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

2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4,natbib]{article}

4: \usepackage[graphicx]{}

5: %\includepackage{graphicx}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,psfig,natbib]{aastex}  

7: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}  

8: %[preprint]{aastex}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\pdf}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

11: 

12: %\font\sevenrm=cmr7

13: \newcommand{\km}{km s$^{-1}$}

14: \newcommand{\vi}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}    % for getting v0

15: \newcommand{\vz}[1]{#1_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}  % for getting any subscript 0

16: \newcommand{\vy}[2]{#1_{\scriptscriptstyle #2}}

17: \newcommand{\vu}[1]{#1^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}  % for getting any superscript 0

18: \newcommand{\Ly}{Ly$\alpha$}

19: 

20: 

21: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu

22:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

23: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu

24:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

25: \def\proptwid{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$\propto$}\mkern-14mu

26:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

27: \textheight=9.0in

28: 

29: 

30: 

31: %  LaTeX definitions 

32: %

33: 

34: % Crenshaw def (already existing either exact or close to)

35: %\def\arcsecpoint{$''\!.$}

36: %\def\deg{$^{\rm o}$}

37: 

38: \def\0946{PG~0946+301}

39: \def\n{\footnotemark}

40: \def\IUE{\em IUE}

41: \def\HST{\em HST}

42: \def\ISO{\em ISO}

43: \def\deg{$^{\rm o}$}

44: \def\degC{$^{\rm o}$C}

45: \def\arcsec{\ifmmode '' \else $''$\fi}

46: \def\arcmin{$'$}

47: \def\arcsecpoint{\ifmmode ''\!. \else $''\!.$\fi}

48: \def\arcminpoint{$'\!.$}

49: \def\kms{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi}

50: \def\Msun{\ifmmode {\rm M}_{\odot} \else M$_{\odot}$\fi}

51: \def\Lsun{\ifmmode {\rm L}_{\odot} \else L$_{\odot}$\fi}

52: \def\Zsun{\ifmmode {\rm Z}_{\odot} \else Z$_{\odot}$\fi}

53: \def\ergsAcm{ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,\AA$^{-1}$}

54: \def\ergscm2{ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$}

55: \def\icm3{{\rm cm}^{-3}}

56: \def\icm2{{\rm cm}^{-2}}

57: \def\qo{\ifmmode q_{\rm o} \else $q_{\rm o}$\fi}

58: \def\Ho{\ifmmode H_{\rm o} \else $H_{\rm o}$\fi}

59: \def\ho{\ifmmode h_{\rm o} \else $h_{\rm o}$\fi}

60: \def\ltsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{<}{\sim}\;$}}

61: \def\gtsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{>}{\sim}\;$}}

62: \def\vFWHM{\ifmmode v_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}} \else

63:             $v_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}}$\fi}

64: \def\CCF{\ifmmode F_{\it CCF} \else $F_{\it CCF}$\fi}

65: \def\ACF{\ifmmode F_{\it ACF} \else $F_{\it ACF}$\fi}

66: \def\Halpha{\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}

67: \def\Hbeta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}

68: \def\Hgamma{\ifmmode {\rm H}\gamma \else H$\gamma$\fi}

69: \def\Hdelta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\delta \else H$\delta$\fi}

70: \def\Lya{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}

71: \def\Lyb{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\beta \else Ly$\beta$\fi}

72: \def\Lyg{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\beta \else Ly$\gamma$\fi}

73: \def\hi{H\,{\sc i}}

74: \def\hii{H\,{\sc ii}}

75: \def\hei{He\,{\sc i}}

76: \def\heii{He\,{\sc ii}}

77: \def\heiii{He\,{\sc iii}}

78: \def\ci{C\,{\sc i}}

79: \def\cii{C\,{\sc ii}}

80: \def\ciii{\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii} \else C\,{\sc iii}\fi}

81: \def\civ{\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iv} \else C\,{\sc iv}\fi}

82: \def\ni{N\,{\sc i}}

83: \def\nii{N\,{\sc ii}}

84: \def\niii{N\,{\sc iii}}

85: \def\niv{N\,{\sc iv}}

86: \def\nv{N\,{\sc v}}

87: \def\oi{O\,{\sc i}}

88: \def\oii{O\,{\sc ii}}

89: \def\oiii{O\,{\sc iii}}

90: \def\o5007{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$}

91: \def\oiv{O\,{\sc iv}}

92: \def\ov{O\,{\sc v}}

93: \def\ovi{O\,{\sc vi}}

94: \def\ovii{O\,{\sc vii}}

95: \def\neiii{Ne\,{\sc iii}}

96: \def\neiv{Ne\,{\sc iv}}

97: \def\nev{Ne\,{\sc v}}

98: \def\nevi{Ne\,{\sc vi}}

99: \def\neviii{Ne\,{\sc viii}}

100: \def\mgi{Mg\,{\sc i}}

101: \def\mnii{Mn\,{\sc ii}}

102: \def\crii{Cr\,{\sc ii}}

103: \def\Niii{Ni\,{\sc ii}}

104: \def\mgii{Mg\,{\sc ii}}

105: \def\mgx{Mg\,{\sc x}}

106: \def\siiv{Si\,{\sc iv}}

107: \def\siIV{Si\,{\sc iv}}

108: \def\siIII{Si\,{\sc iii}}

109: \def\siII{Si\,{\sc ii}}

110: \def\si{S\,{\sc i}}

111: \def\sii{S\,{\sc ii}}

112: \def\siii{S\,{\sc iii}}

113: \def\siv{S\,{\sc iv}}

114: \def\sv{S\,{\sc v}}

115: \def\svi{S\,{\sc vi}}

116: \def\ariii{Ar\,{\sc iii}}

117: \def\ariv{Ar\,{\sc iv}}

118: \def\arv{Ar\,{\sc v}}

119: \def\arvi{Ar\,{\sc vi}}

120: \def\arvii{Ar\,{\sc vii}}

121: \def\arviii{Ar\,{\sc viii}}

122: \def\caii{Ca\,{\sc ii}}

123: \def\fei{Fe\,{\sc i}}

124: \def\feii{Fe\,{\sc ii}}

125: \def\feiii{Fe\,{\sc iii}}

126: \def\feiv{Fe\,{\sc iv}}

127: \def\alii{Al\,{\sc ii}}

128: \def\aliii{Al\,{\sc iii}}

129: \def\piv{P\,{\sc iv}}

130: \def\pv{P\,{\sc v}}

131: \def\cliv{Cl\,{\sc iv}}

132: \def\clv{Cl\,{\sc v}}

133: \def\nai{Na\,{\sc i}}

134: %

135: \def\o{\o}

136: % end LaTeX definitions

137: %

138: 

139: 

140: 

141: 

142: \begin{document}

143: %\vspace{-1in}

144: 

145: \title{MEASURING COLUMN DENSITIES IN QUASAR OUTFLOWS: \\

146:        VLT OBSERVATIONS OF QSO~2359--1241\footnote{Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the Paranal Observatories under programme ID 078.B-0433(A)}

147: }

148: 

149: %\today

150: 

151: \author{

152:  Nahum Arav\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

153: Maxwell Moe\altaffilmark{1},

154:  Elisa Costantini\altaffilmark{3},

155:  Kirk~T.~Korista\altaffilmark{4},

156:  Chris Benn\altaffilmark{5},

157:  Sara Ellison\altaffilmark{6}

158: }

159: 

160: 

161: \altaffiltext{1}{CASA, University of Colorado, 389 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0389,

162: I:arav@colorado.edu}

163: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va 24061; email: arav@vt.edu}

164:  \altaffiltext{3}{SRON National Institute for Space Research

165:  Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Nether\-lands}

166:  \altaffiltext{4}{Western Michigan Univ., Dept.\ of Physics, 

167:  Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5252}

168: \altaffiltext{5}{Isaac Newton Group, Apartado 321, E-38700 Santa Cruz de La Palma, Spain}

169: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., V8P 1A1, Canada}

170: 

171: % \altaffiltext{5}{Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ANU ACT,

172: %  Australia}

173: 

174: 

175: 

176: \begin{abstract}

177: We present high resolution spectroscopic VLT observations of the

178: outflow seen in QSO~2359--1241. These data contain absorption troughs

179: from five resonance \feii\ lines with a resolution of $\sim$7 \kms\ and

180: signal-to-noise ratio per resolution element of order 100.  We use

181: this unprecedented high quality data set to investigate the physical

182: distribution of the material in front of the source, and by that

183: determine the column densities of the absorbed troughs.  We find that

184: the apparent optical depth model gives a very poor fit to the data and

185: greatly underestimates the column density measurements.  Power-law

186: distributions and partial covering models give much better fits with

187: some advantage to power-law models, while both models yield similar

188: column density estimates.  The better fit of the power-law model

189: solves a long standing problem plaguing the partial covering model

190: when applied to large distance scale outflow: How to

191: obtain a velocity dependent covering factor for an outflow situated at

192: distances thousands of time greater than the size of the AGN emission

193: source.  This problem does not affect power-law models.  Therefore,

194: based on the better fit and plausibility of the physical model, we

195: conclude that in QSO~2359--1241, the outflow covers the full extent of

196: the emission source but in a non-homogeneous way.

197: 

198: \end{abstract}

199: 

200: \keywords{galaxies: quasars --- 

201: galaxies: individual (QSO J2359--1241) --- 

202: line: formation --- 

203: quasars: absorption lines}

204: 

205: \section{INTRODUCTION}

206: 

207: %%%% NEW %%%%

208: 

209: In recent years, the potential impact of quasar outflows on their

210: environment has become widely recognized.  (e.g., Blandford \&

211: Begelman 2004; Scannapieco \& Oh 2004; Vernaleo \& Reynolds 2006).

212: Observationally, these outflows are detected as absorption troughs in quasar spectra

213: that are blueshifted with respect to the systemic redshift of their

214: emission line counterparts.  The absorption troughs are mainly associated

215: with UV resonance lines of various ionic species (e.g.,

216: \mgii~$\lambda\lambda$2796.35,2803.53

217: \civ~$\lambda\lambda$1548.20,1550.77,

218: \siiv~$\lambda\lambda$1393.75,1402.77

219: \nv~$\lambda\lambda$1238.82,1242.80).  A large spread in 

220: maximum  velocity is detected for different quasar outflows: from several

221: hundred \kms\ to more than 30,000 \kms.  Outflow troughs are known as

222: intrinsic absorbers to distinguish them from intervening and associated

223: absorber, which are also detected in quasar spectra (Hamann et al.\

224: 1997; and Barlow 1997).  The lines we study here are intrinsic narrow lines

225: (see Arav et~al.\ 2002 for full discussion) and are similar to the ones

226: analyzed by de~Kool et~al.\ (2001).

227: 

228: Reliable measurements of the absorption

229: column densities in the troughs are crucial for determining almost

230: every physical aspect of the outflows: the ionization equilibrium and

231: abundances; number density; distance; and mass flux and kinetic

232: luminosity.  Column density measurements depend on the absorption

233: model one adopts for the observed troughs in the spectrum.  

234: 

235: In the case of Interstellar Medium (ISM) and Intergalactic Medium

236: (IGM) absorbers (the latter also known as intervening absorbers), the

237: apparent optical depth method is an excellent absorption model.  This method

238: postulates that the absorber covers the full size of the emission

239: source homogeneously and that the relationship between the the residual

240: intensity in the trough ($I$) and the optical depth of the line

241: ($\tau$) is give by $\tau_{ap}\equiv-\ln(I)$. The derived $\tau$ is

242: then converted to column density using a standard formula (e.g.,

243: equation 1 in Arav et~al.\ 2001a).

244: 

245: However, our group (Arav 1997; Arav et~al.\ 1999a,  1999b;

246: de~Kool et~al.\ 2001; Arav et~al.\ 2001b, 2002, 2003; Scott et al.\ (2004)

247: Gabel et al.\ (2005a)) and others (Barlow 1997, Telfer et~al.\ 1998,

248: Churchill et~al.\ 1999, Ganguly et~al.\ 1999) have shown that the

249: apparent optical depth method, is not a good approximation for outflow

250: troughs (see also \S~3).  Most of this evidence came from data sets

251: that showed fully resolved troughs from unblended doublets (e.g., the

252: \nv, \siiv, \civ\ and \mgii\ lines mentioned above).  For all these 

253: doublets, the oscillator strength of the blue (the shorter wavelength)

254: transition is  twice that of the red transition.  Therefore,

255: the expected optical depth ratio is 2:1 in favor of the

256: blue transition. (It is not exactly 2:1 since the wavelengths differ

257: by a small amount.)  For the apparent optical depth method to hold, we

258: must have $\tau_{ap}$(blue)=$2\tau_{ap}$(red) which requires:

259: $I_B=I_R^2$, where $I_B$ and $I_R$ are the residual intensities of the

260: blue and red absorption troughs, respectively. Using high

261: signal-to-noise (S/N) observations of fully resolved and unblended

262: outflow doublets, it became clear that in most cases $I_B$ is

263: significantly smaller than $I_R^2$, demonstrating that the

264: $\tau_{ap}$ model is not applicable for AGN outflows.

265: 

266: To avoid this contradiction 

267: for cases of unblended doublets, most works use a pure partial covering model

268: to determine the real optical depth and hence the actual column

269: density.  This model assumes that only a fraction $C$ of the emission source

270: is covered by the absorber and then solves for a combination of $C$ and

271: $\tau$ that will fit the data of both doublet troughs while

272: maintaining the intrinsic 1:2 optical depth ratio (see \S~3 of Arav

273: et~al. 2005 for the full formalism, including velocity dependence).

274: The weakness in this method is that we solve for two unknowns ($C$ and

275: $\tau$) given two residual intensity equations.  As long as the ratio

276: of the residual intensities is in the permitted physical range (see

277: \S~3 of Arav et~al. 2005), such a procedure will always yield a

278: solution. However, this is also the case for other two-parameter

279: fitting algorithms, which yield different estimates of column

280: densities.  A main alternative to the pure partial covering model is

281: the so called inhomogeneous absorber model (de Kool, Korista \& Arav

282: 2002, hereafter dKKA; see \S~3.2.2 here).  This model successfully matched

283: the data of two quasar outflows (dKKA), while proving less applicable

284: for the outflows troughs of Mrk~279 (Arav et~al.\ 2005; but see the

285: Discussion here).  

286: 

287: Being able to distinguish between these two (and other) absorption

288: models is important not only for column density measurements, but also

289: for obtaining a more accurate geometrical picture of the outflow,

290: including its internal structure.  Since doublet observations are

291: inherently inconclusive in distinguishing between these methods (or

292: any other two parameter models), to resolve this issue we need data

293: sets that show outflow troughs from more than two lines of the same

294: ion. These troughs must be unblended, fully resolved and have a high

295: signal-to-noise ratio (S/N).

296: 

297: In this paper we present unprecedented high quality observations of a

298: quasar outflow, which cover troughs from five \feii\ resonance lines

299: associated with \feii\ UV multiplets 1, 2 and 3 (see \S~2.3). We use

300: the strong constraints available from these troughs to test models of

301: absorption material distribution, and to determine the ionic column

302: densities in all the troughs seen in this outflow.  The object we

303: targeted is the extensively studied broad absorption line (BAL)

304: quasar: QSO 2359--1241 (Arav et~al.\ 2001a; Brotherton et~al.\ 2001).

305: Having detailed knowledge of the existing Keck/HIRES data, allowed us

306: to tailor the new observations towards a definitive test for models of

307: absorption material distribution. In future papers we will use these

308: measured ionic column densities to determine the ionization

309: equilibrium of the outflow, it's number density, distance and

310: ultimately the mass flux and kinetic luminosity associated with the

311: outflow.

312: 

313: The plan of the paper is as follows: In \S~2 we describe the

314: observations, data reduction and the phenomenology of the outflow; in

315: \S~3 we test the goodness of the fit for the five \feii\ resonance

316: lines obtained from different models of absorption material

317: distribution; in \S~4 we discuss our results, and in

318: \S~5 we summarize them.

319: 

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: \section{VLT OBSERVATIONS OF THE QSO 2359--1241 OUTFLOW}

324: 

325: \begin{deluxetable}{lcll}

326: \tablecaption{\sc VLT/UVES observations of QSO 2359--1241}

327: \tablewidth{0pt}

328: \tablehead{

329: \colhead{Date}

330: &\colhead{UT Start Time}

331: &\colhead{Integration}

332: &\colhead{Mean Airmass}

333: }

334: \startdata

335: 	09/30/2006    &   01:05   &    2850 sec     &         1.40 \\

336:         09/30/2006    &   01:57   &    2850 sec     &         1.19 \\

337:         09/30/2006    &   02:47   &    2850 sec     &         1.08 \\

338: 	09/30/2006    &   03:38   &    2850 sec     &         1.03 \\

339:         10/11/2006    &   00:07   &    2850 sec     &         1.49 \\

340: 	10/11/2006    &   00:57   &    2850 sec     &         1.25 \\

341: 	10/11/2006    &   01:46   &    2850 sec     &         1.11 \\                

342:         10/12/2006    &   00:02   &    2850 sec     &         1.50 \\

343: \enddata

344: \label{observations_table}

345: \end{deluxetable}

346: 

347: 

348: \subsection{Data Acquisition and Reduction}

349: 

350: We observed QSO 2359--1241 (radio source NVSS J235953-124148, z =

351: 0.868; Arav et al.\ 2001a) using the Very Large Telescope (VLT)

352: operated by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Fall 2006 (see

353: table \ref{observations_table} below).  The observations were done in

354: service mode (i.e., done by the VLT staff at their scheduling, without

355: active participation of the science team while the observations are

356: taken) using the UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES). All

357: observations used a slit width of 1.0 arcsec.  In order to cover the

358: full wavelength range we used two UVES settings. The observations

359: taken in September 2006 used the following setting: Wavelength centers

360: Blue=346nm (Grating/Filter=CD1/HER5), Red=580nm

361: (Grating/Filter=CD3/SHP700) and the observations taken in October 2006

362: used: wavlength centers B=437nm (Grating/Filter=CD2/HER5), R=860nm

363: (Grating/Filter=CD4/OG590).  Both settings were read out in 2 $\times$

364: 2 pixel-binned, high-gain mode.  A table of the observations is given

365: below. The Useful spectral coverage was 3200--9000 \AA\ compared to

366: 4320--7450\AA\ for the Keck/HIRES data.  More importantly, the signal

367: to noise of the VLT data, over the spectral range covering the five

368: \feii\ resonance lines, was roughly 3 times higher, where both data

369: sets have similar spectral resolution.  This large increase in signal

370: to noise allowed us to preform the analysis we present in this paper,

371: which was not possible with the Keck/HIRES data.  The extraction of

372: the spectra was done using the UVES pipeline, which is based on

373: ECHELLE routines in the data reduction package MIDAS.  A detailed

374: description of this process can be found in Ballester et al. (2000).

375: 

376: The UVES data reduction pipeline gave excellent data products overall.

377: However, one issue that produced considerable systematic errors are

378: spectral undulations that were introduced by the pipeline.  These

379: undulations mimic narrow emission line structure in the data, with

380: FWHM of about 10 \AA\ and maximum flux of 20\% above the adjacent

381: continuum. It is clear that these are introduced by the reduction

382: pipeline since we have overlapping spectral coverage over part of the

383: affected range (4795--4950 \AA) and undulations appear only in one of

384: the settings.  The origins of these emission-line structures probably

385: come from the bad columns located at the bottom of the lower red CCD

386: chip (private communication, Cedric Ledoux, UVES instrument

387: scientist).  Fortunately, the observed absorption troughs in that

388: spectral region are considerably narrower (about 3 \AA\ full width)

389: than the FWHM of the undulations. Therefore, we are able to model the

390: undulations out of the data to a large extent (see \S~2.2).  Careful

391: examination of the continuum fits in the overlapping spectral regions

392: lead us to estimate a 2--3\% maximum systematic error associated with

393: these data reduction undulations. We note that the undulations affect

394: less than 5\% of the entire spectrum range, but unfortunately this

395: includes the region of the important \feii\ UV 1 multiplet, which

396: includes two of the \feii\ resonance lines under study here (2586.65\AA\

397: and 2600.17\AA).

398:  

399: 

400: 

401: \subsection{Data co-adding and normalization}

402: 

403: 

404: Each of the four exposures for a given setting and wavelength region were

405: heliocentric corrected to vacuum wavelengths given by the fits header

406: file.     We then used a single multiplier value for each exposure such

407: that all spectra had the same mean value.  Rejection of cosmic rays

408: was done by replacing any flux value 3.5 sigma or more above the mean

409: of the other 3 values and replacing it by that mean value.  Finally,

410: the four different spectra were co-added via the weighted average at

411: each data point based on the given error for the 4 different

412: exposures. The FWHM of the spectral resolution was determined to

413: be $8.5\pm0.2$ \kms\ based on the weighted average of fitting 1 -

414: Gaussian profiles to the normalized flux of several atmospheric

415: absorption lines.  In view of this resolution, we chose to bin the

416: data to 7.0 \kms, which slightly over-sample the actual

417: resolution, before normalization and analysis.

418: 

419: 

420: The algorithm used to obtain a model for the unabsorbed continuum

421: entails initially rejecting expected absorption lines a-priory from

422: the line lists (see table \ref{atomic_transitions_criteria}).  An

423: initial cubic fit was applied over every spectral point (pixel)

424: spanning 125 points on either side of a given spectral point.  Data

425: points $8\sigma$ or more below the fit value were then rejected as

426: absorption and the cubic fit was reapplied.  This process of refitting

427: and rejecting was reiterated at $6\sigma$, $4\sigma$ and then

428: $3\sigma$.  The chosen continuum at this spectral point was the value

429: of the last cubic fit for that point. This process was repeated for

430: all data points in the spectrum.  The resultant continuum fit was

431: smoothed with a boxcar average of five data points.  To normalize the

432: data, we then divided the observed flux values with this model

433: continuum.  For problem areas such as the data reduction undulations,

434: atmospheric absorption regions, or wide/multiple absorption troughs,

435: the parameters above were slightly altered to accommodate these areas,

436: but the basic principle of fitting, rejecting and refitting remained

437: the same.  The only exception to this normalization process at the

438: spectral vicinity of the \mgii\ broad emission line (BEL) where a pair 

439: of $\chi^2$ fitted

440: Gaussians were used to first divide out the \mgii\ emission before

441: normalization.

442: 

443: 

444: \subsection{Identification of spectral features}

445: 

446: The atomic transitions data used to identify spectral features,

447: normalize the data (see above) and fit the absorption troughs (see \S~3)

448: came from Morton (2003) for \feii\ transitions with lower energies ($E_{low}$)

449: below 1000 cm$^{-1}$ and from Kurucz \& Bell (1995) for all other

450: transitions. Our assembled line list contains all transitions in the spectral

451: region of the VLT data for QSO 2359--1241 with constraints $E_{low} < 10000$

452: cm$^{-1}$ (except for \hi\ and \hei\ that can go up to 160000cm$^{-1}$) and 

453: the  constraints on their $gf$ values (where $g$ is the degeneracy and 

454: $f$ is the oscillator strength of the transition) are shown in table 2.

455: 

456: 

457: 

458: 

459: 

460: 

461: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}

462: \tablecaption{\sc Transitions included in QSO 2359--1241 line list}

463: \tablewidth{0pt}

464: \tablehead{

465: \colhead{$\log(gf)$}

466: &\colhead{$E_{low}$ (cm$^{-1}$)}

467: &\colhead{Ions}

468: }

469: \startdata

470: $>-2.5$ & all &  \hei, \mgii, \alii, \aliii, \siII, \caii\ \\

471: $> -2.0$ & $E_{low}<1000$  & \feii\ \\

472: $> -1.5$ & $1000<E_{low}<4000$ & \feii\ \\

473: $> -1.0$ & $E_{low}>4000$  & \feii\ \\

474: $> -1.0$ & all & \mgi, \crii,\mnii, \Niii\ \\

475: $> -0.8$ & all &  \hi\ \\

476: \enddata

477: \label{atomic_transitions_criteria}

478: \end{deluxetable}

479: 

480: 

481: In order to identify the spectral features in the spectrum we first

482: measured the redshift of the main outflow component for the

483: \feii~$\lambda$2587 resonance line ($z=08594$) and then identified

484: absorption features of other lines from all ions at that redshift.

485: 

486: 

487: Table 3 gives the spectroscopic information for the five \feii\

488: resonance lines that are the focus of the analysis presented here.  A

489: table containing all the lines from these multiplet (including those

490: from excited levels) is given in table 1 of de~Kool et~al.\ (2001).

491: The oscillator values ($f$) are from Morton (2003).

492: 

493: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}

494: \tablecaption{\sc \feii\ resonance lines analyzed in this paper}

495: \tablewidth{0pt}

496: \tablehead{

497: \colhead{multiplet}

498: &\colhead{$\lambda$ vacuum}

499: &\colhead{relative $f^a$}

500: 

501: }

502: \startdata

503:   1   &  2600.17 &  0.81   \\ 

504:   1   &  2586.65   &  0.23   \\

505:   2   &  2382.77 &  1.00   \\

506:   2   & 2374.46    & 0.10  \\

507:   3   & 2344.21   &  0.35 \\

508: \enddata

509: \label{fe2_resonance_lines} \\

510: $^a$ - oscillator strength relative to $f(2382.77)=0.32$

511: \end{deluxetable}

512: 

513: 

514: \subsection{Description of outflow absorption features}

515: 

516: In the HIRES paper (Arav et~al.\ 2001a) we have shown that the

517: absorption features in this object originate from an outflow connected

518: with the QSO, i.e., intrinsic in nature as opposed to intervening or

519: associated absorption.  In that paper we also labeled the

520: outflow components, and since these were unchanged between the two

521: epochs we will use the same labeling system here.  Figure

522: \ref{fig_vel_feii2587.ps} shows the absorption components seen in the

523: \feii~$\lambda$2587 (from the \feii\ UV 1 multiplet) resonance line.

524: Most of our analysis in this paper will concentrate on the widest and

525: highest velocity  component, namely {\bf e}.  This component is seen in all the

526: outflow absorption features detected in this object.  In figure 2 we

527: show the normalized flux for the spectral range of the \feii\ UV 1

528: multiplet, where component {\bf e} is labeled for all the lines from

529: this multiplet.  Most of the troughs arise from low excitation levels

530: associated with the \feii\ UV 1 multiple.  The on-line version of this

531: figure show the entire spectrum (spread over 46 pages) where the

532: absorption features of all the detected ions are identified in a

533: similar way.

534: 

535: \begin{figure}

536: \epsscale{0.5}

537: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=90]{f1.eps}

538: \caption{Morphology of the outflow in QSO 2359--1241.  Plotted are the

539: normalized VLT/UVES data for the \feii~$\lambda$2587 resonance

540: line. The outflow velocity is measured compared to the systemic redshift

541: ($z=0.868$).  The labeling of the components follows that of Arav et~al.\

542: (2001a),  and most of our analysis is done on component ({\bf e}). }

543: \label{fig_vel_feii2587.ps}

544: \end{figure} 

545: 

546: %\clearpage

547: 

548: 

549: \begin{figure}

550: \epsscale{0.5}

551: \includegraphics[scale=0.65,angle=90]{f2.eps}

552: \caption{ A small portion of the normalized VLT/UVES spectrum of QSO

553: 2359--1241, showing the outflow features associated with the \feii\ UV

554: 1 multiplet.  (A similar presentation of the entire spectrum is

555: available on-line).  The data plotted on

556: Fig. \ref{fig_vel_feii2587.ps} are shown here between 4806--4819 \AA\

557: (observed). Blue vertical lines denote the expected position of

558: component {\bf e} for various transitions, based on the $z=0.8594$

559: redshift of this component. Most of these transitions are associated

560: with \feii\ UV 1 multiplet (two transitions from \mnii\ and one from a

561: higher \feii\ multiplet are also marked). The size of the

562: identification line (measured from the top solid line) gives the

563: $\log(gf)$ value of the transition (where $f$ is the oscillator

564: strength and $g$ is the degeneracy of the transition), which can be

565: read from the values associated with the dotted lines (right axis).

566: Each transition is labeled by its ion, wavelength and energy level

567: (cm$^{-1}/1000$).  The three unlabeled troughs around 4840 \AA\ and

568: similarly around 4815 \AA, are components {\bf b,c and d} of

569: \feii~$\lambda$2600 and \feii~$\lambda$2587, respectively. The error

570: spectrum is also plotted (just above the X-axis).

571: The short dotted vertical lines just above the continuum  

572: show the exact position of the trough around the continuum level.

573: }

574: \label{fig_id_feii.ps}

575: \end{figure} 

576: 

577: %\clearpage

578: 

579: \section{MODELING THE ABSORPTION TROUGHS}

580: 

581: 

582: As stated in \S~1, in order to extract quantitative information about

583: the outflow, we need to measure the column density associated with the

584: absorption troughs.  In this section we test four models for the 

585: distribution of absorption material in front of the

586: emission source, in order to find which one gives the best fit for the 

587: VLT data of QSO 2359--1214.

588: 

589: 

590: 

591: \subsection{Failure of the Apparent Optical Depth Model}

592: 

593: 

594: The apparent optical depth method implicitly assume that the absorption

595: material covers the source completely and homogeneously.  That is, all

596: light rays that arrive at the observer pass through material with the

597: same optical depth at a given wavelength.  Under these assumptions,

598: the residual intensity of a given line is $I_1=e^{-\tau_{ap1}}$. Under

599: these assumptions, the optical depth ratio for two E=0 lines from the

600: same multiplet is $R_{21}=(f_2\lambda_2)/(f_1\lambda_1)$, where $f$ is

601: the oscillator strength and $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the

602: transition.  Combining the two relations we derive the expected

603: residual intensity of line 2 given the observed residual intensity of

604: line 1: $I_2=e^{-R_{21}\tau_{ap1}}=I_1^{R_{21}}$

605: 

606: In figure \ref{fig_fe2_ap_tau} we compare the residual intensities of the

607: outflow troughs arising from two resonance lines ($\lambda2587$ and

608: $\lambda2600$) of the UV 1 \feii\ multiplet, with the apparent optical

609: prediction for $I(\lambda2600)$ based on $I(\lambda2587$), using the

610: above relationship ($R_{21}=3.5$ for this case). The inadequacy of the

611: $\tau_{ap}$ model in predicting $I(\lambda2600)$ is clear,

612: demonstrating that the $\tau_{ap}$ model assumptions are invalid for

613: the \feii\ resonance troughs.  Similar results are obtained for other

614: ions.  We therefore, need to explore more complicated models.  Below,

615:  we describe three such models: partial covering,

616: inhomogeneous absorber and a modified partial covering.

617: 

618: 

619: 

620: \begin{figure}

621: \epsscale{0.5}

622: \plotone{f3.ps}

623: %\plotone{fig_fe2_ap_tau.ps}

624: \caption{Failure of the apparent optical depth model ($\tau_{ap}$).

625: Normalized residual intensity for \feii~2587 \AA\ and \feii~2600 \AA\

626: are shown for the main component of the outflow (solid histograms).

627: The dashed red histogram shows the expected depth of the \feii~2600

628: \AA\ based on the residual intensity of the \feii~2587\AA\ line and

629: using the $\tau_{ap}$ model (see text for more details).  It is

630: evident that the expected depth is a poor fit to the observed

631: \feii~2600 trough, demonstrating the inadequacy of the $\tau_{ap}$

632: assumption for this outflow. Similar results are obtained for the

633: majority of quasars outflows.}

634: \label{fig_fe2_ap_tau}

635: \end{figure} 

636: 

637: \clearpage

638: 

639: 

640: 

641: 

642: \subsection{Two And Three Parameter Models}

643: 

644: \subsubsection{partial covering model}

645: 

646: Applying the apparent optical depth method is in essence using a one

647: parameter model ($\tau_{ap}$) for fitting the absorption troughs

648: ($\tau_{ap}\equiv-\ln(I)$).  Two parameter models are the obvious next

649: step.  Most of the previous work, which addressed the inadequacy of the apparent

650: optical depth method in modeling outflow troughs, dealt with data of

651: unblended doublets (e.g., Barlow 1997; Arav et~al.\ 1999a; Ganguly

652: et~al.\ 1999 Arav et~al.\ 2002; Scott et al.\ 2004). The preferred

653: method for modeling these troughs is the partial covering model, which

654: is a two parameter model (Hamann et al.\ 1997; and Barlow 1997). To

655: summarize this method: we assume that only a fraction $C$ of the

656: emission source is covered by the absorber and then solve for a

657: combination of $C$ and optical depth ($\tau$) that will fit the data

658: of both doublet troughs while maintaining the intrinsic 2:1 optical

659: depth ratio (see \S~3 of Arav et~al. 2005 for the full formalism,

660: including velocity dependence).  Implicit in this model are the

661: assumptions that the absorber covering the fraction $C$  of the source

662: has the same optical depth across this area, and that the rest of the

663: source is covered by material with $\tau=0$ in that transition.  A

664: geometrical illustration of this assumption is shown in figure

665: \ref{optical_depth_distribution_paper_figure.ps}. The partial covering

666: model allows us to find a good fit for the doublet troughs and under

667: the model assumption, a consistent determination of the optical depth

668: and hence the column density of the trough. This is an important

669: improvement over the apparent optical depth method, which cannot yield

670: a consistent optical depth estimates for the two troughs.

671: 

672: As stated in \S~1, the weakness of the partial covering model as

673: applied to doublet troughs is that we solve for two unknowns ($C$ and

674: $\tau$) given the two residual intensity equations of the doublet

675: troughs.  As long as the ratio of the residual intensities is in the

676: permitted physical range (see \S~3 of Arav et~al. 2005), such a

677: procedure will always yield a solution.  Therefore, a good fit is a

678: necessary but not sufficient condition to validate the underlying

679: model.  In addition, other two-parameter models may fit the data

680: equally well, where the most studied alternative are inhomogeneous

681: absorption models

682: 

683: 

684: 

685: \subsubsection{Inhomogeneous absorption models}

686: 

687: A more general way to modify the apparent optical depth assumptions,

688: is to assume that the absorption material does not cover the source

689: homogeneously.  Since there is an infinite number of ways of doing so, we

690: need a quantitative model that can be directly compared with the

691: partial covering results.  The first attempt to study generic

692: inhomogeneous distributions of absorbing material in AGN outflows was

693: done by de Kool, Korista \& Arav (2002, dKKA).  A formalism

694: was developed to simulate the effects of an inhomogeneous absorber on

695: the emerging spectrum and several examples of fitting existing data

696: with this model were presented.  Arav et al (2005) built upon this

697: formalism and produced a two parameter inhomogeneous model that can be

698: directly compared with the partial covering results.  For full details

699: we refer the reader to these two papers and here we give a brief

700: description of the idea based on \S~2 of Arav et al (2005).

701: Our starting point is equation (6) from dKKA:

702: 

703: \begin{equation} 

704: F(\lambda)=\int\int S(x,y,\lambda)e^{-\tau(x,y,\lambda)}dxdy,

705: \label{eq:general}

706: \end{equation}

707: where $S(x,y,\lambda)$ is the surface brightness distribution of the

708: background source and $\tau(x,y,\lambda)$ is the line of sight optical

709: depth at wavelength $\lambda$ in front of a specific $(x,y)$ location,

710: as defined by dKKA equations (3-5).  

711: 

712: In its most general form, Equation (\ref{eq:general}) is not practical

713: for modeling spectra.  Both $S(x,y,\lambda)$ and $\tau(x,y,\lambda)$

714: are unconstrained two variable functions for each  given $\lambda$.  We

715: need a  simpler and testable model.  To this end, we introduce the

716: following simplifying assumptions (whose physical

717: validity and plausibility are discussed in Arav et~al.\ 2005).

718: 

719: \begin{enumerate}

720: \item $S(x,y,\lambda)=S(\lambda)$, which can be set to $S(\lambda)=1$

721: when dealing with normalized data.

722: 

723: \item $\tau(x,y,\lambda)=\tau(x,\lambda)$, this simplifying assumption

724: entails little loss of generality.  We can think of

725: $e^{-\tau(x,\lambda)}$ as the integrated attenuated flux along a $y$

726: strip at a specific $(x,\lambda)$.

727: 

728: \item $\tau(x,\lambda)=\tau_{\rm{max}}(\lambda)x^a$, which yields a

729: two parameter model that can be directly compared with the partial

730: covering model. We note that a Gaussian characterization also yields a

731: two parameter model. However, these models were investigated by Arav

732: et al.\ (2005; see their discussion of figure 3) and were shown to

733: yield very similar results to power-law models. We therefore use 

734: the power law model as the sole representative of 2 parameter 

735: inhomogeneous absorption models.

736: 

737: \end{enumerate}

738: 

739: With the last simplification we have a power-law inhomogeneous model

740: where each of the two parameters ($\tau_{\rm{max}}$ and $a$) can be

741: velocity dependent, similar to $C$ and $\tau$ for the partial covering

742: model.  In general, these two models have quite different physical

743: interpretations, as will be discussed in \S~4.

744: 

745: 

746: 

747: \subsubsection{Modified partial covering model}

748: 

749: The pure partial covering model is unphysical since there is a sharp

750: edge (essentially a step-function) between a region with finite

751: optical depth and a region with $\tau=0$.  Physically, there need to

752: be a transition zone between these two regions.  This motivated us to

753: add a parameter to the partial covering model which controls the

754: gradient between these two regions.  The phenomenological formalism we chose

755: is 

756: \begin{equation}

757: \tau=\vy{\tau}{0}(1-1/[e^{b(x-\vy{x}{0})}]), 

758: \label{eq:modified}

759: \end{equation}

760: where $\vy{x}{0}$ and 

761: $\vy{\tau}{0}$ are similar to $C$ and $\tau$ for the pure 

762: partial covering model and  $b$ control the gradient.

763: 

764: In figure 4 we show the optical depth distribution across the source

765: for all four models.  The examples we show are tailored to the best

766: fits of each model to the \feii\ $E=0$ lines (see \S~3.3)

767:  

768: 

769: \begin{figure}

770: \epsscale{0.5}

771: \includegraphics[scale=0.42,angle=-90]{f4.ps}

772: %\includegraphics[scale=0.42,angle=-90]{optical_depth_distribution_paper_figure.ps}

773: \caption{The four distributions of absorbing material that

774:  we investigate in this paper.  

775: The constant emission source coincides with

776: the $x$ axis, and the observer is far above the plot.  For the

777: power-law case we shaded the region of absorbing material, and for all

778: distributions the absorbing material is below  their curves. For each

779: distribution the parameters are representative of the deepest part 

780: in the {\bf e} component of the outflow, where 

781: a $\chi^2$ fit for all 

782: five resonance lines was performed at that velocity, and the best fit model

783: for each functional form is  shown,  $\tau$ is that of the 

784:  \feii~2587\AA\ line. For the different distributions, the 

785: optical depth in front of an $x$ location is given

786: by: 

787: \newline a) Homogeneous absorber (apparent optical depth case): $\tau(x)=0.19$

788: \newline b)  partial covering:

789: $\tau(x)=0$ for $0<x<\vy{x}{0}$, and $\tau(x)=\tau_{\rm{max}}$ for  

790: $\vy{x}{0}<x<1$; $\tau_{\rm{max}}=0.94, \ \ \vy{x}{0}=0.52$

791: \newline c) Power-law: $\tau(x)=\tau_{\rm{max}}x^a$, \ \

792: $\tau_{\rm{max}}=3.2, \ \ a=4.6$ 

793: \newline d) Modified partial covering: $\tau=\vy{\tau}{0}(1-1/[e^{b(x-\vy{x}{0})}])$, \ \ $\vy{\tau}{0}=1.3$, \ \ $b=25$,  \ \  $\vy{x}{0}=0.58$

794: \newline

795: }

796: \label{optical_depth_distribution_paper_figure.ps}

797: \end{figure} 

798: 

799: \subsubsection{Conclusive testing of the absorption models}

800: 

801: In order to test the partial covering and the inhomogeneous absorption

802: models we need data sets that will over-constrain them, that is fitting

803: more than two equations with the same two unknowns (or three in the

804: case of the modified partial covering model). To do so we need to

805: observe more than two troughs from the same ion.

806: 

807: Our VLT/UVES observations of QSO 2359--1241 yield the best such

808: data-set to date.  In the outflow of this object we detect absorption

809: troughs associated with more than 30 lines of the \feii\ multiplets UV

810: 1, UV 2 and UV 3 (see figure 2 for the spectral region of the \feii\

811: UV 1 multiplet).  These lines include five transitions from the $E=0$

812: energy level, which in principle can give us five residual intensity

813: equations to fit the two and three free parameters of the above

814: models.  To realize this possibility, we chose this target, S/N and

815: spectral resolution, such that we would acquire an unprecedented data set

816: for these purposes.  The troughs are fully resolved, have

817: S/N$\gtorder80$ per resolution element and show only minor blending

818: with other troughs, compared to other objects showing intrinsic 

819: \feii* troughs (e.g., Wampler, Chugai \& Petitjean 1995; de~Kool et~al.\ 2001, 2002).

820: 

821:  

822: \clearpage

823: 

824: 

825: 

826: \subsection{$\chi^2$ fitting}

827: 

828: In order to get a quantitative measure for how well each model fit the

829: data, we use $\chi^2$ minimization.  Since the trough is well

830: resolved, we binned the data to match the measured resolution.  The

831: resultant data product in the case of the \feii\ resonance lines are

832: residual intensities for five $E=0$ lines covering the span $-1475$ to

833: $-1305$ \kms.  Each velocity bin is treated as an independent

834: measurement and we use a least-squares $\chi^2$ minimization routine

835: to find the best parameters of each model for that specific bin.  The

836: process is repeated for all velocity bins.  Two of the troughs suffer

837: a moderate amount of blending with other lines and we omit the

838: contaminated region of the individual trough while performing the fit.

839: These contaminations occur for the \feii~2600\AA\ trough between

840: $-1475$ to $-1420$ \kms\ and for the \feii~2344\AA\ trough between

841: $-1340$ to $-1305$ \kms. As a result, we always fit at least four data

842: points with each model, and five for the $-1420$ to $-1340$, which

843: includes the deepest part of the trough.  Since the maximum number of

844: parameters we fit is three, the models are always over-constrained.

845: 

846: To compare the goodness of the fit for each model we calculate the reduced 

847: $\chi^2$ defined in the following way (see Press et~al.\ 1989 , chapter 14):

848: \begin{equation} 

849: \chi^2_{\rm red}=\frac{\sum_{i,j} \left( [I_{i,j}-M_{i,j}]/\sigma_{i,j} \right)^2}{N_{tot}-N_vN_p},

850: \label{eq:red_chi2}

851: \end{equation}

852: where sum $i$ is taken over the number of fitted data point in a given

853: velocity bin (four or five in our case) and sum $j$ is taken over the

854: 25 velocity bins we fit;  $I_{i,j}$ is the residual intensity of

855: trough $i$ at velocity bin $j$; $M_{i,j}$ is the modeled residual

856: intensity of trough $i$ at velocity bin $j$; $\sigma_{i,j}$ is the

857: associated error for each data point; $N_{tot}$ is the total number of

858: velocity bins of every transition used in the fit; $N_v$ is the number

859: of velocity bins (25 in this case) and $N_p$ is the number of free

860: parameters for each velocity bin (1 for the apparent $\tau$ model, 2

861: for the partial covering and power-law models, and 3 for the modified

862: partial covering model). We note that since the minimization procedure 

863:  omits the blended regions of two troughs, $N_{tot}=112$ and not 125. 

864: 

865: 

866: \begin{figure}

867: \includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=90]{f5.eps}

868: %\includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=90]{fig_fe2_fit.eps}

869: \caption{Best $\chi^2$ fits for the  \feii\ $E=0$ lines seen in the spectrum of 

870: QSO 2359--1241. Each panel shows the fit for a different model:

871: {\bf a} $\tau_{ap}$ model; {\bf b} pure partial covering; {\bf c} power-law model; 

872: {\bf d} modified partial covering (see text for more details). The data plus

873: error bars are shown in solid histograms, the fits are shown in dotted histogram,

874: and the wavelength (\AA) of each transition  is labeled. Best fit reduced $\chi^2$ values are printed at the lower left corner for each model.}

875: \label{fig_fe2_fit.eps}

876: \end{figure} 

877: 

878: \clearpage

879: 

880: 

881: Figure 5 shows the best $\chi^2$ fit for each model, where for the

882: sake of clarity we only show three of the five \feii\ $E=0$ lines

883: detected in the spectrum.  The fits were done using all five lines and

884: those that are shown span the full range in oscillator strength.

885: From both visual inspection and from the $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ value, it

886: is clear that the $\tau_{ap}$ model gives a poor fit to the data.

887: This is simply a more quantitative way to arrive at the conclusion shown in

888: figure \ref{fig_fe2_ap_tau}.  The important results shown in figure 5, are:

889: \begin{enumerate}

890: \item Both the pure partial covering and the power-law distribution models

891: give similar fits (with a small advantage to the power-law model). 

892: \item The modified partial covering model does not yield an improvement 

893: in $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ value, although the fit itself is somewhat better.

894: This surprising result will be discussed in \S~3.4.

895: \end{enumerate}

896: 

897: Before we compare the various fits and discuss how physical they are,

898: we need to address the absolute $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ values. Normally we

899: would expect the $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ value of a ``good'' fit to be

900: $\sim1$.  For our leading two models we find $\chi^2_{\rm

901: red}$(PL)=3.8, $\chi^2_{\rm red}$(PC)=4.5 (where PL stands for

902: power-law and PC for pure partial covering).  Nominally, these values

903: exclude these model at a very high probability. For a model with 60

904: degrees of freedom a $\chi^2_{\rm red}=3.8$ has less than $10^{-10}$

905: probability of being the correct model.  However, the main issue here

906: is the systematic errors that are not addressed by the fit.  First, as

907: was noted in \S~2, the undulations superimposed on the spectrum due to

908: data reduction issues can contribute a 2--3\% systematic error in the

909: normalized intensity of the troughs. The troughs that are most

910: affected by these undulations (2600\AA\ and 2587\AA) also have the

911: highest S/N value per resolution element (upwards of 80). As a result

912: this systematic error by itself can produce a $\chi^2_{\rm red}\sim4$,

913: even if the model matches the data perfectly.  Another important

914: source of systematic error is caused by uncertainties in the

915: oscillator values of the \feii\ resonance lines.  Relative

916: uncertainties between these values can produce a considerable

917: $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ on its own.  We tested this hypothesis by

918: artificially changing the oscillator strength for the weakest

919: transition (2374 \AA) and found considerable changes in the

920: $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ values. for example, for the PL model, the value

921: dropped from 3.8 to 3.4 when the oscillator strength of \feii~2374~\AA

922: was increased by 40\%.

923: 

924: We therefore are not troubled by the fact that in this actual case we

925: obtain $\chi^2_{\rm red}\sim4$ and we focus our discussion on the

926: differences seen between the different models.  It will be left to

927: future data sets, with better control of the systematics to show

928: whether these models give reasonable absolute  values of

929: $\chi^2_{\rm red}$.

930: 

931: 

932: 

933: 

934: \subsection{Comparison between the different models}

935:  

936: As noted above, it became clear over the past 10 years that the

937: simplest possible model ($\tau_{ap}$) is inadequate for modeling

938: outflow troughs.  Our analysis here only adds a well constrained

939: quantitative case to this effect.  The next step is to compare between

940: the two parameter models, namely the pure partial covering and the

941: power law models.  These models represent rather different physical

942: pictures with regards to the distribution of absorbing material in

943: front of the emission source.  We will discuss their pros and cons in

944: \S~4, but as a first step it is useful to make a simple comparison of

945: the fits to the same data by models with the same number of free

946: parameters.

947: 

948: We start by assuming that the main reason for the high absolute values

949: of $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ for these models are the systematic errors

950: discussed above.  By that we accept both models as being reasonable

951: good fit for the data.  The $\chi^2_{\rm red}=3.8$

952: of the power law model is better than the $\chi^2_{\rm

953: red}=4.5$ of the pure partial covering model.  However, assessing the

954: significant of this difference in lieu of the large contribution from

955: systematic error is more problematic, since it is difficult to predict

956: what will happen to the relative differences between the $\chi^2_{\rm

957: red}$ once the systematics are better controlled.  For the mean time

958: we will cautiously accept the better fit of the power law model.  As we

959: will see below evidence from other \feii\ transitions and from other

960: ions lends support to the better applicability of the power law model

961: as well.  

962: 

963: It is also important to compare the velocity dependence of these

964: models.  For the partial covering model we find the known result that

965: the covering factor traces the shape of the strongest modeled

966: resonance line $C(v)\approx 1-I(v)$.  This behavior is seen in most

967: covering factor analysis of AGN outflows (e.g., Arav et al.\ 1999b;

968: Scott et al.\ 2004).  For the power-law model we find that the lowest

969: exponent is achieved at the point of lowest residual intensity. We

970: also find that for velocities redwards of the lowest residual

971: intensity the value of the exponent is modest $4<a<9$, with errors of

972: $\sim20$\%.  At higher velocity the value of $a$ climbs to roughly 20

973: with 50\% error typical (1$\sigma$ errors based on the fitting

974: process).  For such high exponent values the absorption behavior of

975: the power-law model becomes increasingly similar to that of the pure

976: covering factor model. The technical reason for the high value of $a$

977: between $-1450< v < -1410$ \kms\ as compared to the interval $-1370< v

978: < -1320$ can be seen in figure \ref{fig_fe2_fit.eps}. The intensity

979: ratio of the strong to weak lines is considerably smaller at the

980: $-1450< v < -1410$ \kms\ interval compared to the $-1370< v < -1320$

981: interval.  Independent of a specific model, this behavior suggests a

982: real difference in the physical behavior of the material in the two

983: velocity intervals.  Under the assumption of the power-law model, a

984: large exponent value can be interpreted as material spread in smaller

985: concentrated entities, but at this stage such an interpretation is

986: tentative at best.

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: 

991: 

992: The modified covering factor model is an attempt to address the

993: inherent unphysical nature of each of the above models. In the pure

994: partial covering model there is an unphysically sharp edge

995: (essentially a step-function) between a region with finite optical

996: depth and a region with $\tau=0$. Physically, there should be a

997: transition zone between these two regions. The modified covering

998: factor model solves this issue by adding a parameter to the partial

999: covering model which controls the gradient between these two

1000: regions. For the power law model, the entire region where $\tau>3$

1001: yields virtually no flux. Since the data require steep power laws with

1002: high values of $\tau_{\rm max}$, in some cases most of the material

1003: comes from the $\tau>3$ region (see discussion in

1004: Arav et al. 2005). It is disconcerting to have most of the material

1005: coming from regions that do not influence the spectrum much. 

1006: The modified covering factor model allows for a gradual distribution

1007: of material, but caps $\tau_{\rm max}$ at a physically reasonable

1008: value.  However, for the QSO~2359--1241 data set $\tau_{\rm max}$, the

1009: weakest \feii\ resonance line ($\lambda2374$), has $\tau_{\rm max}<3$

1010: across the entire velocity range, except for two data points, where

1011: $\tau_{\rm max}<3.5$.  Therefore, there is no strong saturation at any

1012: point in front of the absorber (not even at $X=1$ where

1013: $\tau=\tau_{\rm max}$).

1014: 

1015: This maybe the reason why the modified covering factor model gives a

1016: worse fit for the data ($\chi^2_{\rm red}=6.18$).  That is, adding

1017: another degree of freedom was not necessary since the data could be

1018: reasonably fitted with a non saturated power-law. Alternatively, if most of

1019: the $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ comes from systematic errors (the normalization

1020: of the effective continuum and/or oscillator strength issues discussed

1021: in \S~3.2) we will expect a higher $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ when the numbers

1022: of free parameters is increased.  This is because while the $\chi^2$

1023: does not change much, the number of degrees of freedom drops

1024: considerably.  In this actual case, the denominator of equation

1025: (\ref{eq:red_chi2}) changes from 65 to 40, while moving from a 2 to 3

1026: parameter fit, predicting an increase of 62\% in $\chi^2_{\rm red}$

1027: for the same $\chi^2$ value.  This is almost exactly the excess in

1028: $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ for this fit compared with that of the power-law

1029: model. It is therefore possible that the statistical fit of this of

1030: the modified covering factor model will improve enough to make it a

1031: good candidate for modeling the absorption material distribution, once

1032: the systematic errors are under better control.

1033: 

1034: \subsection{Differences in Inferred Column Densities}

1035: 

1036: Figure \ref{fig_fe2_col.eps} shows the extracted column density of the

1037: \feii\ E=0 level for component {\bf e} of the outflow

1038: ($N_{\rm{\feii(E=0)}}$), for all four methods. The column densities shown

1039: are the average value across the emission source at each velocity bin.

1040: For example, for the pure partial covering, we multiply the extracted

1041: column density by the covering factor ($C(v)$), since the model

1042: assumes that only a $C(v)$ of the emission source is covered by the

1043: absorbing material.

1044: 

1045: Several important conclusions can be drawn from figure

1046: \ref{fig_fe2_col.eps}.  First, the column density derived from the

1047: $\tau_{ap}$ model is roughly a factor of 3 lower than those derived by

1048: the other methods.  Not only the $\tau_{ap}$ model inapplicable to AGN

1049: outflow troughs, it also severely underestimates the column density.

1050: Second, the inferred column density for the pure covering factor and

1051: power-law methods differ by only 25\%.  Although these models may

1052: suggest a rather different physical picture of the absorbing material,

1053: this quantitative similarity shows that the ionization equilibrium

1054: results based on their modeled column density will be quite similar.

1055: Furthermore, this last conclusion is strengthened by observing that

1056: not only is the total derived column density similar, but so is the

1057: distribution over velocity.

1058: 

1059: \subsection{Results for excited \feii\ and \hei}

1060: 

1061: 

1062: 

1063: \begin{deluxetable}{lcll}

1064: \tablecaption{{\sc $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ fits for excited} \feii\ {\sc and} \hei\ {\sc levels}}

1065: \tablewidth{0pt}

1066: \tablehead{

1067: \colhead{energy level$^a$}

1068: &\colhead{lines$^b$}

1069: &\colhead{ $\chi^2$({\small PC})}

1070: &\colhead{ $\chi^2$({\small PL})}

1071: }

1072: \startdata

1073: \feii(0)    &  5   & 4.5   &  3.8   \\ 

1074: \feii(385)    &  7   & 5.8   & 4.8    \\

1075: \feii(668)    &  8   & 5.5   &  4.9   \\

1076: \feii(863)    &  6   & 3.0   &  2.9   \\

1077: \feii(977)    &  5   & 1.4   &  1.3   \\

1078: \feii(7955)    & 4    & 2.4   &  2.3   \\

1079: \hei(159856)    &   5  & 5.0   & 4.3    \\

1080: \enddata

1081: \label{excited_level_chi2}

1082: $^a$ - in cm$^{-1}$\\

1083: $^b$ - number of lines used in the fit 

1084: \end{deluxetable}

1085: 

1086: 

1087: As we have shown in \S~3.3, the power law model yields the best fit to

1088: the \feii\ resonance line data. Similar results are obtained for the

1089: five \hei\ lines that arise from the meta-stable level 2$^3$S, as well

1090: as for the low-excitation levels of the \feii\ ground state.  In

1091: addition to the five resonance lines lines (i.e., E=0) we studied so

1092: far UV Multiplets 1,2 and 3 of \feii\ contain 31 lines from four low

1093: excitation levels (with energies between 385-977 cm$^{-1}$; see table

1094: 1 of de~Kool et~al.\ 2001). Troughs from these lines will provide the

1095: diagnostics for finding the number density of the outflow and its

1096: ionization equilibrium (Korista et al.\ 2008). In the contest of this

1097: paper, these lines supply further constraints regarding, which of our

1098: two main models (partial covering or power-law) better represent the

1099: distribution of the absorbing material in front of the source.

1100: 

1101: In order to test which model works better, and to extract the crucial

1102: column densities of these energy levels, we again used $\chi^2$

1103: minimization. Since all these levels arise from the same ion, their

1104: distribution in front of the source should be similar to that of the

1105: resonance lines, the only freedom we allow is the ratio of level

1106: populations as this depends on the density and temperature of the

1107: absorber.  Therefore, our procedure is to use the same $C(v)$ and

1108: $a(v)$ we found for the partial covering or power-law, respectively,

1109: and vary $\tau(v)$ and $ \tau_{\rm{max}}(v)$ in order to find an

1110: optimal solution.  This is a robust and powerful test since the

1111: absorption troughs for each level are a completely independent set of

1112: measurements from those of the resonance lines and from each other.  In

1113: addition, we also observe five lines from the \hi\ metastable level at

1114: 159856 cm$^{-1}$.  Although this material does not have to be

1115: distributed identically to the \feii\ distribution, this is still the

1116: simplest and most constraining assumption.  Therefore we use the exact

1117: same methodology on the \hei*\ lines.

1118: 

1119: The results are shown in table \ref{excited_level_chi2}.

1120: It is evident that for each of the five independent \feii\ 

1121: levels and for the \hei*\ lines, the $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ 

1122: of the power-law model is lower than that of the partial covering model.

1123: This supplies a strong support to the result already obtained for the 

1124: resonance \feii\ trough: a two parameter power law model fit the data

1125:  better than a two parameter Partial covering model.

1126:  As we discuss in \S~4, the power-law distribution is also a better physical

1127: model for the absorber in QSO~2359--1241.  For these reasons we adopt

1128: the power-law results for all the troughs observed in the object.  The

1129: few exceptions are blended lines for which we can only give lower

1130: limits.

1131: 

1132: 

1133: \begin{figure}

1134: \includegraphics[scale=0.37,angle=90]{f6.eps}

1135: %\includegraphics[scale=0.37,angle=90]{fig_fe2_col.eps}

1136: \caption{Column density of the  \feii\ E=0 level for component {\bf e} of the outflow.

1137: Shown are the best fit determination using the four models discussed in the text.

1138: The top table gives the integrated column density for each of these methods

1139: and identifies each of the curves with the corresponding model. 

1140:  }

1141: \label{fig_fe2_col.eps}

1142: \end{figure} 

1143: 

1144: \clearpage

1145: 

1146: %\section{COLUMN DENSITIES FOR ALL IONS}

1147: 

1148: 

1149: 

1150: 

1151: \section{DISCUSSION}

1152: 

1153: %\subsection{What is the physical distribution of absorbing material in quasar outflow?}

1154: 

1155: 

1156: 

1157: Understanding the nature of quasar outflows and their influence on the

1158: nuclear and galactic environments, begins with deciphering of

1159: their geometry on both small and large scales. Since all of the

1160: observational information is embedded within the absorption troughs,

1161: the first step is to determine the distribution of absorbing material

1162: that creates the troughs. Advances in our understanding of this issue

1163: will shed light on the microphysics of the outflows, and more importantly

1164: will yield reliable measurements of the ionic column densities. These measurements

1165: in turn are crucial to determining almost every physical aspect of the

1166: outflows: the ionization equilibrium and abundances, gas density,

1167: distance, mass flux and kinetic luminosity.

1168: 

1169: Until the late 1990s, all the work published on quasar outflows (e.g.,

1170: Korista et al.\ 1992; Turnshek et al.\ 1996; Hamann 1998) used the

1171: apparent optical depth ($\tau_{ap}$) model  to extract column densities.  This

1172: method works very well for ISM and IGM absorbers and corresponds to a

1173: simple gemetrical interpretation for the absorbing medium: a

1174: homogeneous screen in front of the light source.  The well demonstrated

1175: failure of the $\tau_{ap}$ model when applied to AGN outflows troughs (see

1176: sections 3 and 1) motivate us to look more carefully at the geometry

1177: involved.  Relatively secure is the following picture:  For 

1178: quasars, the size of the continuum source is  $\sim10^{16}$ cm

1179: and the size of the  broad emission line region is $\sim10^{18}$ cm (Kaspi et al.\ 2005).

1180: Along our line of sight, there is material flowing towards us with

1181: radial velocities ranging from a few hundred to more than 30,000 \kms.  This

1182: material is, cosmologically speaking, in the vicinity of the quasar,

1183: within 0.1-10,000 pc.\ from the central source: 0.1 pc.\ in BALQSO 1603+3002

1184: (Arav et al 1999b); 25 pc.\ for NGC 3783, (Gabel et al.\ 2005b); 1000

1185: pc.\ for BALQSO 1044+3656 (de Kool et al.\ 2001); 28 kpc in quasar 3C

1186: 191 (Hamann et al.\ 2001). The question we try to address here is: what is the

1187:  distribution of the absorbing  material across the quasar emission region

1188: 

1189: Most of the work that tried to advance beyond the $\tau_{ap}$ model

1190: has used the pure covering factor method (see \S~1 and \S~3). This method

1191: has three advantages: 1) It lends itself to a simple geometrical

1192: picture where the absorbing material covers only part of the

1193: source. 2) It yields perfect fits to doublet troughs, which comprise

1194: the vast majority of high-resolution data that is needed to advance

1195: beyond the $\tau_{ap}$ model.  However, as mentioned in \S~3.2, the perfect fit

1196: arises mainly from fitting two equations with two unknowns. 3) Changes

1197: in the covering factor as a function of velocity were interpreted as

1198: accelerated motion with a small non-radial component (the

1199: dynamical-geometrical model of Arav et al.\ 1999a).

1200: 

1201: However, the pure covering factor model has some significant

1202: weaknesses as well.  1) It has been known for a long time that troughs of

1203: different ions show different covering factors at the same velocity

1204: (e.g., BALQSO 1603+3002, Arav et al 1999b). Explaining such behavior

1205: involves more complicated variants of the model, chief among them is

1206: abandoning the notion of homogeneous material distribution over the

1207: covered surface.  We see a strong case of the above problem in

1208: QSO~2359--1241 where the best fit covering factor solution for the

1209: excited levels of \feii\ is different (smaller) than the the covering

1210: factor for the E=0 level. 2) While the issue above can be somewhat

1211: addressed using more complicated variants of the model, the following

1212: issue poses a more serious problem. We now have several cases where

1213: the distance of the outflow from the source was obtained by

1214: determining the number density of the outflow and combing it with the

1215: ionization equilibrium solution (knowledge of the ionization

1216: parameter).  Some outflows, including the one studied here, are found

1217: to be at distances of $\sim1000$ pc from the source, and at the same

1218: time show clear evidence that the $\tau_{ap}$ model is inapplicable to

1219: their troughs (e.g., BALQSO 1044+3656, de Kool et al.\ 2001).  At

1220: distance up to $\sim$10 times the size of the emission source, the

1221: dynamical-geometrical model for the changes in the covering factor as

1222: a function of velocity can work well. However, it is very difficult to

1223: envision a scenario where this model can work when the distance of the

1224: outflow from the emission source is $10^3-10^4$ times the size of the

1225: emission source.  We note that the covering factor model does not

1226: suffer from these difficulties for outflows at much closer distances

1227: to the nucleus (e.g., BALQSO 1603+3002 and NGC~3783, mentioned above).

1228: 

1229: Two main efforts were undertaken to address this serious flaw.  One

1230: effort concentrated on finding a way to interpret the number density

1231: using a model that reduces the inferred distance by 2-3 orders of

1232: magnitude (Everett et al 2002).  This was done by invoking a shielded,

1233: multiphase gas that is made of a continuous low-density wind with

1234: embedded high-density clouds.  The model also requires that the clouds

1235: are dusty and have strong differential dust depletion of iron compared

1236: to magnesium.  While the Everett et al (2002) model solves the

1237: covering factor problem by reducing the inferred distance

1238: substantially, this achievement comes at the heavy price of invoking

1239: several special conditions (an ionization shield, multiphase gas, and

1240: dusty clouds with strong differential dust depletion).

1241: 

1242: The second effort studied inhomogeneous distribution of absorbing

1243: material across the emission source as an alternative to the pure

1244: partial covering model.  The strong feature of these models is that

1245: they do not require a finely tuned covering factor at large distances

1246: and at the same time do not invoke special physical conditions to do

1247: so. Before we discuss the physical picture of these models we need to

1248: address the history of these models, which at first glance looks

1249: contradictory.  de Kool et al (2002, dKKA), showed that such models (similar

1250: to the ones used here) can yield adequate fits for two quasar

1251: outflows.  In contrast, Arav et al (2005), found that the same models

1252: could not fit the outflow troughs of the Seyfert galaxy Mrk~279.

1253: However, in the Mrk~279 data analyzed by Arav et al (2005), more than

1254: half the flux at the spectral location of the outflow troughs is

1255: contributed by the broad emission line (BEL) of the same transition.

1256: Gabel et al (2005a) determined that for Mrk~279 the outflow covers the

1257: entire continuum source but only a portion of the BEL. This picture

1258: looks physically plausible if the distance of the outflow is

1259: co-spatial or just outside the BEL region. Supporting evidence to this

1260: distance scale comes from the fact that the troughs in Mrk~279 vary on

1261: timescale of $\sim1$ year.  Arav et al (2005) tried to find a simple

1262: inhomogeneous power-law model that will fit the data without

1263: differentiating between the BEL and continuum flux distributions, and

1264: concluded that this is not feasible.  It is not known if more

1265: complicated inhomogeneous models that will differentiate between the

1266: BEL and continuum flux sources could give a good fit to the Mrk~279

1267: data.  In contrast, for QSO~2359--1241 the contribution of the BELs at

1268: the spectral location of the \feii\ troughs is less than 10\%, and the

1269: distance scale is $\sim1000$ pc. (Based on the inferred number density

1270: from \feii* troughs combined with a determination of the ionization

1271: parameter, Arav et al 2008). The combination of these conditions

1272: permits us to ignore the contribution of the separate BELs and yields a

1273: better fit for the power-law model than the pure covering factor model does.

1274:  

1275: 

1276: Finally, we need to address the fundamental question: What is the

1277: physical distribution of absorbing material in quasar outflows? In

1278: this work we have showed that a power-law distribution of material is

1279: a better model both statistically and physically than the pure

1280: covering factor model. A power-law model is of course a highly

1281: simplified version of what the real distribution might be. A hint

1282: about the actual situation can be inferred from resolved images of

1283: other astrophysical outflows. Planetary nebula, super nova remnants

1284: and other resolved outflows, tend to show a fragmented or web-like

1285: structure of the emitting material. We speculate that quasar outflows

1286: show similar structures on scales smaller than the size of the

1287: emission source. This is a straight forward way to explain the break

1288: down of the homogeneous absorption screen hypothesis. It is our hope

1289: that future dynamical models are able to yield physically-motivated

1290: predictions with regards to the distribution of outflowing absorbing

1291: material. These predictions could then be tested against the QSO

1292: QSO~2359--1241 and similar data sets.

1293: 

1294: 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: \section{SUMMARY}

1298: 

1299: \begin{enumerate}

1300: 

1301: \item We presented 6.3 hours of VLT/UVES high-resolution (R$\sim$40,000) 

1302: spectroscopic observations of QSO~2359--1241 and identified all the 

1303: absorption features associated with the outflow emanating from this object.

1304: 

1305: \item The unprecedented high signal-to-noise data from five unblended

1306: troughs of \feii\ resonance lines yielded tight constraints on outflow

1307: trough formation models.

1308: 

1309: \item We find that power-law distribution models for absorption material

1310:  in front of the emission source gives a better fit to the \feii\ data

1311:  than covering factor models.

1312: 

1313: \item This finding alleviates the problem of obtaining a velocity dependent

1314: partial covering factor at distances $10^3-10^4$ times larger than the

1315: size of the emission source.

1316: 

1317: % \item Using power law models we derive a complete set of ionic column

1318: %  densities that will be used to solve for the ionization equilibrium

1319: %  of the outflow, its number density, and ultimately its distance and

1320: %  kinetic luminosity.

1321: 

1322: \end{enumerate}

1323: 

1324: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

1325: We thank  the referee for numerous

1326: valuable suggestions.  We acknowledge support from 

1327: NSF grant number AST 0507772 and from 

1328: NASA LTSA grant NAG5-12867.

1329: 

1330: 

1331: \begin{references}

1332: %\reference{} Arav, N., Li, Z. Y., \& Begelman, M. C. 1994, ApJ, 432, 62

1333: %\reference{} Arav, N., 1996, ApJ, 465, 617

1334: \reference{} Arav, N., 1997 in Mass Ejection from AGN, ASP Conference

1335: Series, Vol. 128, ed. N. Arav, I. Shlosman, and R. J. Weymann, p. 208

1336: 

1337: \reference{} Arav, N., Korista, T. K., de~Kool, M., Junkkarinen, V. T. 

1338: \& Begelman, M. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 27. (1999a)

1339: 

1340: \reference{} Arav, N., Becker, R. H., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Gregg, M. D.,

1341:  White, R. L., Brotherton, M. S., \& de~Kool, M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 566 (1999b)

1342: 

1343: \reference{} Arav, N., Brotherton, M. S., Becker, R. H., Gregg, M. D.,

1344:  White, R. L., Price, T., Hack, W. 2001, ApJ, 546, 140 (2001a)

1345: 

1346: \reference{} Arav, N., et~al.\ 2001,  ApJ, 561, 118 (2001b)

1347: 

1348: \reference{} Arav, N., Korista, T. K., de~Kool, M., 2002, ApJ, 566, 699

1349: 

1350: \reference{} Arav, Nahum, Kaastra, Jelle, Steenbrugge, Katrien, Brinkman, Bert,

1351: Edelson, Rick, Korista, Kirk T., de Kool, Martijn

1352: 2003ApJ, 590, 174

1353: 

1354: \reference{} Arav, N., Kaastra, J., Kriss, G. A., Korista, T. K.,

1355: Gabel, J., Proga, D. 2005, ApJ, 620, 665

1356: 

1357: \reference{} Arav, N., et al.\ 2008, in preperation

1358: 

1359: \reference{} Ballester, P., Modigliani, A., Boitquin, O., Cristiani, S.,

1360:          Hanuschik, R., Kaufer, A., Wolf, S., 2000, ESO Messenger, 

1361:         101, 31

1362: 

1363: \reference{} Blandford, R.,\&  Begelman, M., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 68

1364: 

1365: %\reference{} Barlow, Thomas A., Sargent, W. L. W., 1997, AJ, 113, 136

1366: 

1367: \reference{} Barlow, T. A., 1997 in Mass Ejection from AGN, ASP Conference

1368: Series, Vol. 128, ed. N. Arav, I. Shlosman, and R. J. Weymann, p. 13

1369: 

1370: %\reference{} Bottorff, M. C., Korista, K. T., Shlosman, I., 2000, ApJ,

1371: % 537, 134

1372: 

1373: %\reference{} Brotherton, M.\ S., Wills, B.\ J., Francis, P.\ J., \&

1374: %Steidel, C.\ C.\ 1994, \apj, 430, 495

1375: 

1376: 

1377: \reference{} Brotherton, M. S., Arav, Nahum, Becker, R. H., Tran, Hien D., Gregg, Michael D., White, R. L., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Hack, Warren,

1378: 2001ApJ, 546, 134

1379: 

1380: %\reference{} Brotherton, M. S., Green, R. F., Kriss, G. A., Oegerle,

1381: %W., Kaiser, M. E., Zheng, W., Hutchings, J. B. 2002, ApJ, 565, 800

1382: 

1383: %\reference{} Costantini, E., et~al.\ 2004, in preperation

1384: 

1385: \reference{} Churchill, C. W., Schneider, D. P., Schmidt, M., Gunn, J. E.,

1386: 1999, AJ, 117, 2573

1387: 

1388: %\reference{} Clavel, J., et~al.\, 1991, ApJ, 366, 64

1389: 

1390: %\reference{} Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Boggess, A., Maran, S.

1391: %P., Mushotzky, R. F., Wu, C. C.,  1999 ApJ, 516, 750

1392: 

1393: %\reference{} Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., 1999, ApJ, 521, 572

1394: 

1395: \reference{} de~Kool, M., Arav, N., Becker, R. H., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A.,

1396:  White, R. L., Price, T., Gregg, M. D. 2001, ApJ, 548, 609

1397: 

1398: \reference{} de~Kool, M.,Becker, R. H., Gregg, M. D., Arav, N., White, R. L.,

1399: Korista, K. T., 2002, ApJ, 567, 58

1400: 

1401: \reference{} de~Kool, M., Korista, K. T.,  Arav, N., 2002, ApJ, 580, 54 (dKKA)

1402: 

1403: %\reference{} Done, C., Krolik, J. H., 1996 ApJ, 463, 144

1404: 

1405: %\reference{} Elvis, M., 2000, ApJ, 545, 63

1406: 

1407: %\reference{} Elvis, M., 2001, in "Mass Outflow in Active Galactic Nuclei:

1408: %New Perspectives" eds. D. M. Crenshaw, S. B. Kraemer and I. M. George,

1409: %ASP Conf. Proc, in press

1410: 

1411: \reference{} Everett, J., Konigl, A. \& Arav, N., 2002 ApJ,

1412: 569, 671 

1413: 

1414: %\reference{} Ferland, G.J, et~al.\ 1992, ApJ, 387, 95

1415: 

1416: %\reference{}  Gabel, J. R., et~al.\ 2003, ApJ, 583, 178

1417: \reference{}  Gabel, J. R., Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., George, I. M., Brandt, W. N., Hamann, F. W., Kaiser, M. E., et~al. 2005b, ApJ, 631, 741

1418: 

1419: \reference{} Gabel, J. R., Arav, N., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., 

1420: Behar, E., Costantini, E., et~al. 2005b,

1421: ApJ, 623, 85

1422: 

1423: %\reference{} George, I. M., Turner, T. J., Netzer, H., Nandra, K.,

1424: % Mushotzky, R. F., Yaqoob, T., 1998, ApJS, 114, 73G

1425: 

1426: % \reference{} Goad, M., Koratkar, A., 1998 ApJ, 495, 718

1427: 

1428: \reference{} Ganguly, R., Eracleous, M. C., Charlton, J. C., \&

1429: Churchill, C. W. 1999, AJ, 117, 2594

1430: 

1431: %NEW

1432: \reference{} Hamann, F., 1998, ApJ, 500, 798

1433: \reference{} Hamann, F., Barlow, T. A., Junkkarinen, V., Burbidge,

1434:  E. M., 1997, ApJ, 478, 80

1435: 

1436: %NEW

1437: \reference{} Hamann, Frederick W., Barlow, T. A., Chaffee, F. C., Foltz, C. B., Weymann, R. J.

1438: 2001, ApJ, 550, 142

1439: 

1440: %\reference{}  Den Herder, J.W., Brinkman, A.C., Kahn, S.M., et al.,

1441: %2001, A\&A 365, L17

1442: 

1443: %\reference{} Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., Liedahl, D. A., Komossa, S.,

1444: % Brinkman, A. C., 2000, A\&A, 354L, 83

1445: 

1446: %\reference{} Kaastra, J. S., Steenbrugge, K. C., Raassen, A. J., van

1447: %der Meer, R., Brinkman, A. C., Liedahl, D. A., Behar, E., de Rosa, A.,

1448: %2002, A\&A, 386, 427

1449: 

1450: %\reference{} Kaspi, S., \& Netzer, H.\ 1999, ApJ, 524, 71

1451: 

1452: 

1453: %\reference{} Kaspi, S., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Sambruna, R.,

1454: %Chartas, G., Garmire, G. P., Nousek, J. A., 2000, ApJ, 535L, 17

1455: 

1456: 

1457: \reference{} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B. M.,

1458: Vestergaard, M., Jannuzi, B. T., 2005, ApJ, 629, 61

1459: 

1460: % \reference{} Kriss, G. A. 1994, in ASP Conf. Proc. 61, Astronomical

1461: % Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree, R. J.

1462: % Hanisch, \& J. Barnes (San Francisco: ASP), 437

1463: 

1464: %\reference{} Kriss, G. A., Green, R. F., Brotherton, M., Oegerle, W.,

1465: %Sembach, K. R., Davidsen, A. F., Friedman, S. D., Kaiser, M. E.,

1466: %Zheng, W., Woodgate, B., Hutchings, J., Shull, J. M., York, D. G.,

1467: % 2000, ApJL, 538, 17

1468: 

1469: %NEW

1470: \reference{} Korista, K. T., Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Kopko, M., Turnshek, D. A., Hartig, G. F., Foltz, C. B., Burbidge, E. M., \& Junkkarinen, V. T. 1992, ApJ, 401, 529

1471: 

1472: \reference{} Korista, K. T.,et al.\ 2008, submitted to ApJ

1473: 

1474: 

1475: % \reference{} Korista, T. K., Voit, G. M., Morris, S. L., \& Weymann,

1476: % R. J. 1993, ApJS, 88, 357

1477: 

1478: %\reference{} Korista, K. T., et~al.\ 1995, ApJS, 97, 285

1479: 

1480: %\reference{} Korista, K. T.\ \&  Goad, M. R., 2000, ApJ, 536, 284

1481: 

1482: %\reference{} Krolik, J.H.\ et al.\ 1991, ApJ, 371, 541

1483: 

1484: \reference{}  Kurucz, R. \& Bell, B., Atomic Line Data, Kurucz CD-ROM No.~23.~Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1995

1485: 

1486: %\reference{} Mathur, S., Elvis, M., \& Wilkes, B. 1999, ApJ, 519, 605

1487: 

1488: %\reference{} Markowitz, A.  Edelson, R., Vaughan, S., Uttley, P.,

1489: % George, I., Griffiths, R., Kaspi, S., Lawrence, A., Nandra, K.,

1490: % Pounds, K., Reeves, J. , Schurch, N., Warwicket R., 2002, ApJ,

1491: % submitted

1492: 

1493: %NEW

1494: \reference{} Morton, D. C., 2003, ApJS, 149, 205

1495: 

1496: %\reference{} Netzer, H., \& Maoz, D. 1990, ApJ, 365, L5 

1497: 

1498: %\reference{} Nicastro, F., et~al.\, 2000, ApJ, 536, 718

1499: 

1500: %\reference{} Nicastro, F., et al., 2001, in preparation

1501: 

1502: %\reference{} Pradhan, A., 2000, ApJ 545, L165

1503: 

1504: %\reference{} Peterson, B. M., et~al.\ 1991, ApJ, 368, 119 

1505: 

1506: \reference{} Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., \& Vetterling, W. T. 1989, Numerical Recipes in Pascal: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1507: 

1508: %\reference{} Proga, D., Stone, J. M., Kallman, T. R., 2000, ApJ, 543, 686

1509: 

1510: % \reference{} Proga, D., 2003, ApJ, 592, 9

1511: 

1512: %\reference{}  Pounds, K. A., Reeves,  J. N.,   Page,  K. L.,  Edelson, R.,

1513: % Matt, G., Perola, G. C.,  2003, MNRAS, submitted

1514: 

1515: \reference{} Scannapieco, E., Oh, S. P., 2004,  ApJ 608, 62

1516: 

1517: \reference{} Scott, J. E., 2004, ApJS, 152, 1

1518: 

1519: %\reference{} Sembach, K. R., Howk, J. C., Savage, B. D., Shull, J. M,

1520: % Oegerle, W. R., 2001, ApJ, 561, 573

1521: 

1522: %\reference{} Shull, J. M., Sachs, E. R., 1993, ApJ, 416, 536S

1523: 

1524: %\reference{} Srianand, R., 2000, ApJ, 528, 617

1525: 

1526: %\reference{} Steenbrugge, K. C., Kaastra, J. S. \& Edelson, R., 2002,

1527: %A\&A, submitted

1528: 

1529: %NEW

1530: \reference{} Turnshek, D. A., et al. 1996, ApJ, 463, 110

1531: 

1532: \reference{} Telfer, R.C., Kriss, G.A.,  Zheng, W., Davidson, A.F., \&

1533: Green, R.F. 1998, ApJ,  509, 132

1534: 

1535: %\reference{} Verner, D.A., Verner, E.M., \& Ferland, G.J.\ 1996, Atomic

1536: % Data \& Nuclear Data Tables, 64, 1

1537: 

1538: \reference{} Vernaleo, J. C., \& Reynolds, C. S., 2006, ApJ, 645, 83

1539: 

1540: \reference{} Wampler, E. J., Chugai, N. N., \&

1541:  Petitjean, P., 1995, ApJ 443, 586

1542: 

1543: 

1544: % \reference{} Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., 

1545: % \& Hewett, P. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 23 

1546: 

1547: %\reference{} Wilson, A. S., et~al.\ 1989, ApJ, 339, 729 

1548: 

1549: \end{references}

1550: 

1551: 

1552: 

1553: %%%% NEW %%%%

1554: 

1555: \end{document}

1556: 

1557: %% PROCEDURE FOR WEIGHTED AVARAGE OF FLUX AND ERROR

1558: 

1559: where the combined flux and error were computed as

1560: follows:.

1561: \begin{equation}

1562: F_{\lambda}=\frac{\sum(f_i/e_i^2)}{\sum(1/e_i^2)} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1563: E_{\lambda}=\left(\sum(1/e_i^2)\right)^{-0.5},

1564: \label{eq1}

1565: \end{equation}

1566: where $F_{\lambda}$ and $E_{\lambda}$ are, respectively, the coadded

1567: flux level and error at a given wavelength, while $f_i$ and $e_i$ are

1568: the flux level and error, respectively, at that wavelength for

1569: exposure $i$. 

1570: 

1571: 

1572: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1573: 

1574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  end of Latexed paper

1576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1577: Old omitted stuff:

1578: 

1579: from intro:

1580: ----------

1581: 

1582: Most of this analysis  relied on comparing two troughs

1583: arising from the doublet lines of a given ion (e.g., the \mgii, \civ,

1584: \siiv\ and \nv\ doublets mentioned above).  Based on the oscillator

1585: strength of the doublet components, the blue transition must have

1586: twice the optical depth as the red transition.  When the apparent

1587: optical depth method is used on fully resolved, high S/N, non-blended

1588: doublet troughs, the ratio of their $\tau_{ap}$ is rarely 1:2.  In

1589: most cases, the trough from the red doublet has more than half of the

1590: blue $\tau_{ap}$, up to equality in many cases.  

1591: 

1592: 

1593: % from Everett sec 2.2:

1594: % We find that in order for the clouds to account for the observed Mg I

1595: % absorption without also dominating the Fe II absorption, their iron

1596: % gas-phase abundance must be reduced, which we attribute to depletion

1597: % by dust.

1598: 

1599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1600: 

1601: 

1602: 

1603: Paper 2 suggested  title:

1604: VLT OBSERVATIONS OF THE QSO~2359--1241 OUTFLOW

1605: II: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE QSO~2359--1241 

1606: 

1607: Paper 3 suggested  title:

1608: VLT OBSERVATIONS OF THE QSO~2359--1241 OUTFLOW

1609: III:  KINETIC LUMINOSITY AND TOMOGRAPHY:

1610: 

1611: 

1612: things to do:

1613: 

1614: sections and subsections:

1615: 

1616: In \S~2 we describe the observations; 

1617: 

1618: \S~3 \section{MODELING THE ABSORPTION TROUGHS}

1619: 

1620: Two intro paragraphs including a figure (3) showing apparent optical depth method does not work (adapt the figure from the presentation).

1621: 

1622: \S~3.1 \subsection{Two And Three Paramer Models}

1623: 

1624: \S~3.2  \subsection{$\Chi^2$ fitting}

1625: \

1626: \S~3.2  \subsection{How physical are these models?}

1627: Maybe better in the discussion section

1628: 

1629: in \S~3 we test the goodness

1630: of the fit for the five \feii\ resonance lines obtained from different 

1631:  models of absorption material distribution; in \S~4 we extract 

1632: column densities to all observed ionic species of the outflow; 

1633: in \S~5 we discuss our results, and in \S~6 we summerise them.

1634: 

1635: figures

1636: 

1637: 1) the absorption components of feii [section 2.2]

1638: a - Create figure 1: the absorption components

1639: seen in the \feii~$\lambda$2586 in velocity presentation

1640: labeling the different components (as in Arav 2001 fig 2), trough

1641: systen span the 80\% middle part of the figure, y axis from 0.6 to 1.1.

1642: 

1643: 2) [section 2.2]

1644: b - Create figure 2 for the parer which is the 4805-4900 span of the 

1645: big identification plot for 2359.

1646: 

1647: 3) showing apparent optical depth method does not work (Nahum) [section 3.0]

1648: (adapt the figure from the presentation)

1649: 

1650: 4) optical_depth_distribution (Nahum) [section 3.?]

1651: a - complete figure 

1652: 2359_optical_depth_distribution.sm in 

1653: seyfert/mrk279/2003campaign/fuse/martijn_solution

1654: b - write figure caption based on fig 1 inhomogenous

1655: 

1656: 

1657: 5) A 4 panel showing the different fits for the Fe II E=0 lines

1658:    (Max) [section 3.?]

1659: a - Based on Max's FeII0_cov1_fit.ps, FeII0_covFeII0_fit.ps,

1660:  FeII0_aFeII0_fit.ps and the three parameter fit

1661: 

1662: Panel plots

1663: -----------

1664: b - each panel should only show 2600 (black), 2587 (red) and 2374 (blue) lines 

1665: c - put colored labels next to each curve (2600, 2587 and 2374)

1666: d - remove bottom colored labels

1667: e - remove top caption

1668: f - each panel should have a letter identification on top left corner:

1669:     a,b,c,d (see order below) 

1670: 

1671: stacking the panels:

1672: --------------------

1673: a - order (top to bottom): C=1, C(fe2), a, three parameter

1674: b - X axis label and numbers only on the bottom panel  

1675: c - enlarge captions and numbers by 1.5 factor

1676: d - Tick marks should be on all X axes including the top one.

1677: e - Y axis can be labled on each panel (but try having only one)

1678: 

1679: 

1680: 6) Fe II E=0 Column densities from  all 4 methods (Max) [section 3.?]

1681:    based on FeII0_col.ps

1682: a - enlarge captions and numbers by 1.5 factor

1683: b - remove top caption

1684: c - eliminate dotted vertical lines on the edges.

1685: d - produce a table in the upper right corner to replace the 

1686:     string of column density at the top:

1687: - The table should have the form 

1688: 

1689: fitting Method     apparent   c(v)  power-law  modified C(v)

1690: N(Fe II, E=0)      27.2pm0.2  60pm2   76pm3      73pm4

1691: [in 10^12 cm^-1]

1692: 

1693: (apparent   c(v)  power-law  modified C(v) printed in the color of their

1694:  plotted lines)

1695: 

1696: - the table should occupy the space above y=1.3 and left of v=1370

1697: 

1698: e - color and line types for the histograms:

1699: apparent       black solid

1700: c(v)           black solid

1701: power-law      red dashed 

1702: modified C(v)  blue dotted 

1703: 

1704: (this is done to help people who will print the paper in black and white,

1705: while retaining the color differentiation for all the rest) 

1706: 

1707: