilmark{2}, G.~Melikidze\altaffilmark{1,3}, U.~Geppert\altaffilmark{4}, B.~Zhang\altaffilmark{5}

12: and G.~Melikidze Jr.\altaffilmark{1}}

13: \altaffiltext{1}{J. Kepler Institute of Astronomy, University of Zielona G\'ora, Poland}

14: \altaffiltext{2}{Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestial Physics, Garching, Germany}

15: \altaffiltext{3}{E. Kharadze Georgian National Astrophysical Observatory, Tbilisi, Georgia}

16: \altaffiltext{4}{German Aerospace Center, Institute for Space Systems, Berlin, Germany}

17: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA}

18: 

19: \title{XMM-Newton Observations of Radio Pulsars B0834+06 and B0826-34 and

20: Implications for Pulsar Inner Accelerator}

21: 

22: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

23: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

24: \def\lesssim{\raisebox{-0.3ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{<}{_\sim} \,$}}}

25: \def\gtrsim{\raisebox{-0.3ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{>}{_\sim} \,$}}}

26: \def\degsp{\hbox{$^{\circ}$}}

27: \def\EB{\hbox{${\rm {\bf \Delta E} \times {\bf B_s}}$}}

28: \def\xmm{XMM-Newton}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\ergs}[1]{$\times 10^{#1}$ erg s$^{-1}$}

31: \newcommand{\hcm}[1]{$\times 10^{#1}$ cm$^{-2}$}

32: \newcommand{\nh}{N$_{\rm H}$}

33: \newcommand{\lbol}{\hbox{$L_b$}}

34: \newcommand{\fbb}{\hbox{F$_{\rm bb}$}}

35: \newcommand{\fpl}{\hbox{F$_{\rm pl}$}}

36: \newcommand{\ct}{cts s$^{-1}$}

37: 

38: %\begin{document}

39: 

40: %\maketitle

41: 

42: \label{firstpage}

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: We report the X-ray observations of two radio pulsars with drifting

46: subpulses: B0834$+$06 and B0826$-$34 using \xmm\. PSR B0834$+$06 was

47: detected with a total of 70 counts from the three EPIC instruments over 50

48: ks exposure time. Its spectrum was best described as that of a blackbody

49: (BB) with temperature $T_s=(2.0^{+2.0}_{-0.9}) \times 10^6$~K and

50: bolometric luminosity of $L_b=(8.6^{+14.2}_{-4.4}) \times 10^{28}$

51: erg~s$^{-1}$. As it is typical in pulsars with  BB thermal components in

52: their X-ray spectra, the hot spot surface area is much smaller than that

53: of the canonical polar cap, implying a non-dipolar surface magnetic field

54: much stronger than the dipolar component derived from the pulsar spin-down

55: (in this case about 50 times smaller and stronger, respectively). The

56: second pulsar PSR B0826$-$34 was not detected over 50 ks exposure time,

57: giving an upper limit for the bolometric luminosity $L_b \leq 1.4 \times

58: 10^{29}$ erg~s$^{-1}$. We use these data as well as the radio emission

59: data concerned with drifting subpulses to test the Partially Screened Gap

60: (PSG) model of the inner accelerator in pulsars. This model predicts a

61: simple and very intuitive relationship between the polar cap thermal X-ray

62: luminosity ($L_b$) and the ``carousel'' period ($P_4$) for drifting

63: subpulses detected in the radio band. The PSG model has been previously

64: successfully confronted with four radio pulsars whose $L_b$ and $P_4$ were

65: both measured: PSR B0943$+$10, PSR B1133$+$16, PSR B0656$+$14, and PSR

66: B0628$-$28. The \xmm\ X-ray data of PSR B0834$+$16 reported here are also

67: in agreement with the model prediction, and the upper limit derived from

68: the PSR B0826$-$34 observation does not contradict with such a prediction.

69: We also include two other pulsars PSR B1929$+$10 and B1055$-52$ whose

70: $L_b$ and/or $P_4$ data became available just recently. These pulsars also

71: follow the prediction of the PSG model. The clear prediction of the PSG

72: model is now supported by all pulsars whose $L_b$ and $P_4$ are measured

73: and/or estimated.

74: 

75: \end{abstract}

76: 

77: \keywords{pulsars: individual (B0834+06, B0826-34)--stars: neutron --

78: X-rays: stars -- radiation mechanisms: thermal}

79: 

80: 

81: \section{Introduction}

82: 

83: More than forty years after the discovery of radio pulsars, the mechanism by which they emit coherent radio beams is still

84: not fully understood. Also, many properties of this radiation remain a mystery, especially the phenomenon of drifting

85: subpulses. This puzzling phenomenon was widely regarded as a powerful tool for the investigation of the pulsar radiation

86: mechanism. Recently, this phenomenon received renewed attention, mostly owing to the newly developed techniques for the

87: analysis of the pulsar radio emission fluctuations (Edwards \& Stappers 2002,2003; ES02,ES03 henceforth). Using these

88: techniques, Weltevrede et al. (2006 a,b; W06a,b henceforth) presented results of the systematic, unbiased search for the

89: drifting subpulses and/or phase stationary intensity modulations in single pulses of a large sample of pulsars. They found

90: that the fraction of pulsars showing evidence of drifting subpulses is at least 60~\% and concluded that the conditions for

91: the drifting mechanism to work cannot be very different from the emission mechanism of radio pulsars.

92: 

93: It is therefore likely that the drifting subpulse phenomenon originates

94: from the so-called inner acceleration region right above the polar cap,

95: which powers the pulsar radiation. In the classical model of Ruderman \&

96: Sutherland (1975; RS75 henceforth) the subpulse-associated spark filaments

97: of plasma circulate in the pure Vacuum Gap (VG hereafter) around the

98: magnetic axis due to well known drift of plasma with non-corotational

99: charge density (see Appendix A for more details). There are few

100: periodicities characteristic for this model, called also the pulsar

101: carousel model: the primary period $P_3$ which can be measured as a

102: distance between the observed subpulse drift bands, the secondary period

103: (apparent when drifting is aliased; Gil \& Sendyk 2003 for detailed

104: description), and the tertiary period $P_4$ (called also the carousel

105: time\footnote{designated as $\hat P_3$ in RS75. Although this symbol is

106: still in use, we advocate to replace it by $P_4$.}, as it is the time

107: interval after which the gap plasma completes one full circulation around

108: the magnetic pole). The carousel model is widely regarded as a natural and

109: qualitative explanation of the drifting subpulse phenomenon. However, its

110: original version published by Ruderman \& Sutherland (1975; RS75

111: hereafter) predicts too high a drifting rate of the sparks around the

112: polar cap, as compared with the observations of drifting subpulses (e.g.

113: Deshpande \& Rankin 1999, 2001; DR99,DR01 henceforth), and too high a

114: heating rate of the polar cap (PC henceforth) surface due to the

115: spark-associated back-flow bombardment, as compared with X-ray

116: observations (e.g. Zhang et al. 2000). Another difficulty of the RS75

117: model is that recent calculations strongly suggest that the surface

118: binding energy of both ions and electrons are too low to allow the

119: development of a vacuum gap. Indeed, when the surface magnetic field is

120: purely dipolar, then the gap can develop only in magnetars and several

121: highest B-field pulsars (Medin \& Lai 2007). Another type of inner

122: accelerator model, named space-charge-limited flow (SCLF, Arons \&

123: Scharlemann 1979; Harding \& Muslimov 1998), has been discussed in the

124: literature, which assumes that both ions and electrons can be freely

125: striped off the neutron star surface. Although this approximation is valid

126: for most pulsars assuming a pure dipolar field at the polar cap region, a

127: stronger, multipole magnetic field near the polar cap region (which is

128: needed to make a large number of radio pulsars above the radio emission

129: death line, Ruderman \& Sutherland 1975; Zhang et al. 2000) would

130: introduce a non-negligible binding energy of ions/electrons (Medin \& Lai

131: 2007), which renders the SCLF approximation no longer valid. Another

132: difficulty of the steady-state SCLF model widely discussed in the

133: literature is that it does not predict the existence of any ``sparks''

134: that could give rise to the drifting sub-pulses. So, in our opinion, it is

135: not an attractive inner accelerator model to interpret pulsar radio

136: emission.

137: 

138: Motivated by these shortcomings of the otherwise attractive VG model Gil,

139: Melikidze \& Geppert (2003; G03 henceforth) developed further the idea of

140: the inner acceleration region above the polar cap by including the partial

141: screening caused by the thermionic flow of ions from the PC surface heated

142: by sparks. We call this kind of the inner acceleration region a "Partially

143: Screened Gap" (PSG hereafter). The PSG is thermally self-regulated in such

144: a way that the surface temperature is always close to but slightly lower

145: (less than 1 percent) than the critical temperature at which the maximum

146: co-rotational ion outflow occurs and the gap is fully screened (see

147: Appendix and/or G03 for more details). Moreover, if the surface

148: temperature was even few percent lower than the critical temperature,

149: there would be a pure vacuum gap, with all the problems discussed above.

150: Since the actual potential drop in the PSG is much lower than that of the

151: pure VG model (RS75), the intrinsic drift rate and PC heating rate are

152: compatible with measurements of $P_4$ and $L_b$, respectively.

153: 

154: The PSG model can be tested if two observational quantities are known: (i) the circulational period $P_4$ for drifting subpulses observed in

155: radio-emission and (ii) the X-ray bolometric luminosity $L_b$ of thermal BB radiation from the hot polar cap (see Appendix A). Radio pulsars were

156: targeted since beginning of X-ray astronomy for various scientific reasons. Zhang, Sanwal \& Pavlov (2005; Z05 henceforth) were the first who made an

157: attempt to resolve the mystery of drifting subpulses in radio pulsars by observing them in X-rays. They proposed to detect thermal X-ray photons from

158: the PC heated by sparks of plasma likely to be associated with drifting subpulses observed in radio band. Their choice was the best studied drifting

159: subpulse pulsar B0943+10. Using \xmm\  X-ray observatory they detected a weak source coincident with the target pulsar. Due to very small number of

160: counts detected, no unambiguous spectrum could be obtained. However, they were able to fit the BB model to the data, although a power law model was

161: acceptable as well. Within a BB model they inferred a bolometric luminosity $L_b \sim 5\times 10^{28}$ erg/s emitted from the hot spot (few MK) with

162: a surface area much smaller (about 60 times) than the conventional polar cap area as defined by the bundle of last closed dipolar field lines. This

163: radio pulsar was well studied by DR99, who described the number of sparks and the circulation time $P_4=37.4 P$ needed for them to complete one full

164: revolution around the pole (where $P$ is the basic pulsar period). These properties as well could not be accounted for by the conventional theory,

165: and some radical modification of RS75 model was required. It appears that PSG model not only resolves all the problems of the RS75 model, but also

166: offers a clean prediction that can be used to test theories of the inner pulsar accelerator.

167: 

168: \section{Previous work}

169: 

170: Gil, Melikidze \& Zhang (2006b; Paper I henceforth) reanalyzed the B0943+10 case within the PSG model. They derived a very

171: useful formula directly connecting the drifting rate of plasma sparks (measured by the circulation period $P_4$) and the

172: polar cap heating rate by the back-flow spark bombardment (measured by the bolometric thermal luminosity $L_b$). By assuming

173: that both the measured quantities are determined by the same value of electric field in the PSG, they obtained a simple

174: formula relating the so-called efficiency of thermal radiation from the hot polar cap with the circulation time

175: \begin{equation}

176: \frac{L_b}{\dot E} = 0.63\left(\frac{P_4}{P}\right)^{-2},

177: \end{equation}

178: where $\dot E$ is the pulsar spin-down (see eq.~[A3] with $I_{45}=\alpha=1$ in

179: Appendix~A). PSR B0943+10 with its data specified in Table 1, fitted this observational curve quite well (Fig. 1). When one

180: observable parameter in equation~(1) is known ($L_b$ or $P_4$), the other one can be predicted without any free parameters.

181: In Paper I we included B1133+16, the twin pulsar to B0943+10 (at least in the sense of the kinematical properties; see Table

182: 1). In this second case we speculated that the long periodicity of about $30P$ revealed by a number of authors (e.g.

183: W06a,b), is actually the circulational period $P_4 \sim 30P$. This claim was recently confirmed by sophisticated data

184: analysis of Herfindal \& Rankin (2007; HR07 henceforth), although these authors admitted that they did not believe our

185: prediction of $P_4$ value before their own analysis. The X-rays from B1133+16 were detected by Kargaltsev, Pavlov and

186: Garmire (2006) using Chandra X-ray observatory, who found that their properties were similar to those of the twin pulsar

187: B0943+10. Because of the small number of counts detected, obtaining an unique spectrum was not possible, like in the case of

188: PSR B0943$+$10 (ZSP05) . However, the BB model was acceptable and gave the bolometric luminosity $L_b \sim 3\times 10^{28}$

189: erg/s emitted from the hot (few MK) and very small polar cap (again much smaller (about 100 times) than the canonical one).

190: As one can see in Figure~1, with the inferred values of $P_4$ and $L_b$ the pulsar B1133+16 nicely clusters with its twin

191: pulsar along the critical curve expressed by equation~(1). Note that filled circle represents our prediction and asterisk

192: represents the estimate of $P_4$ by HR07.

193: 

194: Encouraged by the observational confirmation of our prediction of $P_4$ in B1133+16, we applied the same method to two other

195: pulsars for which the measurements or estimates of thermal bolometric luminosity were available (Gil, Melikidze \& Zhang

196: 2007; Paper II henceforth). One of the famous Three Musketeers, PSR B0656+14, in which thermal X-rays from small hot polar

197: cap were clearly detected by De Luca, Caraveo, Mereghetti, et al. (2005; DL05 hereafter), was an obvious choice. The BB

198: thermal luminosity $L_b \sim 5.7 \times 10^{31}$ ergs/s (Table 1) inserted into equation~(1), returned the predicted value

199: of $P_4=20.6~P$. Amazingly, Weltevrede et al. (2006c; W06c henceforth) reported the long-period fluctuation spectral feature

200: $(20\pm 1)P$ associated with the quasi-periodic amplitude modulation of erratic and strong radio emission detected from this

201: pulsar. Thus, it was tempting to interpreted this period as the circulation time $P_4$. With this value of $P_4$ and $L_b$

202: shown above, the pulsar B0656+14 fits the equation~(1) quite well (Figure~1). Although the drifting subpulses were not

203: apparent in this case, the erratic radio emission reported by W06c was similar to the so-called Q-mode in PSR B0943+10

204: (showing clearly drifting subpulses in the organized B-mode). The low frequency feature in the fluctuation spectra,

205: identical to that of the B-mode, was found by Rankin \& Suleymanova (2006; see their Fig.~6). Asgekar \& Deshpande

206: (2001;~AD01 hereafter) also detected this feature in the 35-MHz observations of PSR B0943+10(see their Figs.1 and 2). This

207: simply means that the carousel plasma drift is maintained in both regular drifting and erratic (with no drifting subpulses)

208: pulsar emission modes. This is a property of plasma and magnetic field interaction in the gap rather than the structure of

209: this plasma. However, drifting subpulses can be clearly observed only if the gap plasma has some lateral structure,

210: localized sparking discharges for instance.

211: 

212: For the second of the Three Musketeers, PSR B1055-52, we have just found

213: an evidence of a low frequency feature $f \sim 0.042 c/P$ (Biggs 1990; B90

214: henceforth), which can be interpreted as the carousel periodicity $P_4/P

215: \sim 22$. Using this interpretation, which was very fruitful in several

216: other cases discussed above and below, we examine thermal X-ray radiation

217: from the small hot spot detected in this pulsar and attempt to test our

218: PSG model in section 4.4. The third Musketeer (Geminga) is radio quiet, so

219: although it shows thermal BB X-ray emission from the small hot spot, it is

220: not useful for our analysis.

221: 

222: Another pulsar that we could examine using our method of inferring values of $P_4$ from intensity modulation spectra was PSR

223: B0628-28. As indicated in Table 1, it was detected in X-rays by Tepedelenlio\v{g}lu \& \"Ogelman (2005; T\"O05 henceforth),

224: using Chandra and \xmm\  observatories. This was an exceptional pulsar (called an overluminous one by Becker et al. 2005)

225: with efficiency much larger than that of typical pulsars (Becker \& Tr\"umper 1998). For thermal BB component alone

226: $L_b/\dot E

227: \sim 1.9 \times 10^{-2}$ (Table 1). This value inserted to equation~(1) gives the predicted value of $P_4 \sim (6 \pm 1) P$.

228: Interestingly, W06c reported for this pulsar a relatively short periodicity of $(7 \pm 1) P$ (Table~1). If this periodicity

229: is interpreted as the circulation time $P_4$, then this is pulsar is not exceptional at all. It lies on the theoretical

230: curve (eq.~[1]) in Figure~1 at exactly the right place. PSR B0628-28 is just another (fourth) pulsar satisfying the

231: predictions of equation~(1), which relates the efficiency of thermal X-ray radiation from a hot polar cap to the

232: circulational periodicity associated with drifting subpulses observed in radio emission.

233: 

234: In order to expand the sample of pulsars that have both $L_b$ and $P_4$

235: measured/estimated, we recently launched an observational campaign using

236: the \xmm\ Observatory. We targeted at two old pulsars that had $P_4$

237: measurements but had no X-ray observations before, and we report on the

238: results of these observations in this paper. The two pulsars, PSR B0826-34

239: and PSR B0834$+$06 were observed during the \xmm\  Cycles AO-5 and AO-6,

240: respectively. Simultaneous radio monitoring was also performed and we will

241: report on these observations in the separate paper. PSR B0826-34 was not

242: detected and we have derived an upper limit for its thermal luminosity. We

243: clearly detected PSR B0834$+$06, whose spectrum is best modelled by a BB

244: radiation from a small hot spot. We interpret this as due to PC heating by

245: the back-flow bombardment, and found that the bolometric $L_b$ agrees well

246: with equation (1) predicted by the PSG model. For completeness, in this

247: paper we include yet another pulsar PSR B1929$+$10, whose bolometric

248: thermal luminosity was recently determined by Misanovic, Pavlov \& Garmire

249: (2007). We show that this pulsar also satisfies equation~(1) by finding a

250: suitable feature in the modulation spectra data base of W06a,b (see

251: section 3.3 for some details). The number of pulsars satisfying and/or

252: being consistent with equation~(1) increased to seven. To the best of our

253: knowledge no single counter-example exits. It is worth emphasizing that

254: only pulsars for which both the bolometric luminosity $L_b$ of thermal

255: X-rays from hot polar cap and circulational periodicity $P_4$ of drifting

256: subpulses observed in radio band are known, can be used for this analysis.

257: In our sample of 8 available cases, 4 pulsars (B0656$+$14, B1055$-$52,

258: B0834$+$06 and B1929$+$10; see footnote 8 related to the latter case) and

259: 3 others either show an evidence of hot spot thermal emission (B1133$+$16

260: and B0628$-$28) or at least such component cannot be excluded

261: (B0943$+$10). The last case (B0826$-$34) is uncertain as we only have an

262: upper limit for X-ray detection (consistent with PSG model).

263: 

264: \section{New X-ray data}

265: We have observed two radio pulsars B0834$+$06 and B0826$+$34 known for their prominent subpulse drift with the \xmm\

266: observatory (Jansen, Lumb, Altieri et al. 2001). We marked them in red color in Figure~1, to distinguish them from

267: previously analyzed four pulsars (marked in black) in Papers I and II. Yet another pulsar B1929$+$10 (marked in blue in

268: Figure~1) is discussed in Section~3.3, as its values of $L_b$ and $P_4$ have became recently available.

269: 

270: \subsection{PSR B0834$+$06}

271: 

272: The pulsar PSR B0834$+$06 was observed with \xmm\ on 2007 November 17 and

273: 18 for a total of $\sim$71.7 ks. The EPIC-MOS (Turner, Abbey, Arnaud et

274: al. 2001) and EPIC-PN (Str{\"u}der, Briel, Dennerl et~al. 2001) cameras

275: were operated in imaging mode (see Table~\ref{tab-obs}). The observation

276: was scheduled at the end of the satellite revolution and the detector

277: background strongly increased when the satellite entered the radiation

278: belts. To maximize the signal to noise ratio we rejected the period of

279: high background which resulted in net exposure times around 50 ks

280: (Table~\ref{tab-obs}).

281: 

282: For the X-ray analysis we used the \xmm\ Science Analysis System (SAS) version 7.1.0 together with XSPEC version 11.3.2p for spectral modelling.

283: Standard SAS source detection based on a maximum likelihood technique was simultaneously applied to the X-ray images obtained from the three EPIC

284: instruments and five different energy bands (band B1 0.2$-$0.5 keV, B2 0.5$-$1.0 keV, B3 1.0$-$2.0 keV, B4 2.0$-$4.5 keV and B5 4.5$-$12.0 keV). A

285: weak source was found at the position of the pulsar at R.A. = 08 37 05.71 and Dec. = 06 10 15.8 (J2000.0) with a 1$\sigma$ statistical error of

286: 1.7\arcsec. Nearly 150 X-ray sources were detected in the EPIC images and a comparison with catalogues from other wavelength bands yields many

287: correlations within $\sim$0.5\arcsec\ of the X-ray positions. This demonstrates that the systematic uncertainty in the astrometry is small compared

288: to the statistical error of the source position. The X-ray source position is within 1.3\arcsec\ of the radio position of PSR B0834$+$06, consistent

289: within the errors. The positional agreement and other properties of the X-ray source (see below) make a chance coincidence very unlikely.

290: 

291: The total EPIC count rate (summed for the three instruments in the 0.2$-$4.5 keV band) obtained from the source detection analysis is

292: (1.4$\pm$0.3)$\times$10$^{-3}$ \ct, insufficient for a detailed spectral analysis. To obtain constraints on the shape of the X-ray spectrum we

293: therefore use hardness ratios (X-ray colours) derived from the count rates in the standard energy bands and compare them with those expected from

294: various model spectra. Because the EPIC-PN detector is more sensitive, in particular at low energies where most of the counts are detected, we use

295: only count rates obtained from EPIC-PN. Hardness ratios are defined as HR1 = (R2-R1)/(R2+R1), HR2 = (R3-R2)/(R3+R2), HR3 = (R4-R3)/(R4+R3) and HR4 =

296: (R5-R4)/(R5+R4) with RN denoting the source count rate in band BN. To compare the measured hardness ratios with those inferred from model spectra, we

297: simulated expected EPIC-PN spectra (using XSPEC and the appropriate detector response files) and derived expected count rates and hardness ratios.

298: 

299: The distance to PSR B0834$+$06 estimated as 643 pc was derived from its dispersion measure of DM = 12.86 pc cm$^{-3}$ (from

300: the online ATNF pulsar catalog)\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/}. Assuming a 10\% ionization

301: degree of the interstellar matter along the line of sight to PSR B0834$+$06, this converts to a hydrogen column density of

302: \nh\ = 4.0\hcm{20}. Because of the low statistical quality of the X-ray data we are not able to derive tight constraints on

303: the absorbing column density. Therefore, we limit our investigated model parameter space to \nh\ values between 1.0\hcm{20}

304: (a lower limit which is reached within a distance of 200 pc; Posselt, Popov, Haberl, et al. 2008) and 8.0\hcm{20} (allowing

305: an uncertainty of a factor of 2 in the assumed ionization degree for the conversion from DM to \nh).

306: 

307: As model spectra we tested power-law (PL hereafter) and blackbody (BB hereafter) emission and a combination of the two. In

308: all model spectra absorption was included, assuming elemental abundances from Wilms, Allen \& McCray (2000). For the

309: absorbed power-law model we explored the parameter space for \nh\ between 1.0\hcm{20} and 8.0\hcm{20} with a step size of

310: 1.0\hcm{20} and for the photon index $\gamma$ between 1 and 5 in steps of 0.2. Figure~2a shows the hardness ratios HR1

311: versus HR2 derived at the parameter grid points. The measured hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 are drawn with 1$\sigma$ (solid

312: lines) and 2$\sigma$ (dotted lines) error bars. The rectangular boxes around the error bars indicate the corresponding

313: confidence areas, although these are in reality limited by error ellipses which fit inside the boxes. As can be seen, the

314: power-law model spectra can not reproduce the measured hardness ratios within their 1$\sigma$ errors. Allowing 2$\sigma$

315: errors would require a relatively steep power-law with a photon index between 2 and 4 and preferentially high absorption.

316: 

317: The results for a BB model with temperatures varying between $kT_{\min} =

318: 80$ eV and $kT_{\max} = 480$ eV in steps of 20 eV (\nh\ grid as above) are

319: plotted in Figure~2b. The measured hardness ratios are best reproduced by

320: the model with \nh\ = 4\hcm{20} and $kT = 170$ eV. The $1\sigma$

321: ($2\sigma$) confidence range for the temperature is $kT = 170^{+65

322: (+120)}_{-55 (-80)}$ eV. We determine bolometric luminosity using the

323: model parameters at the grid points (normalizing the simulated spectra to

324: match the observed count rate in the 0.2$-$4.5 keV band) which yielded

325: \lbol\ = 8.6$^{+7.6 (+14.2)}_{-2.0 (-2.0)}$ \ergs{28}. It is remarkable

326: that the hydrogen column density derived from the ``best-fit'' BB model of

327: 4.0\hcm{20} is fully consistent with the DM assuming 10\% ionization along

328: the line of sight to PSR B0834$+$06.

329: 

330: We also investigated a combination of BB and PL (with a photon index of 2.0 as typically seen in the X-ray spectra of

331: pulsars (e.g. Kargaltsev et al. 2006), both subject to the same absorbing column density. As first case the normalization of

332: the power-law component was set to have a flux (for the 0.2$-$10.0 keV band) in the PL component of 50\% of that in the BB

333: component, i.e. a flux ratio of \fbb:\fpl = 1:0.5. The hardness ratios are shown in Figure~2c. As expected, HR2, which is

334: most sensitive to the shape of the intrinsic spectral shape, increases with respect to the case of the pure BB due to the

335: contribution of the harder PL component. The $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) confidence ranges are $kT = 140^{+85 (+190)}_{-35 (-50)}$

336: eV and $\lbol\ = 9.9^{+4.3 (+8.6)}_{-4.4 (-4.4)}$ \ergs{28}. It should be noted here, that the luminosity of the BB

337: component increases, although a power-law component is added to the model spectrum. This is because the power-law rises

338: toward the low energies and a higher \nh\ values is required to compensate for that. A higher \nh\ in turn increases the

339: bolometric luminosity of the BB component in order to match the observed spectrum (hardness ratios and count rates) again.

340: These effects are also evident in the second case, where we used a flux ratio of \fbb:\fpl = 1:1 (Fig.~2d): HR2 increases

341: further and the upper limits for \lbol\ also rise somewhat ($kT = 140^{+80 (+210)}_{-40 (-55)}$ eV; \lbol\ = 9.9$^{+5.4

342: (+10.9)}_{-4.4 (-4.4)}$ \ergs{28}).

343: 

344: The above results are summarized in Figure~3 which presents $L_b$ versus

345: $kT$ obtained from the modelled hardness ratios in Figures~2b-2d, where

346: symbols (circle and square for $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ levels,

347: respectively), their colors (red, blue and green for BB, BB(2/3)+PL(1/3)

348: and BB+PL model, respectively) and related numbers, correspond to those

349: used in Figures~2b-2d. We can summarize that thermal radiation from the

350: hot polar cap of PSR B0834+06 is described by kT = (170$^{+180}_{-90})$ eV

351: (or surface temperature of the polar cap $T_s = (2.0^{+2.0}_{-0.9})\times

352: 10^6$ K and $L_b$ =$(8.6^{+14.2}_{-4.4)}\times 10^{28}$~erg~s$^{-1}$,

353: where the $2\sigma$ errors are determined by both statistical and model

354: uncertainties.

355: 

356: \subsection{PSR B0826-34}

357: The pulsar PSR B0826-34 was observed with \xmm\ on 2006 November 13 and 14

358: with the EPIC-MOS and EPIC-PN cameras operated in imaging mode

359: (Table~\ref{tab-obs}). Also during this observation, strong background

360: flaring activity ocurred near the end of the observation. After background

361: screening a total exposure time of $\sim$ 38.8 ks was obtained.

362: 

363: We selected this source because it was one of the few pulsars with known $P_4$ value (Gupta, Gil, Kijak et al. 2004; G04

364: hereafter). When applying for the \xmm\  observing time we realized that PSR B0826-34 would be at most a very weak source

365: like PSR B0943+10 (or even weaker) detected by Z05. Indeed the spin-down value was quite low and even our equation~(1)

366: predicted the source luminosity twice lower than that of B0943+10. However, B0826-34 is closer to the Earth than B0943+10 by

367: the factor of 1.5. Despite relatively large DM=52.9 pc cm$^{-3}$ we optimistically assumed that the hydrogen column density

368: \nh\ will be similar to that of PSR B0943+10 (with DM=15.4 pc cm$^{-3}$). We speculated that the factor of 3.5 in DM values

369: would be compensated to some degree by the factor of 0.67 in a distance. We did not detect the pulsar, which probably means

370: that the actual value of \nh\ is much higher than assumed, due to some dense cloud of hydrogen along the line of sight to

371: B0826-34. Therefore, we determined the upper limit for thermal X-ray radiation from hot PC from this pulsar.

372: 

373: Because of the higher sensitivity of the EPIC-PN camera we used images from this instrument only. We created images in the energy bands $0.2-0.5$

374: keV, $0.5-1.0$ keV and $1.0-2.0$ keV and determined $2\sigma$ upper limit count rates for the expected source position for each energy band. The

375: total $0.2-2.0$ keV upper limit was obtained as 2.3 cts s$^{-1}$. Assuming the BB model with $kT = 267$ eV and the absorption column density of

376: 3\hcm{20} ( 1.4\hcm{21}), this converts into an upper limit for the bolometric luminosity of \lbol\ = 1.0\ergs{29} (\lbol\ = 1.45\ergs{29}). The

377: latter value was conservatively used in Figure 1 (Table 1).

378: 

379: \section{Data analysis and model verification}

380: 

381: Table~1 and Figure~1 present the observational data of a number of quantities for seven pulsars, in which both $P_4$ and $L_b$ are known or at least

382: constrained. These data are confronted with the model curve representing equation~(1), which is marked by the solid line, accompanied by broken lines

383: describing theoretical errors due to uncertainty with determination of the neutron star moment of inertia (see Appendix~A). Two pulsars: B0943+10 and

384: B1133+16 have already been discussed in Paper I, and two others B0656+14 and B0629$-$28 in Paper II. As argued in Papers I and II these pulsars

385: strongly support our theory (they are presented as black dots in our Figure 1). In the following we study and discuss the results from the remaining

386: three pulsars: B0834+06, B0826$-$34 (red dots) and B1929+10 (blue dot).

387: 

388: \subsection{PSR B0834$+$06}

389: As already mentioned, the circulational (tertiary) period $P_4$ is known for a handful of pulsars, and B0834+06 is one of

390: them. The first measurement of tertiary periodicity for this pulsar was made by Asgekar \& Deshpande (2005; AD05

391: henceforth), who argued that $P_4/P=15 \pm 0.8$ and the number of circulating sub-beams (sparks) $N=P_4/P_3=8$, implying the

392: aliased subpulse drifting with primary period $P_3/P=1.88 \pm 0.01$. They found a strong low frequency feature in the

393: intensity fluctuation spectrum at $0.07~c/P$ in one sequence of 64 single pulses, supported by side tones flanking the

394: primary feature of $0.46~c/P$ by $\pm 0.066~c/P$. These results seemed quite robust, although a small derived number of

395: sparks (8) as compared with other cases was a bit worrying. We used $P_4/P=15$ in the scientific justification for \xmm\

396: proposal, predicting from equation~(1) a quite luminous hot PC in PSR B0834+06, emitting with \lbol\ = 36\ergs{28}. The

397: model simulations indicated the count rate of about 0.018 cts~s$^{-1}$, implying a very promising case. Slightly before the

398: scheduled XMM observing session a new estimate was obtained by Rankin \& Wright (2007; RW07 henceforth), who argued, using

399: their new Arecibo data and new technique involving a distribution of null pulses, that $P_4/P \sim 30.25$. They argued that

400: the number of sparks and/or subbeams involved in the non-aliased subpulse drift with the true primary period $P_3/P=2.16 \pm

401: 0.01$ is 14 and thus $P_4/P=30.24 \pm 0.15$ (Table 1). According to equation~(1) this would imply the luminosity 4.16 times

402: lower than \lbol\ = 36\ergs{28} given in our proposal, that is \lbol\ = 8.85 \ergs{28} or $L_b/\dot E=0.67\times 10^{-3}$.

403: Amazingly, this is almost exactly the central value of our best fit for hot BB component in PSR B0834$+$06 (see Table 1 and

404: Figs.~1 and 3). Thus our measurements interpreted within the PSG model (eq.~[1]) strongly support the value of $P_4/P=30.25

405: \pm 0.25$ obtained by RW07, while $P_4/P=15 \pm 0.8$ obtained by AD05 is highly unlikely.

406: 

407: \subsection{PSR B0826$-$34}

408: The carousel rotation time in this pulsar was obtained by means of

409: computer simulations compared with real single pulse data by Gupta, Gil,

410: Kijak et al. 1984. According to equation (1) its valule $P_4=(14 \pm 1)P$

411: implies the efficiency $L_b/\dot E=3.2\times 10^{-3}$. These values are

412: marked by the red horizontal error bar labelled by B0826-34. The upper

413: limit 22 $\times 10^{-3}$ is marked as the short arrow above. This pulsar

414: would have to be much more efficient in converting the spin-down power

415: into X-rays to be detected in a 50 ksec \xmm\  exposure, or at least a six

416: times longer exposure time would be required.

417: 

418: \subsection{PSR B1929$+$10}

419: Recently Misanovic, Pavlov and Garmire (2007; M07 hereafter) argued that

420: X-rays from PSR B1929$+$10 include both magnetospheric and thermal

421: components. The BB fit to the latter gives a temperature k$T$=0.3 keV and

422: a projected surface area $A_p \sim 3.4 \times 10^3$~m$^2$ or radius $r_b$

423: of about 33 meters (much smaller than the canonical $A_{pc} = 2 \times

424: 10^5$~m$^2$ or $r_b \sim 300 ~meters$). This corresponds to the bolometric

425: luminosity $L_b \sim (1-2) \times 10^{30}$ ~ergs s$^{-1}$ emitted from hot

426: ($T=3.5 \times 10^6$ ~K) polar cap with a radius of about 33 meters.

427: \footnote{Recently, Hui \& Becker (2008; henceforth HB07) analyzed the

428: same XMM-Newton data of B1929$+$19 (using different way of data binning

429: resulting in better photon statistics per spectral bin) and argued that

430: the hot BB component is statistically unjustified. However, if they

431: allowed the BB radius and temperature of the hot spot as the free

432: parameters, then the best fit resulted in very small hot spot area with a

433: radius $r_b=25.81^{+18.81}_{-25.81}$ meters, perhaps even smaller that the

434: one obtained by M07. In opinion of HB08 this is unacceptable small as

435: compared with the canonical PC radius. However, within our model this is a

436: result of relatively low dipolar surface magnetic field $B_d=5 \times

437: 10^{11}$ Gauss. The actual non-dipolar magnetic field must be much higher

438: (about 400 times) to provide enough binding energy (ML07) for creation of

439: the PSG in this pulsar, which results in the hot spot radius

440: $r_b=300/20=15$ meters (see section 5 for more details).} We used the

441: central value of B1929$+$10 $L_b=1.17^{+0.13}_{-0.4}$ ~ergs s$^{-1}$ with

442: 2$\sigma$ errors from M07 (see the top panel in their Figure~11).

443: 

444: For each new pulsar with a known value of thermal bolometric luminosity $L_b$ we search the available data bases for a possible value of $P_4$. In

445: case of PSR B1929+10 we found in W06a (their Figure~A13) a clear but weak low frequency spectral feature at about 0.02 $c/P$. This translates into a

446: long periodicity $P_4/P = 50^{+15}_{-5}$, with errors estimated from half-width of the low frequency feature. Going back to Figure~1 we see that the

447: data point (marked in blue color) for B1929+10 (Table 1) fits the theoretical curve very well. This is an important point, as it extends the

448: parameter space to the low efficiency/(long period) region in our Figure 1. The range of parameters for our 7 cases under examination increased to

449: factors of ~67 and ~7 for the efficiency $L_b/\dot E$ and the tertiary period $P_4/P$, respectively.

450: 

451: \subsection{PSR B1055$-$52} This is a bright radio pulsar showing complex

452: patterns of single pulse intensity modulations. The drifting subpulses are

453: not apparent but this can be the result of a central cut of the

454: line-of-sight (LOS) throughout the emission beam. Indeed, this pulsar has

455: a strong interpulse (IP) separated from the main pulse (MP) by about 145

456: degrees of longitude (measured between centroids) and both these

457: components have complex profiles, consistent with central LOS traverse.

458: B90 analyzed the fluctuation spectrum and found in part of the profile a

459: small and broad feature at frequency 0.045 cycles/$P$ with $Q \sim 1.5$.

460: This frequency and low Q can be interpreted as the carousel periodicity

461: $P_4/P=22^{+11}_{-5}$. Recently, Mitra (2008) confirmed this feature at

462: parts of both MP and IP in his data taken at GMRT (privat information).

463: 

464: The pulsar PSR B1055$-$52 is a luminous source of X-ray emission. DL05

465: identified three spectral components in this radiation: Power law

466: magnetospheric emission, cool BB emission from the entire surface of the

467: cooling neutron star, and hot BB emission from a small hot spot. This

468: latter component is of special interest for us and its parameters along

469: with references are listed in Table 1. If the "carousel" hypothesis

470: discussed above is correct, then we expect a correlation between the

471: carousel period $P_4$ and the bolometric luminosity $L_b$ from the hot

472: spot, according to our equation~(1). As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, the

473: bolometric luminosity $L_b=(1.6^{+0.9}_{-0.4})10^{31}$ erg/s, where the

474: errors were estimated from fitting the EPIC-pn spectrum, extracted from

475: the XMM-Newton archival data, with the same model as used by DL05.

476: Although the central values result in the data point lying slightly below

477: the theoretical curve, PSR B1055$-$52 is certainly consistent with

478: equation (1). Indeed, one can see that values slightly higher than the

479: central one, e.g., $P_4/P \sim 28$ and $L_b/\dot E \sim 0.8 \times

480: 10^{-3}$ would result in a very good fit to the equation (1).

481: 

482: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}

483: 

484: Within the partially screened gap (PSG) model of the inner acceleration

485: region in pulsars developed by G03, we derived in Paper I a simple and

486: clean relationship (eq.~[1]) between the thermal X-ray bolometric

487: luminosity $L_b$ from hot PC heated by sparks and the circulation time

488: $P_4$ of the spark-associated drift detected as the subpulse drift in

489: pulsar radio emission. This relationship expresses the well justified

490: assumption (Appendix A) that both the drifting rate and the polar cap

491: heating rate are determined by the same value of electric field within the

492: inner acceleration region. Indeed, the drifting rate described by

493: measurable $P_4$ is determined by the tangent (with respect to surface

494: magnetic field) component of the electric field, while the heating rate

495: described by measurable $L_b$ is determined by its component parallel to

496: the surface magnetic field in the (partially screened) gap. In Paper II we

497: showed that PSRs B0943$+$10, B1133+16, B0628$-$20 and B0654+14, which were

498: the only pulsars with both $L_b$ and $P_4$ known at that time, satisfied

499: equation~(1) quite well (see also Fig.~1 and Table~1). This suggested that

500: the PSG model may indeed be a reasonable description of the inner

501: accelerator region near the polar cap. In this paper we support this view

502: by demonstrating that another two pulsars (B0834+06, B1929+10 and

503: B1055$-$52) also satisfy the equation~(1). Yet another pulsar B0826-34, in

504: which only the upper limit for $L_b$ was obtained, demonstrated a

505: consistency with equation~(1) as well.

506: 

507: Only for a handful of pulsars the circulation (carousel) time was measured or constrained so far. Measurement of $P_4$ by means of modulation

508: spectral analysis requires a strong unevenness in the circulating system, maybe a distinguished group of adjacent sparks or even just a single spark

509: (see also the scenario discussed by Gil \& Sendyk, 2003; GS03 hereafter). Moreover, this feature should persist considerably longer than the

510: circulation time. Such favorable conditions do not occur frequently in pulsars and therefore direct or indirect measurements of $P_4$ are very rare.

511: In principle, in a clean case one should be able to detect the primary feature $P_3$, reflecting the phase modulation of regularly drifting

512: subpulses, flanked by two symmetrical features corresponding to slower amplitude modulation associated with carousel circulation as well as direct

513: low frequency feature $1/P_4$ (like in the case of PSR B0943+10; DR01, AD01 and GS03). However, results of Paper II clearly showed that $P_4$ can be

514: found also in pulsars without regularly drifting subpulses (and/or in erratic drifting modes). This strongly suggested that no matter the degree of

515: the organization of spark plasma filaments at the polar cap, the slow circumferential plasma drift was always performed at about the same rate in a

516: given pulsar. The problem was how to reveal this motion. Two new methods were discussed or at least mentioned in Paper I. The 2-D phase resolved

517: modulation spectral analysis developed by ES02 and ES03 and implemented by W06a, b was the first one. The second method based on examination of the

518: distribution of nulls in the long sequence of single pulses was recently developed by HR07 and Rankin and Wright (2007; RW07 henceforth). In view of

519: the main results obtained in this paper the latter method deserves some more detailed discussion here.

520: 

521: As discussed in section 3.1 there is a controversy about the actual value

522: of $P_4$ in PSR 0834+06. AD05 reported that the alias-corrected

523: $P_3/P=1.88 \pm 0.01$ and $P_4/P=15 \pm 0.8$, implying the number of

524: sparks $N=P_4/P_3=8$. These authors found just one sequence of 64 pulses

525: in which the fluctuation spectrum analysis revealed the low frequency

526: feature at about 1/15=0.067. On the other hand RW07 found the non-aliased

527: primary drift periodicity $P_3/P=2.16 \pm 0.011$ and the number of sparks

528: $N=15$, implying the tertiary long periodicity $P_4/P=30.24 \pm 0.15$.

529: This longer cycle with $P_4 \sim 30 P$ was supported by our measurements

530: of $L_b$ and PSG model expressed by equation~(1). RW07 examined an

531: interaction between nulls and emission in PSR B0834+06. They found that

532: null pulses are not randomly distributed and that the most likely

533: periodicity in their appearance is about $30 P$. Following the previous

534: discovery of HR07 that null pulses and drifting subpulses in PSR B1133+16

535: are associated with the same long periodicity (about $33 P$) RW07

536: convincingly argued that short pseudo-nulls (one pulsar period or less)

537: are just a result of irregular distribution of subpulse subbeams/sparks

538: that persist on time scales of at least hundreds of pulsar periods. The

539: short-time pseudo-nulls appear when the line-of-sight cuts through the

540: low-level emission region in the radio beam. Our results on both B1133+16

541: and B0834+16 strongly support this picture. The interesting question is

542: then why AD05 obtained such a strong feature at $15 ~P$ for a sequence of

543: 64 single pulses from B0834+06. RW07 admitted that they also found in

544: their data some sequences showing $15P$ periodicity, which seemed to be a

545: sub-harmonic of $30P$ cycle. We noticed yet another problem with the

546: result of AD05. In our opinion, these authors have used incorrectly their

547: equations~(2) and (3). In fact, as $\Delta \phi$ they used the

548: longitudinal distance between the profile components and in consequence,

549: the azimuthal magnetic angle between the neighboring subbeams was $\Delta

550: \theta=50$ degs.  This ignored the subpulses appearing in the saddle of

551: the profile. We believe that they should use $\Delta \theta \sim 25$ degs,

552: and as a result, the number of sparks would be $N=360/25=14$ instead 8.

553: This is consisted with $P_4=N P_3=14\cdot 2.16=30.24 P$ obtained by RW07

554: and supported by our results presented in this paper. In summary, we

555: strongly believe that the actual value of $P_4$ in PSR B0834+06 is close

556: to 30 pulsar periods and that $15 P$ corresponds to a first harmonic of

557: the basic cycle. Some evidence of low frequency spectral features at both

558: $0.033~c/P$ and $0.066~c/P$ can be seen in Figure~A19 of W06. Moreover, it

559: seems that 14 sparks inferred by RW07 are more likely than 8 sparks

560: inferred by AD05.

561: 

562: The essence of the PSG pulsar model is the presence of a strong,

563: nondipolar surface magnetic field $B_s$, although it does not appear

564: explicitly in equation (1); see Appendix A for details. The strong value

565: of $B_s$ is necessary for providing enough binding (cohesive energy) to

566: prevent the free flow of iron ions from the surface (Medin \& Lai 2007;

567: ML07 hereafter), while the small radius of curvature is needed to develop

568: cascading pair production (e.g. Gil \& Melikidze 2002). The latter

569: phenomenon is essential for both shorting out the gap potential drop and

570: providing a dense electron-positron plasma in the radio emission region

571: (eg. Melikidze \& Gil, 2000 and Gil, Lyubarski \& Melikidze, 2004). When

572: the calculations of ML07 are adapted to the PSG model, then one can derive

573: the dependence of the surface magnetic field on the surface temperature

574: $B_s=B_s(T_s=T_i)$; (we will give detailed description of this topic in a

575: separate paper, but see Appendix A for some details). For the condensed Fe

576: surface this relationship is represented by the solid red line in Figure 7

577: of ML07. We can apply this apparatus to our case of PSR B0834+06, with

578: $L_b=(6.8^{+1.1}_{-1.3})\times 10^{28}$ erg~$s^{-1}$,

579: $T_s=(2.0^{+2.0}_{-0.9})\times 10^{6}$ K, and the associated effective

580: surface area of the hot spot $A_{p}=940~$ m$^2$. On the other hand, one

581: can read off from Figure 7 in ML07 the range of values $B_s \sim

582: (1^{+1.3}_{-0.6})\times 10^{14}$ G corresponding to

583: $T_s=(2.0^{+2.0}_{-0.9})\times 10^6$~K. Since the dipolar surface magnetic

584: field and polar cap area are $B_d=3 \times 10^{12}$ G and $A_{pc}=4.85

585: \times 10^{4}$ m$^2$, respectively, we can find the effective surface area

586: $A_p=A_{pc}B_s/B_d=(1.5^{+1.4}_{-0.9})\times 10^{3}$ m$^2$. This is

587: consistent with our estimate, in which $A_p$ is about 50 smaller than

588: $A_{pc}$. Theoretically, this results naturally from the flux conservation

589: of the open magnetic field lines. As pointed out in Paper II (see also

590: references therein), the small size of the hot spot relative to the

591: canonical polar cap area is a typical property of hot BB thermal radiation

592: detected in a number of pulsars. An extreme case was published just

593: recently by Pavlov, Kargaltsev, Wong et al. (2008; P08 hereafter), who

594: reported on the Chandra detection of a very old (170 Myr) and close to the

595: Earth (0.13 kpc and 0.184$^{+0.01}_{-0.017}$ ~kpc, according to ATNF

596: (Manchester, Hobbs, Teoh et al. 2005) and NE2001 (Cordes \& Lazio 2003)

597: database, respectively) radio pulsar PSR J0108-1431, with a very weak

598: dipolar surface magnetic field $B_d=2.52 \times 10^{11}$ ~G and a low

599: spindown $\dot {E}=5.8 \times 10^{30}$ erg~$s^{-1}$. During 30 ks exposure

600: they detected 53 counts and found that the spectrum can be described by PL

601: model or BB model equally well. For the latter model they obtained the

602: bolometric luminosity $L_b=1.3 \times 10^{28} d^{2}_{130}$~erg~$s^{-1}$,

603: $T_s=3.2 \times 10^{6}$~K and $A_p=50~d^{2}_{130}$~m$^2$, which translates

604: into the hot spot radius as small as 4 meters. This is the smallest hot

605: polar cap ever observed$^8$, with the ratio $b=A_{pc}/A_p=1.77 {\times

606: 10^3}/d^{2}_{130}$, equal to 1770 or 923 (highest ever obtained) for

607: distances 0.13 and 0.18 kpc, respectively . Accordingly, the actual

608: surface magnetic field $B_s=bB_d$ (see Gil \& Sendyk 2000 and ML07) is

609: equal to 4.5 or 2.3 $\times 10^{14}$~G for a distance of 0.13 or 0.18 kpc,

610: respectively. Interestingly, the latter value agrees almost exactly with

611: ML07 (red solid line in their Fig. 7), while the former one implies too

612: high a surface temperature exceeding 5 MK. Thus, the extremely small hot

613: polar cap with $T_s=$3.2 MK results from the fact that the actual surface

614: magnetic field must be about 1000 times stronger than the dipolar

615: component, in order to provide enough cohesive energy to develop PSG in

616: this pulsar. We can therefore say that the case of PSR J0108-1331 supports

617: strongly the PSG pulsar model, the ML07 cohesive energy calculations for

618: the condensed Fe polar cap surface and NE2001 distance to this pulsar

619: (about 0.184 kpc). If one adopts 0.184 kpc as the proper distance to PSR

620: J0108-1331, then the bolometric BB luminosity is $L_b \sim 2.5 \times

621: 10^{28}$ erg~$s^{-1}$ and the efficiency $L_b/\dot {E} \sim 4.3 \times

622: 10^{-3}$. With this value the equation (1) predicts the tertiary

623: periodicity $P_4/P \sim$~12. However, the confirmation of this by means of

624: single pulse radio observations of PSR J0108-1431 seems hopeless with

625: present day possibilities, as the pulsar is also extremely weak in radio

626: band (Tauris, Nicastro, Johnston et al. 1994).

627: 

628: Thus, our PSG model seems to account for the physical phenomena at and

629: above the actual pulsar polar cap quite well. Other available inner

630: acceleration models do not match the observations well. The pure vacuum

631: gap model (Ruderman \& Sutherland 1975) has $\eta=1$. Although it also

632: satisfies Eq.(1), it predicts a very high polar cap heating rate,

633: typically $L_b \sim 10^{-1}-10^{-2} \dot E$ (Zhang et al. 2000), and

634: therefore a very small $P_4$. The predicted high $L_b$ has been ruled out

635: by the X-ray observations of many old pulsars (ZSP05, TO05, K06 and this

636: paper), and the predicted low $P_4$ is also inconsistent with the radio

637: observations. On the other hand, as discussed in \S1 the steady-state SCLF

638: model does not predict the existence of the ``sparks'' whose drifts around

639: the polar cap region provide the most natural interpretation of the

640: observed drifting sub-pulse patterns. A modified unsteady SCLF model

641: (which has not been discussed in the literature) may be able to introduce

642: a sparking-like behavior. Based on the similar logic (i.e. the potential

643: drop along the magnetic field line in the gap is equal to the horizontal

644: potential drop across the spark, see Appendix), a similar equation as

645: Eq.(1) can be derived for the SCLF model. However, since this model

646: introduces a very small effective $\eta$ value ($\eta \sim (2\pi

647: R_*/cP)^{1/2} << 1$, Harding \& Muslimov 2001), the predicted polar cap

648: heating rate is too low to interpret the observations, typically $L_b \sim

649: 10^{-4}-10^{-5} \dot E$ (Harding \& Muslimov 2002). Also the corresponding

650: drifting velocity is too small so that the predicted $P_4$ is too long as

651: compared with the radio data. The PSG model predicts an intermediate

652: particle inflow rate, and gives the clean prediction (Eq.[1]) which allows

653: $L_b$ to be a moderate value. This is strongly supported by the data.

654: 

655: In order to solve the binding energy problem in the canonical dipolar

656: magnetic field at the neutron star surface, it has been conjectured that

657: drifting subpulse pulsars are bare strange stars (Xu et al. 1999). The

658: simplest model does not allow a hot polar cap because of the high thermal

659: conductivity of the bare strange star surface layer, which is ruled out by

660: the data. Yue et al. (2006) argued that PSR B0943$+$10 may be a low mass

661: quark star ($\sim 0.02 {\rm M}_\odot$). However, pulsar drifting seems to

662: be the most common behavior of radio pulsars (W06a,b), some of which have

663: well measured mass around $1.4 {\rm M}_\odot$ (Thorsett \& Chakrabarty

664: 1999). We regard that the quark star scenario is no longer attractive in

665: view of the latest observations. The cohesive energy calculations of Fe

666: ion chains in ultra-strong magnetic field by ML07 seem to be strongly

667: supported by the X-ray observations discussed in this paper.

668: 

669: Finally, we would like to address a hypotheses put forward by Becker,

670: Kramer \& Jessner et al. (2006) that in old pulsars ($>10^6$ yrs) the

671: magnetospheric emission dominates over thermal emission, including both

672: cooling radiation and hot polar cap emission component. These authors

673: suggested that the latter radiation component decreases along with the

674: former one, and if so, the hot polar caps in cooling neutron stars could

675: be formed by anisotropic heat flow due to the presence of the magnetic

676: field rather than by particle bombardment. While in young NSs with core

677: temperature $\simeq 10^8$~K the strong crustal magnetic fields may channel

678: the heat toward the polar cap resulting in $T_s$ of a few MK

679: (Perez-Azorin, Miralles \& Pons 2006; Geppert, K{\"u}ker \& Page 2006), in

680: pulsars older than $10^6$ years this mechanism is much less efficient and

681: the only viable process that can produce such hot and small polar caps is

682: the back-flow particle bombardment. Almost all pulsars presented and

683: examined in this paper are older than 1 Myr (an exception is 110 kyr PSR

684: B0656+14). For instance, PSR B0834+06 is 3 Myr old and its X-ray emission

685: is dominated by hot BB component (an obvious counter-example arguing

686: against Becker's claim). In PSR B1929+10 (3.1 Myr old) the luminosity of

687: hot BB component is at least comparable with the magnetospheric X-ray

688: radiation (M07). The very old (170 Myr) rotation powered non-recycled

689: pulsar J0108-1431 clearly shows BB radiation from the hot polar cap (P08),

690: probably accompanied by the magnetospheric emission, but no evidence of

691: cooling radiation from the whole surface, as expected for such an old

692: pulsar.

693: 

694: In summary, both the polar cap full cascade (Zhang \& Harding 2000) and

695: the downward outer gap cascade (Cheng, Gil \& Zhang 1998) that have been

696: proposed to interpret non-thermal X-ray emission from spindown-powered

697: pulsars are expected to be less significant in pulsars from our sample

698: with respect to the young pulsars. The predicted values of X-ray

699: luminosity in these models are typically lower than that of the polar cap

700: heating in the PSG model (Eq.[1]). In view that other available models of

701: the pulsar inner accelerator (pure vacuum gap model and

702: space-charge-limited flow model) either overpredict or underpredict the

703: polar cap heating level, we conclude that the pulsar inner accelerator is

704: likely partially screened due to a self-regulated sub-Goldreich-Julian

705: flow. Also, the pure vacuum gap model predicts too fast a drifting and the

706: space-charge-limited flow model has no natural explanation for the

707: subpulse drift phenomenon at all. We thus strongly believe that thermal

708: radiation associated with a polar cap heating due to partially screened

709: inner accelerator (PSG) is a common component of pulsar X-ray emission

710: regardless of its age, and this component plays especially significant

711: role in the spectra of old pulsars.

712: 

713: \acknowledgements

714: Our results are partly based on observations with

715: XMM-Newton, an ESA Science Mission with instruments and contributions

716: directly funded by ESA Member states and the USA (NASA). We acknowledge

717: the support of the NASA NNX07AF07G and NNX08AC67G grants. JG was partially

718: supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant N

719: N203 2738 33 and GM was partially supported by the Polish State Committee

720: for Scientific Research grant N N203 1262 33, as well as by the Georgian

721: NSF ST06/4-096 and INTAS 06-1000017-9258 grants. The \xmm\ project is

722: supported by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Wirtschaft und

723: Technologie/Deutsches Zentrum f\"ur Luft- und Raumfahrt (BMWI/DLR, FKZ 50

724: OX 0001) and the Max-Planck Society. We thank Dr. Dipanjan Mitra for

725: stimulating discussions, critical reading of the manuscript and helpful

726: comments.

727: 

728: 

729: 

730: \appendix

731: 

732: \section{Inner acceleration region in pulsars}

733: 

734: The charge depleted inner acceleration region above the polar cap results from the deviation of a local charge density $\rho$ from the co-rotational

735: charge density (Goldreich \& Julian 1969) $\rho_{\rm GJ}=-{\mathbf\Omega}\cdot{\bf B}_s/{2\pi c}\approx{B_s}/{cP}$. For isolated neutron stars one

736: might expect the surface to consist mainly of the iron formed at the neutron star's birth (e.g. Lai 2001). Therefore, the charge depletion above the

737: polar cap can result from binding of the positive $^{56}_{26}$Fe ions (at least partially) in the neutron star surface. If this is really possible

738: (see Medin \& Lai 2006, 2007 and Paper II for details), then the positive charges cannot be supplied at the rate that would compensate the inertial

739: outflow through the light cylinder. As a result, a significant part of the unipolar potential drop develops above the polar cap, which can accelerate

740: positrons to relativistic energies and power the pulsar radiation mechanism, while the electrons would bombard the polar cap surface, causing a

741: thermal ejection of ions, which are otherwise more likely bound in the surface in the absence of additional heating. This thermal ejection would

742: cause partial screening of the acceleration potential drop $\Delta V$ corresponding to a shielding factor $\eta=1-\rho_{i}/\rho_{\rm GJ}$ (see GMG03

743: for details), where $\rho_{i}$ is the charge density of the ejected ions, $\Delta V=\eta({2\pi}/{cP})B_s h^2$ is the potential drop and $h$ is the

744: height of the acceleration region.  The gap potential drop is completely screened when the total charge density $\rho=\rho_i+ \rho_+$ reaches the

745: co-rotational value $\rho_{GJ}$. In terms of binding of $^{56}_{26}$Fe ions, the screening factor $\eta=1-exp(C_i-\varepsilon_c/kT_s)$,

746: $\varepsilon_c$ is the cohesive energy of the condensed iron surface, $T_s$ is the actual surface temperature, $T_i=\varepsilon_c/kC_i$ is the

747: critical temperature above which the iron ions are ejected with the maximum co-rotation limited rate, and $C_i=30 \pm 3$ (Medin \& Lai 2007).

748: 

749: Because of the exponential sensitivity of the accelerating potential drop

750: to the surface temperature, the actual potential drop should be

751: thermostatically regulated. In fact, when the potential drop is large

752: enough to ignite the cascading pair production, the back-flowing

753: relativistic charges will bombard the polar cap surface and heat it at a

754: predictable rate. This heating will induce thermionic emission from the

755: surface, which will, in turn, decrease the potential drop that caused the

756: thermionic emission in the first place. As a result of these two

757: oppositely directed tendencies, the quasi-equilibrium state should be

758: established, in which heating due to electron bombardment is balanced by

759: cooling due to thermal radiation. This should occur at a temperature

760: slightly lower than the critical temperature above which the polar cap

761: surface delivers thermionic flow at the corotational charge density level.

762: This is an essence of the PSG model. For practical reasons it is assumed

763: that $T_s=T_i$, while in reality $T_s$ is few thousands K lower than

764: $T_i$, with the latter being strongly dependent on the surface magnetic

765: field $B_s$. This is illustrated by Figure~7 in Medin \& Lai (2007), which

766: was prepared for the pure VG model. The PSG model is realized along the

767: red (for Fe) line in this figure, which shows that for a few MK surface

768: temperatures, as suggested by X-ray observations of pulsar hot spots (see

769: Paper II and references therein) the surface magnetic field must be close

770: to $10^{14}$ G in all pulsars. For most pulsars this is a much stronger

771: field than that inferred from pulsar spindown due to the magnetic dipole

772: radiation. Therefore, the surface magnetic field in neutron stars must be

773: dominated by crust anchored non-dipolar magnetic anomalies. Such strong

774: and curved surface magnetic field is also necessary for development of the

775: cascading pair production via curvature radiation (e.g. RS75, Gil \&

776: Melikidze 2002).

777: 

778: Several models proposed for generating pulsar radio emission based on the

779: concept of vacuum gaps need radius of curvature of surface magnetic field

780: much smaller than the stellar radius (see for e.g. Gil, Melikidze , Mitra

781: 2002). A possibility of generating such fields would be from currents in

782: the neutron stars crust (e.g. Urpin, Levshakov \& Iakovlev 1986, Geppert,

783: Rheinhardt \& Gil 2003). Mitra, Konar, \& Bhattacharya (1999) examined the

784: evolution of multipole components generated by currents in the outer

785: crust. They found that mostly low-order multipoles contribute to the

786: required small radii of curvature and that the structure of the surface

787: magnetic field is not expected to change significantly during the radio

788: pulsar lifetime.

789: 

790: The spark plasma inside PSG must slowly drift with respect to the polar

791: cap surface due to non-corotational charge density. This drift will

792: manifest itself by the observed subpulse drifting, provided the spark

793: arrangement is quasi-stable over time scales of hundreds of pulses or so.

794: The deviation of the charge density from the co-rotational value generates

795: an electric field $\bf\Delta{\mathbf E}=\bf\Delta{\mathbf

796: E_\parallel+\bf\Delta{\mathbf E_\perp}}$ just above the polar cap surface.

797: The parallel component causes acceleration of charged particles, while the

798: perpendicular component participates in the subpulse drift. The tangent

799: electric field at the polar cap boundary, $\Delta E_\parallel=0.5{\Delta

800: V}/{h}=\eta({\pi}/{cP})B_sh$ (see Appendix~A in GMG03 for details). Due to

801: the $\bf\Delta{\mathbf E}\times{\mathbf B_s}$ drift the discharge plasma

802: performs a slow circumferential motion around the magnetic axis (see the

803: next paragraph below) with velocity $v_d=c\Delta E_\perp/B_s=\eta\pi h/P$.

804: The time interval to make one full revolution around the polar cap

805: boundary is $P_4\approx 2\pi r_p/v_d$. One then has

806: \be

807: \frac{P_4}{P}=2\frac{r_p}{\eta h\alpha} ~,

808: \label{P3P}

809: \ee

810: where the coefficient $\alpha=\Delta E_\perp/\Delta E_\parallel$ should be close to unity. If the plasma above the polar cap is fragmented into

811: filaments (sparks), which determine the intensity structure of the instantaneous pulsar radio beam, then in principle, the circulational periodicity

812: $P_4$ can be measured/estimated from the pattern of the observed drifting subpulses (Deshpande \& Rankin 1999, Gil \& Sendyk 2003). In practice,

813: $P_4$ is measured from the low frequency features in the modulation spectra obtained from good quality single pulse data of pulsars with drifting

814: subpulses. According to RS75, $P_4=NP_3$, where $N$ is the number of sparks contributing to the drifting subpulse pattern observed in a given pulsar

815: and $P_3$ is the primary drift periodicity (distance between the observed non-aliased subpulse drift bands).

816: 

817: The circumferential motion around the magnetic axis like in RS75 holds

818: only when the magnetic and the spin axes are almost parallel (almost

819: aligned rotator, in which the line-of-sight trajectory is almost the

820: circumferential tracks of sparks moving around the magnetic axis). Many

821: pulsars with drifting subpulses have indeed a very broad profile

822: characteristic of the almost aligned rotators: e.g. B0826-34, B0818-41.

823: Others, which are not a broad profile pulsars and show regular drifting

824: must have very high impact angle, i.e. grazing the emission beam. In such

825: cases one cannot exclude the almost aligned geometry. In more general

826: (inclined) case, the spark trajectory does not have to be closed on the

827: polar cap, as sparks should rather follow the trajectory of the

828: line-of-sight projected onto the polar cap, being slightly late behind the

829: star's rotation. However, observations of drifting subpulses in some

830: pulsars do not support such a scenario, being consistent with the

831: circumferential motion of the spark-associated sub-beams of subpulse

832: radiation, even if pulsar is not an aligned rotator. Indeed, an orderly

833: drifting subpulses always demonstrate a systematic intensity modulation,

834: either increasing or decreasing towards the pulse profile midpoint. Also,

835: in pulsars with more central cut of the line-of-sight trajectory the

836: subpulse drift is less apparent (or none) but a characteristic

837: phase-stationary modulation of subpulse intensity modulation persist.

838: These properties strongly suggest that sparks move on closed trajectories

839: on the polar cap, although they do not have to be circular, like in

840: axially symmetric RS75 model, to the extent that in some of the detection

841: of circumferential motion with specified value of $P_4$ periodicity is

842: possible. A good example of such pulsar with central light-of-sight cut is

843: B0834+06 discussed in this paper. There must be then some agency that

844: makes sparks moving across the the line-of-sight projection on closed

845: trajectories around the local magnetic pole instead around the rotational

846: pole, irrespective of the inclination and impact angles.

847: 

848: The quasi-equilibrium condition is $Q_{cool}=Q_{heat}$, where $Q_{cool}=\sigma T_s^4$ is the cooling power surface density

849: by thermal radiation from the polar cap surface and $Q_{heat}=\gamma m_ec^3n$ is the heating power surface density due to

850: back-flow bombardment, $\gamma=e\Delta V/m_ec^2$ is the Lorentz factor, $n=n_{GJ}-n_{i}=\eta n_{GJ}$ is the number density

851: of the back-flowing particles that deposit their kinetic energy at the polar cap surface, $\eta$ is the shielding factor,

852: $n_{i}$ is the charge number density of the thermionic ions and $n_{GJ}=\rho_{GJ}/e=1.4\times

853: 10^{11}b\dot{P}_{-15}^{0.5}P^{-0.5}{\rm cm}^{-3}$ is the corotational charge number density and $\dot{P}_{-15}$ is the time

854: derivative of the period in $10^{-15}$. It is straightforward to obtain an expression for the quasi-equilibrium surface

855: temperature in the form $T_s=(2\times 10^6{\rm K})(\dot{P}_{-15}/{P})^{1/4}\eta^{1/2}b^{1/2}h_3^{1/2}$ (Paper II), where

856: $h_3=h/10^3 ~cm$, the parameter $b=B_s/B_d=A_{pc}/A_{p}$ (Gil \& Sendyk 2000, Medin \& Lai 2007) describes the domination of

857: the local actual surface magnetic field over the canonical dipolar component at the polar cap, and $\dot{P}_{-15}$ is the

858: normalized period derivative. Here $A_{pc}=\pi r^2_{pc}$ and $A_{p}=\pi r^2_p$ is the canonical (RS75) and actual emitting

859: surface area, with $r_{pc}$ and $r_p$ being the canonical (RS75) and the actual polar cap radius, respectively. Since the

860: typical polar cap temperature is $T_s \sim 10^6$ K (Paper II), the actual value of $b$ must be much larger than unity, as

861: expected for the highly non-dipolar surface magnetic fields.

862: 

863: Using equation~(\ref{P3P}) one can derive the formula for thermal X-ray

864: luminosity as

865: \be

866: L_b=2.5\times 10^{31}\alpha^{-2}\left(\frac{\dot{P}_{-15}}{P^3}\right)\left(\frac{P_4}{P}\right)^{-2}

867: \label{lx},

868: \ee

869: or in the simpler form representing the radiation efficiency with respect

870: to the spin-down power $\dot{E}=I\Omega\dot{\Omega}=3.95 I_{45}\times

871: 10^{31}\dot{P}_{-15}/P^3$~erg/s, where $I=I_{45}10^{45}$g\ cm$^2$ is the

872: neutron star moment of inertia and $I_{45}=1^{+1.25}_{-0.22}$ (see Papers

873: I and II for details)

874: 

875: \be \frac{L_b}{\dot{E}}=0.63 \left(\frac{\alpha^{-2}}{I_{45}}\right)

876: \left(\frac{P_4}{P}\right)^{-2}

877: \label{Lx}.

878: \ee

879: This equation is very useful for a direct comparison with the

880: observations, since it contains only the observed quantities (although it

881: is subject to small uncertainty factors related to the unknown moment of

882: inertia $I_{45}$ and the coefficient $\alpha$. It does not depend on any

883: details of the sparking gap model like non-dipolar surface magnetic field

884: $b=B_s/B_d$, the height $h$ of the acceleration region and the shielding

885: factor $\eta$, since they cancel in the derivation procedure, as they

886: suppose to do so. Indeed, this equation reflects the fact that both the

887: subpulse drifting rate (due to $\bf\Delta{\mathbf E}\times{\mathbf B_s}$

888: plasma drift) and the polar cap heating rate (due to back-flow

889: bombardment) are determined by the same physical quantity, which is the

890: potential drop across the inner acceleration region just above the polar

891: cap. No other agency should be involved. In practical application of

892: equation (A3) we will set $I_{45}=1$ and $\alpha=1$. The former is

893: commonly used and the latter means that the values of the accelerating

894: $E_\parallel$ and perpendicular $E_\perp$ components of electric field in

895: the PSG are almost the same. It is quite a reasonable assumption, all the

896: more that it seems to be supported observationally (Fig. 1).

897: 

898: \begin{thebibliography}{}

899: \bibitem{as79} Arons J., Sharlemann E.T. 1979, ApJ, 231, 854

900: \bibitem[]{aad01} Asgekar, A., \& Deshpande, A.A. 2001, \mnras, 326, 1249

901: \bibitem[]{b06} Becker, W., Kramer, W., Jessner, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1421

902: \bibitem[]{b90} Biggs, J. D., 1990, \mnras, 246, 341 (B90)

903: %http://www.mpe.mpg.de/363-Heraeus-Seminar

904: %\bibitem{btgg03} Brisken W.F., Thorsett, S.E., Golden A., Goss W.M., 2003, \apj, 593, L89

905: %\bibitem{cr80} Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., 1980, \apj, 235,576

906: \bibitem[]{cgz98} Cheng, K. S., Gil, J., \& Zhang, L. 1998, \apjl, 493, L35

907: \bibitem[]{cl02} Cordes, J.M., \& Lazio, T.J.W. 2002, astro-ph/0207156

908: \bibitem[]{dl05} De Luca, A., Caraveo, P. A., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2005, \apj, 623, 1051 (DL05)

909: \bibitem[]{dr99} Deshpande, A.A., \& Rankin, J.M. 1999, \apj, 524, 1008 (DR99)

910: \bibitem[]{dr01} Deshpande, A.A., \& Rankin, J.M. 2001, \mnras, 322, 438

911: \bibitem[]{es02} Edwards, R.T., \& Stappers, B.W. 2002, \aap, 393, 733 (ES02)

912: \bibitem[]{es03} Edwards, R.T., \& Stappers, B.W. 2003, \aap, 407, 273 (ES03)

913: \bibitem[]{grg03} Geppert, U., Rheinhardt, M., \& Gil, J., 2003, A\&A, 412, L33

914: \bibitem[]{gkp06} Geppert, U., K\"uker,M., \& Page, D. 2006, \aap, 457, 937

915: \bibitem[]{gm00} Gil, J., \& Melikidze, G. I. 2000, \apj, 544, 1081

916: \bibitem[]{gs00} Gil, J., \& Sendyk, M., 2000, \apj, 541, 351

917: \bibitem[]{gm02} Gil J., \& Melikidze, G.I., 2002, \apj, 577, 909

918: \bibitem[]{gmm02} Gil, J.~A., Melikidze, G.~I. and Mitra, D., 2002, aap, 388, 235G

919: \bibitem[]{gs03} Gil J., \& Sendyk, M. 2003, \apj, 585, 453

920: \bibitem[]{gmg03} Gil, J., Melikidze, G.I., \& Geppert, U. 2003, \aap, 407, 315 (G03)

921: \bibitem[]{glm04} Gil J., Lyubarsky, Y., \& Melikidze, G.I. 2004, \apj, 600, 872

922: \bibitem[]{gmz06b} Gil J., Melikidze, G., \& Zhang, B. 2006a, \apj, 650, 1048

923: \bibitem[]{gmz06a} Gil J., Melikidze G., \& Zhang, B. 2006b, \aap, 457, 5 (Paper I)

924: \bibitem[]{gmz07} Gil J., Melikidze G., \& Zhang, B. 2007, \mnras, 376, L67 (Paper II)

925: \bibitem[] {mkb99} Mitra, D., Konar, S., Bhattacharya, D, 1999, \mnras,307, 459

926: %\bibitem[]{g06} Gil J., 2006, astro-ph/2006xmm.prop.34

927: \bibitem[]{gj69}  Goldreich P., \& Julian, H. 1969, \apj, 157, 869

928: \bibitem[]{ggks04} Gupta, Y., Gil J., Kijak, J., \& Sendyk, M. 2004, \aap, 426, 229

929: \bibitem[]{hm98} Harding, A. K., \& Muslimov, A. G. 1998, \apj, 508, 328

930: \bibitem[]{hm01} Harding, A. K., \& Muslimov, A. G. 2001, \apj, 556, 987

931: \bibitem[]{hm02} Harding, A. K., \& Muslimov, A. G. 2002, \apj, 568, 862

932: \bibitem[]{hr07} Herfindal, J.L., \& Rankin, J.M. 2007, \mnras, 380, 430 (HR07)

933: \bibitem[]{hb08} Hui, C.Y., \& Becker, W. 2008, astro-ph/07070800 (HB08)

934: \bibitem[]{jla01} Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et~al. 2001, \aap, 365, L1

935: \bibitem[]{kpg06} Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G.G., \& Garmire, G.P. 2006, \apj, 636, 406 (K06)

936: \bibitem[]{l01} Lai, D. 2001, Rev. Mod. Phys., 73, 629

937: \bibitem[]{mht05} Manchester, R.N., Hobbs, G.B., Teoh, A., \& Hobbs, M. 2005, \aj, 129, 1993

938: \bibitem[]{m07} Misanovic, Z., Pavlov, G.G., \& Garmire, G.P. 2007, astro-ph/0711417 (M07)

939: \bibitem[]{ml07} Medin Z., \& Lai, D. 2007, \mnras, 382, 1833 (ML07)

940: \bibitem[]{ml06} Medin, Z., \& Lai, D. 2006, Phys. Rev. A, 74, 062508

941: \bibitem[]{pcp06} Perez-Azorin, J.F., Mirales, J.A., \& Pons, J.A. 2006, \aap, 451, 1009

942: \bibitem[]{p08} Posselt, B., Popov, S.~B., Haberl, F., et~al. 2008, \aap (in press)

943: %\bibitem[]{r86} Rankin J.M., 1986, \apj, 301, 901

944: \bibitem[]{rjs06} Rankin, J.M., \& Suleymanova, S.A. 2006, \aap, 453, 679

945: \bibitem[]{rw0706} Rankin, J.M., \& Wright, G.A.E. 2007, \mnras, 379, 507 (RW07)

946: %\bibitem[]{rp94} Ravenhall, D.G., \& Pethick, C.J. 1994, \apj, 424, 846

947: \bibitem[]{rs75} Ruderman, M.A., \& Sutherland, P.G. 1975, \apj, 196, 51 (RS75)

948: \bibitem[]{s01} Str{\"u}der, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et~al. 2001, \aap, 365, L18

949: \bibitem[]{tnj94} Tauris, T.M., Nicastro L., Johnston, S., et~al. 1994, \apjl, 428, L53

950: \bibitem[]{to05} Tepedelenlio\v{g}lu E., \& \"Ogelman, H. 2005, \apj, 630, 57 (T\"O05)

951: \bibitem[]{T01} Turner, M. J.~L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et~al. 2001, \aap, 365, L27

952: \bibitem[]{tc99} Thorsett, S. E., \& Chakrabarty, D. 1999, \apj, 512, 288

953: \bibitem[]{uli86} Urpin, V. A.; Levshakov, S. A.; Iakovlev, D. G., 1986, MNRAS, 219,703

954: \bibitem[]{wes06a} Weltevrede, P., Edwards, R.I., \& Stappers, B.W. 2006a, \aap, 445, 243 (W06a)

955: \bibitem[]{wws06a} Weltevrede, P., Wright, G.A.E., Stappers B.W., \& Rankin, J. M. 2006b, \aap, 459, 597 (W06b)

956: \bibitem[]{w00} Wilms, J., Allen, A., \& McCray, R. 2000, \apj, 542, 914

957: \bibitem[]{xqz99} Xu, R. X., Qiao, G. J., \& Zhang, B. 1999, \apjl, 522, L109

958: \bibitem[]{ycx06} Yue, Y. L., Cui, X. H., \& Xu, R. X. 2006, \apjl, 649, L95

959: \bibitem[]{zhm00} Zhang, B., Harding A., \& Muslimov A. 2000, \apjl, 531, L135

960: \bibitem[]{zh00} Zhang, B., \& Harding A.K. 2000, \apj, 532, 1150

961: \bibitem[]{zsp05} Zhang, B., Sanwal D., \& Pavlov, G.G. 2005, \apj,624, L109 (Z05)

962: 

963: \end{thebibliography}{}

964: 

965: \clearpage

966: 

967: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllll}

968: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

969: \tablecaption{Thermal X-ray radiation for hot polar cap in pulsars with drifting subpulses. \label{tbl-1}}

970: 

971: \tablehead{

972: \colhead{PSR} & \colhead{P (s)} & \colhead{$\dot{P}_{-15}$} & \colhead{$\dot{E}$ (erg s$^{-1}$)} &

973: \colhead{$P_4/P$} & \colhead{Ref.} & \colhead{$L_b$ (erg s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{Ref.} & \colhead{$L_b/{\dot E}$}  &

974: \colhead{$T_s$ (10$^{6}$ K)}

975: }

976: \startdata

977: B0943$+$10 &1.09 &3.49 &$1.0\times 10^{32}$ &$37.4^{+0.4}_{-1.4}$ &1 &$(5.0^{+0.6}_{-1.7})10^{28}$    &8&$(0.49^{+0.06}_{-0.16})10^{-3}$ &$3.1^{+0.9}_{-1.1}$ \\

978: B1113$+$16 &1.19 &3.73 &$8.8\times 10^{31}$ &$33\pm 3$            &2 &                                & &                               & \\

979:            &     &     &                    &$32\pm 4$            &3 &$(6.8^{+1.1}_{-1.3})10^{28}$    &9&$(0.77^{+0.13}_{-0.15})10^{-3}$ &$3.2^{+1.9}_{-1.0}$ \\

980: B0834$+$06 &1.27 &6.8  &$1.3\times 10^{32}$ &$30.2\pm 0.2$      &4 &$(8.6^{+14.2}_{-4.4})10^{28}$   &5&$(0.67^{+1.1}_{-0.6})10^{-3}$ &$2.0^{+2.0}_{-0.9}$\\

981: B1929$+$10 &0.23 &1.16 &$3.9\times 10^{33}$ &$50^{+15}_{-5}$      &5 &$(1.17^{+0.13}_{-0.4})10^{30}$ &10&$(0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.09})10^{-3}$ &$3.5^{+0.2}_{-0.5}$\\

982: B0656$+$14 &0.38 &55.0 &$3.8\times 10^{34}$ &$20\pm 1$            &6 &$(5.7^{+0.6}_{-0.8})10^{31}$    &11&$(1.5\pm 0.3)10^{-3}$ &$1.25^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ \\

983: B1055$-$52 &0.19 &5.8 &$3.0\times 10^{34}$ & $22^{+11}_{-5}$&13&

984: $(1.6^{+0.88}_{-0.42})10^{31}$   &11&$(0.53^{+0.88}_{-0.42})10^{-3}$ &$1.8^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ \\

985: 

986: B0628$-$28 &1.24 &7.12 &$1.5\times 10^{32}$ &$7\pm 1$             &6 &$(2.9^{+1.5}_{-0.8})10^{30}$    &12&$(1.9^{+1.0}_{-0.5})10^{-2}$ &$3.3^{+1.3}_{-0.6}$\\

987: B0826$-$34 &1.85 &0.99 &$6.2\times 10^{30}$ &$14\pm 1$            &7&$<1.45~10^{29}$                  &5&$<22~10^{-3}$ & \\

988: 

989: \enddata

990: \tablecomments{Errors in $L_b$ and $T_s$ correspond to 2$\sigma$ (90 \%

991: confidence) level. References: 1 - DR99; 2 - Paper I; 3 - HR07; 4 - RW07;

992: 5 - this Paper; 6 - Paper II; 7 - G04; 8 - Z05; 9 - K06; 10 - M07; 11 -

993: DL05; 12 TO05; 13 B90 }

994: \end{deluxetable}

995: 

996: \clearpage

997: 

998: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccrrr}

999: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1000: \tablecaption{The \xmm\ EPIC observations of PSR B0826$-$34 and PSR B0834$+$06.}

1001: \tablewidth{0pt}

1002: 

1003: \tablehead{

1004: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Pointing direction} & \colhead{Sat.} & \colhead{Inst.\tablenotemark{a}} &

1005: \colhead{Start time} & \colhead{End time} & \colhead{Exp.\tablenotemark{a}}

1006: \\

1007: \multicolumn{2}{c}{R.A. (J2000.0) Dec.} & \colhead{Rev.} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{(UT)} &

1008: \colhead{ks}

1009: }

1010: \startdata

1011:   \multicolumn{7}{c}{PSR B0826$-$34 (Observation ID 0400020101):} \\

1012:   08 28 16.6 & -34 17 07 & 1269  & PN & 2006-11-13 13:44:24 & 2006-11-14 09:19:30 & 38.83 \\

1013:          &       &   & M1 &        13:22:03 &        09:19:35 & $-$   \\

1014:          &       &   & M2 &        13:22:03 &        09:19:50 & $-$   \\

1015:   \multicolumn{7}{c}{PSR B0834$+$06 (Observation ID 0501040101):} \\

1016:   08 37 05.6 &  06 10 15 & 1454  & PN & 2007-11-17 13:44:24 & 2007-11-18 09:19:30 & 48.95 \\

1017:          &       &   & M1 &        13:22:03 &        09:19:35 & 53.30 \\

1018:          &       &   & M2 &        13:22:03 &        09:19:50 & 54.44 \\

1019: 

1020: \enddata

1021: 

1022: \tablenotetext{a}{The three EPIC instruments were operated in full frame CCD readout mode with 73 ms frame time

1023:          for PN and 2.6 s for MOS with thin optical blocking filters.}

1024: \tablenotetext{b}{Net exposure times after background screening.}

1025: \label{tab-obs}

1026: \end{deluxetable}

1027: 

1028: \clearpage

1029: %\end{document}

1030: \begin{figure}

1031: \includegraphics[scale=1]{f1.eps}

1032: \caption{The efficiency of thermal X-ray emission from a hot polar cap $L_b/\dot E$ versus circulation period $P_4$ of drifting subpulses in the

1033: radio band. The solid curve represents the prediction of the PSG model (eq.~[1]), while the dotted curves correspond to uncertainties in determining

1034: the moment of inertia (see Appendix A). The values of $P_4$ and $L_b$ along with their error bars (2$\sigma$) and references for the data are given

1035: in Table 1.}

1036: \end{figure}

1037: \clearpage

1038: 

1039: \begin{figure}

1040: \includegraphics[scale=1]{f2.eps} \caption{{\bf a.} Hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 derived for

1041:            a grid of power-law model spectra with varying column density

1042:        \nh\ and photon index $\gamma$ compared to the measured values from the EPIC-PN

1043:        data of PSR B0834+06. The cross and box drawn with full lines indicate 1$\sigma$ and

1044:        dotted lines 2$\sigma$ confidence regions.

1045:        {\bf b.} As in Figure~2a but for an absorbed blackbody model with $kT$ ranging from 80 to 480 eV, with a step of 20 eV.

1046:        {\bf c.} As in Figure~2b but for a model with blackbody and power-law component.

1047:            Both components are absorbed by the same \nh\ and the relative (0.2$-$10.0 keV)

1048:        flux ratio is 1:0.5, respectively.

1049:        {\bf d.} As in Figure~2c but for a flux ratio of 1:1.}

1050: \end{figure}

1051: \clearpage

1052: \begin{figure}

1053: \includegraphics[scale=1]{f3.eps}

1054: \caption{Thermal luminosity $L_b$ and its efficiency $L_b/\dot E$ versus the polar cap temperature $kT$ for B0834+06 derived by means of XSPEC

1055: spectral modelling for color marked and numbered points in Figures~2b-2d. The large red circle corresponds to the best fit

1056: of the BB model and the error bars include the model uncertainties.}

1057: \end{figure}

1058: 

1059: \end{document}

1060: