1: % Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

2: %%

3: %% Modified 2005 June 21

4: %%

5: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

6: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

7: 

8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

10: %% any data that comes before this command.

11: 

12: %% The command below calls the preprint style

13: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

14: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

15: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

16: %%

17: 

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

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

23: 

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

25: 

26: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

30: %% use the longabstract style option.

31: 

32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

33: 

34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

36: %% the \begin{document} command.

37: %%

38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

41: %% for information.

42: 

43: 

44: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

45: 

46: \slugcomment{---}

47: 

48: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

49: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

50: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

51: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

52: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

53: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

54: 

55: \shorttitle{Hidden kinetic power of radio jets}

56: \shortauthors{Ito et al.}

57: 

58: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

59: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

60: 

61: \begin{document}

62: 

63: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

64: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

65: %% you desire.

66: 

67: 

68: %\title{Collapsed Cores in Globular Clusters, \\

69: %    Gauge-Boson Couplings, and AAS\TeX\ Examples}

70: 

71: \title{The estimate of kinetic powers of jets in FRII radio galaxies:

72: existence of invisible components?}

73: 

74: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

75: %% author and affiliation information.

76: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

77: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

78: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

79: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

80: 

81: \author{Hirotaka Ito\altaffilmark {1}, Motoki Kino\altaffilmark{2},

82:     Nozomu Kawakatu\altaffilmark{3},  Naoki  Isobe\altaffilmark{4},

83:     and

84:     Shoichi Yamada\altaffilmark{1,5} }

85: %\affil{Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo,

86: %Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

87: 

88: %\author{C. D. Biemesderfer\altaffilmark{4,5}}

89: %\affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ 85719}

90: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}

91: 

92: %\and

93: 

94: %\author{R. J. Hanisch\altaffilmark{5}}

95: %\affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}

96: 

97: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

98: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

99: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

100: %% affiliation.

101: 

102: \altaffiltext{1}{Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo,

103: Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

104: \email{hito@heap.phys.waseda.ac.jp}

105: \altaffiltext{2}{ISAS/JAXA, 3-1-1 Yoshinodai, 229-8510 Sagamihara, Japan}

106: \altaffiltext{3}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 181-8588 Mitaka, Japan}

107: \altaffiltext{4}{Cosmic Radiation Laboratory, 

108:   Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

109:     Wako, Saitama, Japan 351-0198}

110: \altaffiltext{5}{Advanced Research Institute for Science \&

111: Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo,

112: Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan}

113: 

114: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

115: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

116: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

117: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

118: %% editorial office after submission.

119: 

120: \begin{abstract}

121: 

122: 

123: We 

124: investigate the total kinetic powers ($L_{\rm j}$) and ages 

125: ($t_{\rm age}$) of powerful jets in FR II radio galaxies

126: by  comparison of the dynamical model

127: of expanding cocoons with observations.

128: %%%

129: We select four FR II radio sources (Cygnus A, 3C 223, 3C 284, 

130: and 3C 219), for which the mass-density profiles 

131: of intracluster medium (ICM) are known in the literature. 

132: It is found that large fractions $\gtrsim 0.02 - 0.7$

133:  of the Eddington luminosity

134: ($L_{\rm Edd}$)

135:  are carried away as a  kinetic power of jet.

136: The upper limit of estimated $2 L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$ 

137: are larger than unity

138: ($\lesssim 10$)

139: for some sources,  suggesting a possibility of

140: super-Eddington mass accretions.

141: As a consequence of the large powers,

142: we also find that the total

143: energy stored in the cocoon ($E_{\rm c}$)  exceeds the

144: energy derived 

145: from the minimum energy condition for 

146: the energy

147:  of radiating non-thermal 

148: electrons and magnetic fields ($E_{\rm min}$): 

149: $4< E_{\rm c}/E_{\rm min} <310$. % revision

150: This implies that

151: most of the energy in cocoon is carried by invisible components such as thermal

152:  leptons (electron and positron) and/or protons. 

153: 

154:  

155: 

156: \end{abstract}

157: 

158: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

159: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

160: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

161: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

162: 

163: \keywords{radiation mechanisms: non-thermal --- 

164: X-rays: galaxies --- radio continuum: galaxies ---

165: galaxies: individual (Cygnus A, 3C~223, 3C~284, 3C~219) }

166: 

167: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

168: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

169: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

170: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

171: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

172: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

173: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

174: %% each reference.

175: 

176: 

177: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

178: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging

179: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}.  Each macro takes the

180: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket 

181: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification

182: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.  The text appearing 

183: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper. 

184: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked

185: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers  

186: 

187: 

188: \section{INTRODUCTION}

189: 

190: 

191: 

192: 

193: 

194: Relativistic jets in active galactic nuclei (AGN)

195: are a fundamental aspect of plasma accretion onto 

196: supermassive black holes (SMBHs).

197: %%%%%

198: Although the formation mechanism of relativistic jets

199: remains a longstanding problem, it is well established that 

200: they carry away some fractions of the available accretion power 

201: in the form of collimated beam

202: (e.g., Begelman et al. 1984 for review).

203: %

204: The total kinetic powers of AGN jets $L_{\rm j}$

205: is one of the most basic physical quantities characterizing the

206: jet.

207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

208: A lot of authors have investigated

209: $L_{\rm j}$ in various ways so far

210: \citep[e.g.,][]{RS91,  CF93, WRB99}. 

211: %%%

212: It is, however, difficult to estimate $L_{\rm j}$,

213: since most of the observed emissions from AGN jets

214: are of non-thermal electron origin

215: and it is hard to detect the electromagnetic signals

216: from the thermal and/or proton components.

217: %%%%%%%

218: Hence, the free parameter describing the amount of 

219: the invisible plasma components always lurks in  

220: the estimates of $L_{\rm j}$ 

221: based on the non-thermal emissions.

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: 

227: 

228: The estimate of $L_{\rm j}$ 

229: for low-power Fanaroff-Riley I (FRI) radio galaxies 

230: has been motivated by the observations of ``X-ray cavity" %

231: which is the region embedded in ICM

232: with the suppressed X-ray surface brightness

233: and coincides with the  radio lobe

234:  \citep{BVF93}.

235: %

236: The cavities (or cocoons) are supposed to be a direct evidence of the

237: displacement of the ambient ICM by the shocked jet matter. 

238: %

239: Dynamical models of cavities are a good tool,

240: since the invisible plasma components as well 

241: as non-thermal electrons play a role for 

242: expansions of cavities.

243: For FR I sources, the total kinetic energy of the jet 

244: has been estimated as

245: %

246: \begin{eqnarray}

247: L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age} \sim 

248: \frac{\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c}}{\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c}-1}

249: P_{\rm c} V_{\rm c},  \nonumber

250: \end{eqnarray}

251: %

252: where 

253: $t_{\rm age}$, 

254: $P_{\rm c}$, 

255: $V_{\rm c}$,

256: $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c}$,

257: are 

258: the source age,

259: the pressure,

260: the volume, 

261: the adiabatic index of the cavity,

262: respectively

263: \citep{FCB02, ADF06}.

264: %%%%%%

265: In these studies, however,

266: the thermal pressure of surrounding ICM ($P_{\rm ICM}$)

267: is substituted 

268: for the one in the cavity (i.e., $P_{\rm c}\sim P_{\rm ICM}$).

269: %

270: This assumption may be applied only to subsonic expansions.  

271: 

272: 

273: 

274: 

275: On the other hand, the cocoon pressure of powerful  

276: Fanaroff-Riley class II (FRII) radio galaxies is 

277: expected to be larger than that of 

278: the surrounding ICM,

279:  which is expressed as $P_{\rm c} > P_{\rm ICM}$

280:  (Begelman \& Cioffi 1989 hereafter BC89), and 

281: the cocoon of FR II radio galaxies

282: is likely to be expanding super-sonically. Then the substitution of 

283: ICM pressure for the cocoon pressure is not justified.

284: %%

285: A new estimate 

286: of $L_{\rm j}$ for FR II radio galaxies by use of the 

287: dynamical model of cocoon expansions 

288: is proposed by \citet{KK05} (hereafter KK05), in which

289: $L_{\rm j}$ and  $t_{\rm age}$ are derived

290: from the comparison of the cocoon model with the 

291: morphology of the cocoon obtained by radio observations.

292: %%%%

293: It should be stressed that  $P_{\rm c}$ is not assumed but solved

294: in this model. Hence it can be 

295: applied even to the cocoons with $P_{\rm c}>P_{\rm ICM}$.

296: %%%%

297: So far, however, this estimate of $L_{\rm j}$  has been

298: applied only to Cygnus A.

299: %

300: The expansion of the number of samples 

301: is evidently crucially important for exploring general characteristics of the 

302: powerful AGN jets. 

303: %%%

304: For this purpose, we apply the method of KK05 to other 

305: bright FR II radio galaxies, for which the physical conditions of the

306: associated ICM  have been estimated in the literature. 

307: %%%%

308: 

309: 

310: In the present work, we especially focus on the ratio of

311: $L_{\rm j}/L_{\rm Edd}$, where $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the 

312: Eddington luminosity of AGN, since $L_{\rm j}/L_{\rm Edd}$

313: is a more fundamental quantity than $L_{\rm j}$ from the point of view of the jet formation physics.

314: %%%

315: Another interesting quantity we examine in this work

316: is the ratio of the internal energy deposited in the cocoon ($E_{\rm c}$)

317: to the  minimum energy ($E_{\rm min}$)

318: obtained by the minimum energy condition

319: for radiating non-thermal electrons and magnetic fields (e.g., Miley 1980).

320: %

321: Some of the previous works studying

322: this quantity

323: (e.g., Hardcastle \& Worrall 2000; Leahy \& Gizani 2001)

324: reported that the cocoon pressure expected from the inferred $E_{\rm min}$

325: is smaller than the pressure of ambient matter, suggesting the

326: difference between $E_{\rm c}$ and $E_{\rm min}$.

327: due to the lack of minimum pressure 

328: against the pressure of ambient medium. 

329: Although these studies obtained the lower limit of the ratio,

330: it is the value of $E_{\rm c}$ that is of greater importance.

331: 

332: 

333: 

334: 

335: 

336: 

337: 

338: 

339: 

340: 

341: According to a large sample of

342: galaxies collected recently, the fraction of AGNs in all

343: the galaxies

344: is suggested to be $\sim20 \-- 40\%$, larger than previously thought

345: \citep{KHT03, MNG03}.

346: The interest in 

347: AGNs is gaining momentum in the 

348: context of the co-evolution of galaxies and 

349: their central black holes 

350: (e.g., Kawakatu et al. 2003, Granato et al. 2004;

351: Di Matteo et al. 2005).

352: %%%

353: AGN outflows in particular

354: are likely to be a key ingredient

355: in this context 

356: (Silk \& Rees 1998; Fabian 1999; King 2003).

357: %

358: The AGN feedback by the 

359: outflows may be also promising to explain 

360: the tight correlations between 

361: the  ratio of the mass of SMBH ($M_{\rm BH}$) to that of

362:  galactic bulge

363: (Kormendy \& Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998)

364: and the ratio of $M_{\rm BH}$  and the

365: stellar velocity-dispersion in the bulge

366: \citep{FM00, TGB02}.

367: %%%%%%

368: %%%%%%%%

369: In this sense, a robust estimate of the basic 

370: quantities such as $L_{\rm j}/L_{\rm Edd}$ and $t_{\rm age}$ of

371: radio loud AGNs at low $z$ is an important first step

372: for understanding the AGN feedback processes in the universe.

373: 

374: 

375: 

376: 

377: 

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: 

382: 

383: 

384: 

385: 

386: 

387: 

388: 

389: 

390: 

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: 

395: 

396: The outline of the paper is as follows. 

397: %%%

398: In \S2, the model of the expanding cocoon 

399: by KK05 is briefly reviewed. 

400: %%

401:  In \S3, we explain how to extract the key quantities from the observations of four nearby 

402: FR II radio galaxies, Cygnus A, 3C 223, 3C 284, and 3C 219, which are

403: required for the comparison with the model.

404: %%

405: We then estimate  the total kinetic power, $L_{\rm j}$,

406: and the dynamical ages, $t_{\rm age}$,

407: in  \S4.

408: %

409:  Finally in \S5, we summarize our results and

410:  discuss some implications on

411:  the physics of AGN jet. 

412: %%%%%%%

413: Throughout the paper, we adopt a cosmology with $H_0=71~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$,

414:  $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, and  $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7$

415: \citep{SVP03}. 

416: 

417: \section{COCOON MODEL}

418: 

419: \subsection{Basic equations}

420: \label{beq}

421: 

422: 

423: 

424: Based on BC89 and KK05,

425: we briefly summarize the cocoon model we employ in the following.

426:  We focus on the cocoon expansion in the over-pressured regime,

427:  namely $P_{\rm c} > P_{\rm a}$, where $P_{\rm c}$

428: and $P_{\rm a}$ are the  pressures of cocoon 

429: and  ambient ICM, respectively. 

430: We approximately describe the expansion of cocoon by the following

431: three equations:

432: (\ref{jet-axis}) the equation of the motion along the jet axis,

433: (\ref{lateral}) the equation for the sideways expansion, and 

434: (\ref{energy}) the energy equation.

435: They are expressed, respectively, as

436: %

437: \begin{eqnarray}

438: \frac{L_{\rm j}}{v_{\rm j}}=

439:  %{c}

440: \rho_{\rm a}(r_{\rm h})v_{\rm h}^{2}(t)A_{\rm h}(t),

441: \label{jet-axis}

442: \end{eqnarray}

443: %

444: %

445: \begin{eqnarray}

446: P_{\rm c}(t)=

447: \rho_{\rm a}(r_{\rm c}) \

448: v_{\rm c}(t)^{2}  ,

449: \label{lateral}

450: \end{eqnarray}

451: %

452: %

453: \begin{eqnarray}

454: \frac{dE_{\rm c}(t)}{dt}%revision

455: %\left( \frac{P_{\rm c}(t)V_{\rm c}(t)}{\hat{\gamma_{\rm c}}-1} \right)

456:   + P_{\rm c}(t)\frac{dV_{\rm c}(t)}{dt}

457: = 2 L_{\rm j}    ,

458: \label{energy}

459: \end{eqnarray}

460: %

461: where 

462: $v_{\rm j}$,

463: $\rho_{\rm a}$, 

464: $v_{\rm h}$,

465: $v_{\rm c}$, and

466: $A_{\rm h}$ %,   and $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c}$ 

467:   are 

468: the velocity of  jet,

469: the density of ambient medium,

470:  the advance velocity of cocoon head,

471:  the velocity of sideways expansion, and

472:  the cross sectional area of cocoon head, respectively.

473: % adn the specific heat ratio of plasma inside cocoon, respectively.

474: Here 

475:  $E_{\rm c}=P_{\rm c} V_{\rm c}/({\hat{\gamma_{\rm c}}}-1)$

476:  is the total internal energy deposited in the cocoon, where

477:   $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c}$  is 

478:  the specific heat ratio of the plasma inside cocoon. %revision

479:  The cocoon shape is approximated

480:  as a spheroid, and its volume is given as

481:  $V_{\rm c}(t)= (4 \pi /3)  r_{\rm c}(t)^2 r_{\rm h}(t)$. 

482: The distance from the jet apex to the hot spot and

483:  the radius of  cocoon body

484:  are obtained from

485:  $r_{\rm h}(t)=\int_{t_{\rm min}}^{t} v_{\rm h}(t')dt'$ and 

486:  $r_{\rm c}(t)=\int_{t_{\rm min}}^{t} v_{\rm c}(t')dt'$, respectively,

487:  and  $t_{\rm min}$ is the initial time of source evolution.

488:  Throughout this paper, we assume  $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c} = 4/3$,

489:  since the cocoon is expected to be dominated by relativistic particles

490:  \citep{KKI07}.

491:  In these equations we also assume that 

492:  the jet has a relativistic velocity ($v_{\rm j} \sim c$) and

493:  that $L_{\rm j}$ is constant in time.

494: %

495: %

496:  The mass density 

497:  of ICM, $\rho_{\rm a}$,  is assumed to be given by

498:  $\rho_{\rm a}(r)

499:  ={\bar\rho}_{\rm a}(r/r_{0})^{-\alpha}$,

500:  where $r_{0}$ and 

501:  $\bar{\rho}_{\rm a}$ are the

502:  reference position and

503:  the ICM mass density at $r_{0}$, respectively.

504:  We set $r_{0}$ to be $r_{\rm h}(t_{\rm age})$,

505:  where  $t_{\rm age}$ is the present age  of cocoon,

506:  throughout this paper. 

507: %

508:  A cartoon of the cocoon model is illustrated in Fig. \ref{cocoon}.

509: %

510:  In this paper, we have slightly improved the model of BC89 and KK05

511:  as follows:

512:  (i) a more accurate

513: %     geometrical factor

514:  definition of $V_{\rm c}$

515:   is employed,

516:  and

517:  (ii) the $PdV$ work, which is done by the cocoon against

518:  the contact discontinuity between the cocoon and the shocked ambient

519:   medium, is taken into account. %revision

520:  These corrections are necessary in the following quantitative estimate

521:  of $L_{\rm j}$. In fact, the estimated power is reduced by a factor of

522:  $\sim 50$ %revision

523:  from the value in KK05 for Cygnus A after taking account

524:  of the corrections (see \S \ref{improve} for details). %revision

525: 

526: 

527: 

528: 

529:  The model parameters are 

530:  $L_{\rm j}$ and $t$,

531:  and the

532:  unknown physical quantities are

533:  $v_{\rm h}$, 

534:  $v_{\rm c}$,

535:  $P_{\rm c}$, and

536:  $A_{\rm h}$. 

537: %

538:  Since the number of unknown  quantities is four,

539:  while that of

540:  basic equations is three,

541:  an additional condition

542: % which %in turn 

543: % determines the free parameter $X$ 

544:  is required

545:  for the system of equations to be closed.

546:  Here we assume that the cross sectional area of cocoon body

547:  $A_{\rm c} = \pi r_{\rm c}^2$ is given by 

548:  $A_{\rm c}(t) \propto t^{X}$ and treat

549:  $X$ as a free parameter which is determined by the imposed condition.

550:  Once the value of $X$ is determined,

551:  we obtain  $v_{\rm h}$, 

552:  $v_{\rm c}$,

553:  $P_{\rm c}$, and

554:  $A_{\rm h}$ 

555:   as a function of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t$.

556:  It is worth noting that 

557:  the model  is capable of producing various dynamics by tuning

558:  the value of $X$.

559:  For example, 

560:  the results of 2D relativistic 

561:  hydrodynamical simulations by Scheck et al. (2002)

562:  were reproduced fairly well in Kawakatu \& Kino (2006).

563: 

564: 

565: %Once the assumption is imposed,

566: % the unknown quantities are obtained

567: % as a function of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t$.

568: 

569: 

570: 

571: 

572: 

573: \begin{figure}[ht]

574: \begin{center} 

575: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.eps}

576: \caption

577: {A cartoon of the employed model.  

578: The relativistic jet from FR II radio galaxy

579: interacts with

580: ICM with a declining density. 

581: Most of the kinetic energy

582: of jet is deposited in the cocoon, which is then

583: inflated by the internal energy.}

584: \label{cocoon}

585: \end{center}

586: \end{figure}

587: 

588: 

589: \subsection{Analytical solution}

590: \label{Ana}

591: 

592: %

593: % We further assume that the cross sectional area of cocoon body

594: % $A_{\rm c} = \pi r_{\rm c}^2$ is given by 

595: % $A_{\rm c}(t) \propto t^{X}$ and treat

596: % $X$ as a free parameter.

597: % (Once the  value of $X$ is specified,

598: %  $v_{\rm h}$,

599: % $v_{\rm c}$, $P_{\rm c}$, and $A_{\rm h}$

600: % are obtained as a function of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$).

601: %

602:  We  assume that the physical quantities  have 

603:  a power-law time-dependence of the form

604:  $A={\bar A} ~ (t/t_{\rm age})^{Y}$, where

605:  $Y$ is the power-law index.

606:  Then the index and

607:  coefficient 

608:  of $v_{\rm c}$, for example,  are determined as 

609: %

610: \begin{eqnarray}\label{v_c}

611: v_{\rm c}(t)=

612: {\bar v}_{\rm c}

613: \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)^{0.5X-1}

614: =

615: \frac{{\bar A}_{\rm c}^{1/2}}{t_{\rm age}}

616: {\cal C}_{\rm vc}

617: \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)^{0.5X-1} .

618: \end{eqnarray}

619: %

620:  From this relation and Eqs. (\ref{jet-axis})-(\ref{energy}),

621:  we obtain the following expressions:

622: %

623: \begin{eqnarray}

624: P_{\rm c}(t)=

625: % {\bar P}_{\rm c} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)^{X(1-0.5\alpha)-2} =

626: {\bar\rho}_{\rm a} {\bar v}_{\rm c}^{2}

627: {\cal C}_{\rm pc}

628: \left(\frac{{\bar v}_{\rm c}}{v_{0}}\right)^{-\alpha}

629: \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)^{X(1-0.5\alpha)-2},

630: \end{eqnarray}

631: %

632: %

633: \begin{eqnarray}\label{v_h}

634: v_{\rm h}(L_{\rm j},t)= 

635: \frac

636: {L_{j}}

637: {{\bar\rho}_{\rm a}{\bar v}_{c}^{2}{\bar A}_{\rm c}}

638: {\cal C}_{\rm vh} 

639: \left(\frac{{\bar v}_{\rm c}}{v_{0}}\right)^{\alpha}

640: \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)^{X(-2+0.5\alpha)+2},

641: \end{eqnarray}

642: %

643: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ah}

644: A_{\rm h}(L_{\rm j},t)=

645: \frac{L_{\rm j}}

646: {v_{\rm j}{\bar\rho}_{\rm a} 

647: {\bar v}_{\rm h}^{2}}

648: {\cal C}_{\rm ah}

649: \left(\frac{{\bar v}_{\rm h}}{v_{0}}\right)^{\alpha}

650: \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm age}}\right)

651: ^{X(\alpha-2)(-2+0.5\alpha)+3\alpha-4} ,

652: \end{eqnarray}

653: %

654:  where 

655: % ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}= \frac{3}{2}

656: % (\hat{\gamma}_{c}-1)(0.5X)^{-\alpha}[3-(2-0.5\alpha)X]/[4-(1-0.5\alpha)X]$,

657:  ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}= 

658:  0.75  (\hat{\gamma}_{c}-1)(0.5X)^{-\alpha}

659:  [3-(2-0.5\alpha)X] / [X(-1+0.5\alpha)(\hat{\gamma}_{c}-1) +

660:                          3\hat{\gamma}_{c} - 2]$, %revision

661:  ${\cal C}_{\rm vc}=0.5X/ \pi^{1/2}$,

662:  ${\cal C}_{\rm pc}=(0.5X)^{\alpha}$, and 

663:  ${\cal C}_{\rm ah}=[X(-2+0.5\alpha)+3]^{-\alpha}$, and

664:  $v_{0}\equiv r_{\rm h}(t_{\rm age})/t_{\rm age}$

665:  corresponds to

666:  the head speed assumed to be constant in time. 

667:  The difference in 

668:  ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ obtained here from that in KK05

669:  is due to 

670:  the correction made in Eq. (\ref{energy}).

671: %

672:  We assume 

673:  the conditions of $0.5X>0$ and $X(-2+0.5\alpha)+3>0$, 

674:  which ensure that the contribution at  $t_{\rm min}$ 

675:  to the  integrations of  $r_{\rm h}$ and  $r_{\rm c}$

676:  is small enough.

677:  The cases that we focus on in \S 3 

678:  clearly satisfy these conditions.

679: %

680: 

681: 

682: \subsection{Determination of $X$}

683: 

684: 

685: 

686:  As mentioned in \S\ref{beq},

687:  an additional condition that  

688:  determines the free parameter $X$ is required

689:  for the system of equations to be closed.

690:  In the pioneering study of BC89,  $A_{\rm h}(t) = {\rm const}$

691:  was assumed.

692:  However, as can be  confirmed from  numerical simulations

693:  \citep[e.g.,][]{CB92,  SA02},

694:  it is obvious that this condition is

695:  unlikely to hold for long-term evolutions

696:  from pc to Mpc scales.

697:  In this paper, we consider the following two conditions, which seem more

698:  reasonable and equally possible,

699:  in determining $X$:

700: 

701: 

702: \begin{itemize}

703: \item  {\bf Constant aspect ratio} (Case I)

704: \newline 

705: % In this case, we impose

706: % that

707:  The aspect ratio of

708:  cocoon, ${\cal R} = r_{\rm c}/r_{\rm h}$, is

709:  assumed to be constant  in time.

710:  This corresponds to the 

711:  widely-discussed 

712:   self-similar evolution \citep{B96, KF97, KA97, BDO97}.

713: % in which imposes the aspect ratio of

714: % the cocoon (${\cal R} = r_{\rm c}/r_{\rm h}$) is constant  in time.

715:   Since the time dependence of ${\cal R}$ 

716:   is given by

717:   ${\cal R}(t) \propto t^{[X(2.5-0.5\alpha)-3]}$, we obtain 

718:   $X=6/(5-\alpha)$ in this case.

719: 

720: %

721: % It is worth noting that this condition leads

722: % to the solution with

723: % the constant ratio between

724: % the pressure 

725: % of the cocoon $P_{\rm c}$

726: % and  the mean pressure at the  cocoon head % averaged over

727: % $A_{\rm h}$

728: % $P_{\rm h}= L_{\rm j}/v_{\rm j}A_{\rm h}$ 

729: % in time.

730: % From Eqs. (\ref{jet-axis}) and (\ref{lateral})

731: % the ratio is expressed in terms of ${\cal R}$ as

732: % $P_{\rm c} / P_{\rm h}  = {\cal R}^{2-\alpha}$.

733: %

734: 

735: \item  {\bf Constant opening angle} (Case II)

736: \newline

737: % As an another candidate, we consider the case of constant

738:  The  opening angle,

739:  $\theta = {\rm tan}^{-1}( A_{\rm h}^{1/2}/ \pi^{1/2}r_{\rm h})$

740:  (see Fig. \ref{cocoon}), 

741:  is assumed to be constant in time.

742:  Although there has been no previous work that has employed

743:  this condition, it seems to be reasonable

744:  when the jet is precessing with a constant pitch angle.

745: % the condition is expected to take place

746: % when the evolution of $A_{\rm h}$ is solely controlled by

747: % the jittering of jet \citep{S82} with a constant opening angle.

748:  Since the time dependence of  ${\rm tan}\theta$

749:   is given by

750:   ${\rm tan}\theta(t) \propto t^{[0.25X(\alpha -4)^{2}+1.5\alpha-5]}$,

751:   $X= (20-6\alpha)/(4-\alpha)^2$ is obtained for this case.

752: 

753: 

754: \end{itemize}

755: %

756: 

757: %  It should be emphasized here that the two 

758: %  conditions lead to similar values of $X$ when

759: %  $\alpha$ in Table \ref{tab1} is adopted.  

760:   It should be emphasized here that these two independent conditions

761:  lead to the solutions that describe quite similar dynamical

762:  evolutions as long as the range of $\alpha$ listed in Table \ref{tab1} 

763:  is adopted ($1\leq \alpha \leq 2$).

764:  This can be seen as follows. If the constant opening

765:   angle is imposed (Case II), the evolution of the aspect 

766:  ratio is obtained as ${\cal R}(t)\propto t^{(2-\alpha)/(4-\alpha)^2}$.

767:  It is easy to confirm its very weak time dependence, since

768:  the power-law index is limited to the range 

769:  $0\leq (2-\alpha)/(4-\alpha)^2 \leq 1/9$.

770: %  values of $X$ derived from the two 

771: %  conditions shows only slight difference when

772: %  $\alpha$ in Table \ref{tab1} is adopted.

773:  Just in the same way, if the constant aspect ratio is adopted (Case

774:  I), we find again a very weak time dependence of the opening angle, 

775:  ${\rm tan}\theta(t) \propto t^{(\alpha - 2)/[2(5-\alpha)]}$,

776:  with the power-law index being $-1/8\leq (\alpha - 2)/[2(5-\alpha)] \leq

777:  0$.

778: 

779:  As a consequence of this small difference between

780:  the two solutions, the corresponding values of $X$

781:  also show only a slight difference.

782:  For example, when a typical value $\alpha = 1.5$

783:  is taken, we obtain $X=12/7\sim1.71$ and $X= 1.76$ for Case I  

784:   and Case II, respectively. %revision

785: %  As a result, the obtained solutions also show only a 

786: %  slight change.

787: %

788: % With this,

789: % the geometry of cocoon scale with time

790: % as 

791: % $r_{\rm h}\propto t^{6/7}\sim t^{0.86}$, ${\cal R}\propto t^0$,

792: % and $A_{\rm h}/r_{\rm h}^2\propto t^{-1/7} \sim t^{0.14}$ 

793: % for Case I, and as

794: % $r_{\rm h}\propto t^{0.8}$, ${\cal R}\propto t^{0.08}$,

795: % and $A_{\rm h}/r_{\rm h}^2\propto t^{0}$ for assumption (II).

796: % Reflecting

797: % the slight change in the solutions,

798:  Hence, % As a result,

799:  the estimated $L_{\rm j}$ and

800:  $t_{\rm age}$ based on

801:  these two sets of solutions also do not vary much, either.

802: %

803:  Indeed, for the given values of $r_{\rm h}$,

804:  $A_{\rm h}$, and ${\cal R}$,

805:  the derived $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$

806:  only differ by a factor of $\sim 1.7$ and $\sim 0.83$, respectively,

807:  between the two cases for $\alpha = 1.5$.

808:  It is worth noting that

809:  for $\alpha = 2$, which corresponds to the

810:  to 3C 219 (Table \ref{tab1}),

811:  the two conditions give the same value of $X=2$ and, as a result,

812:  the solutions are identical.    

813: % Although we examined two cases which

814: % seem reasonable, 

815: % only a minor changes

816: % are found 

817: % between the two solutions.

818:  Since 

819:  only a slight change is found between the two cases,

820: % it is not clear  which

821: % case approximates the

822: % evolution of cocoon more accurately,

823:  we focus on the widely-discussed self-similar

824:  solution (Case I) in the following.

825: 

826: 

827: % as a fiducial case in the present study.

828: %

829: % It is emphasized that 

830: % Throughout this paper, we assume  $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm c} = 4/3$

831: % since  cocoon is expected to be dominated by relativistic particles

832: % \citep{KKI07}.

833: 

834: 

835: 

836: 

837: 

838: 

839: 

840: 

841: 

842: 

843: % {\cal R}= .. Next should be the detail for

844: 

845: % Observation of radio sources do

846: 

847: 

848: 

849: \subsection{Improvements from KK05}

850: \label{improve}

851: 

852: 

853: %As mentioned in the \S \ref{beq},

854: In the present study,

855: we have improved the energy equation given in KK05

856: for more accurate quantitative estimations of 

857: $L_{\rm j}$  and $t_{\rm age}$.

858: As mentioned in \S \ref{beq},

859: the resultant change 

860: in the derived $L_{\rm j}$

861: turns out to be rather large.

862: Here we explain the reasons for this discrepancy

863: more in detail.

864: %

865: 

866: 

867: As mentioned in \S \ref{beq}, we have (i) modified $dV_{\rm c}/dt$ and

868: (ii) included the $PdV$ term in Eq. (\ref{energy}).

869: % Note that

870:  As for (i), the main flaw in KK05 

871:  is the fact that they did not take into account the 

872:   sideways expansion in the growth of $V_{\rm c}$. In fact, they

873:  employed the equation, $dV_{\rm c}/dt = 2 \pi r_{\rm c}^2 v_{\rm h}$, 

874:  whereas a more accurate expression is 

875:  $dV_{\rm c}/dt =

876:  (4/3)[\pi r_{\rm c}^2 v_{\rm h} + 2\pi r_{\rm c} r_{\rm h} v_{\rm c}]$,

877:  which is adopted in the present study.

878: %

879:  As for (ii),

880:  it was assumed that all injected energy

881:  is converted to internal energy 

882:  (namely, $E_{\rm c} = 2L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$) 

883:  in KK05.

884:  it is obvious, however, that a part of the injected energy is

885:  consumed for expansions and the $PdV$ work should be included,

886:  particularly for quantitative estimations.

887: %

888:  As found in \S \ref{Ana},

889:  these corrections are reflected only in the numerical factor 

890:  ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ in Eq.~(\ref{v_h}).

891: % Owning to the above two modifications,

892:  The value of ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ is reduced by a factor of $\sim 3.5$

893:  owing to (i) and another factor of $\sim 2$ due to (ii) and, hence, by

894:  a factor of $\sim 7$ as a whole.

895: % Hence, the deviation in the obtained value of $L_{\rm j}$

896: % reflects the change in  ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$.

897:  For a given geometry of cocoon

898:  ($r_{\rm h}$, $A_{\rm h}$, and ${\cal R}$) and

899:  ambient density profile ($\rho_{\rm a}$ and $\alpha$),

900:  the derived power and age scale with 

901:  the numerical factor as $L_{\rm j} \propto {\cal C}_{\rm vh}^2$

902:  and $t_{\rm age} \propto {\cal C}_{\rm vh}^{-1}$, respectively.

903:  As a result, KK05 overestimated $L_{\rm j}$ by a factor of $\sim 50$.

904:  On the other hand, $t_{\rm age}$ was underestimated by a factor of 

905:  $\sim 0.14$, which led to the overestimation of $E_{\rm c}$ 

906:  by a factor of $\sim 14$, since the latter  is obtained as

907:  $E_{\rm c}=2L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$ in KK05.  

908:  It is also worthy to note that in the present study the following

909:  relation holds: $E_{\rm c}\simeq L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$. 

910:  The difference of the factor $\sim 2$ arises from

911:  the fact that about a half of the injected energy is used for the 

912:  $PdV$ work.

913: %revision

914: 

915: 

916: 

917: 

918: \section{EXTRACTION OF THE KEY QUANTITIES FROM THE OBSERVATIONS}

919: \label{extraction}

920: 

921: In determining $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$, we

922: essentially follow the same procedure taken in KK05. 

923: In this section, we explain in detail

924:  how to extract the key quantities utilized in the model from 

925: the observations. 

926: %%

927: 

928: 

929: \subsection{ICM quantities}

930: 

931: 

932: As for the mass-density profiles ($\rho_{\rm a}$) and

933: pressures ($P_{\rm a}$) of ICM, 

934: we adopt the values given in the literature

935: (\citet{RF96, SW02} for Cygnus A,

936: \citet{CB04} for 3C 223 and 3C 284,

937: and \citet{HW99}  for 3C 219). 

938:  In these papers,  the X-ray surface brightness

939:  distribution of  ICM  

940:   was fitted 

941: by the isothermal  $\beta$-model, 

942: which takes the form of

943:  $\rho(r) = \rho_{\rm core} [1 + (r/r_{\rm core})^{2}]^{-3\beta/2}$

944:  \citep{CF78},

945: where $\rho_{\rm core}$ and $r_{\rm core}$ are the core radius and 

946:  density of the ICM, respectively.

947: %%%%

948:  Since we employ the density profile of

949:  $\rho_{\rm a}(r) = {\bar \rho_{\rm a}} (r/r_{\rm h})^{-\alpha}$

950:  in our model,

951:  a power-law approximation

952:  of the $\beta$-model  is necessary.

953:  In the present study, we determine

954:   ${\bar \rho}_{\rm a}=\rho_{\rm a}(r_{\rm h})$ and

955:   $\alpha$ from the $\beta$-model as follows.

956:  The determination of ${\bar \rho}_{\rm a}$ is 

957:  done simply by equating it with the density in the $\beta$-model at

958:  the corresponding

959:  radius $r_{\rm h}$,

960:  namely

961:  ${\bar \rho_{\rm a}} = \rho_{\rm core}

962:  [1 + (r_{\rm h} / r_{\rm core})^{2}]^{-3\beta/2}$.  

963:  In the case of $r_{\rm h}\gg r_{\rm core}$, 

964:  it is clear that $\alpha$ can be approximated by $3\beta$.

965:  Only Cygnus A satisfies this condition, though.

966:  For the rest of the sources, 

967:  $r_{\rm h}$ is comparable to $r_{\rm core}$:

968:  $r_{\rm core}$  $\sim$ 340 kpc,  210 kpc, and 90 kpc

969:  for 3C 223, 3C 284, and 3C 219,

970:  respectively.

971:  It is obvious that the above approximation of $\alpha \approx 3\beta$

972:  would cause an overestimation of density gradient for these cases.

973:  Instead  $\alpha$ should

974: be taken to be a typical value in the ICM region 

975: swept by the expanding  cocoon.

976: %

977:  Here we determine $\alpha$ by requiring

978:  that $\rho_{\rm a}(r)$ should coincide with the

979:  density in the  $\beta$-model at  $r = 0.5 r_{\rm h}$

980:  in addition to $r = r_{\rm h}$. 

981: Although there is no compelling reason for

982: the choice of $r = 0.5 r_{\rm h}$,

983:  the estimations of

984:  $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$

985:  are affected little by this uncertainty (\S\ref{result1}).

986: %    

987:  Once  $\rho_{\rm a}$ is given,

988: $P_{\rm a}$ is  obtained by the 

989: equation of state, which is written as

990: $P_a(r) = \frac{k_B T_{\rm a}}{\mu m_{\rm H}} \rho_a(r)$,

991:  where $T_{\rm a}$ and $\mu=0.6$ are

992:  the temperature  and

993:  mean molecular weight of ICM, respectively, and 

994:  $m_{\rm H}$ is the mass of hydrogen.           

995:  We adopt the temperature used in the $\beta$-model, ignoring 

996: the radial dependence of $T_{\rm a}$ as usual.

997: In  Table \ref{tab1}, we list the  values of

998: $\rho_{\rm a}$ and

999: $P_{\rm a}$ at $r=r_{\rm h}$ and

1000: $\alpha$ for each source.

1001: %%

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: 

1006: 

1007: 

1008: 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: 

1012:   

1013: 

1014: \subsection{$r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$}

1015: 

1016: In Fig. \ref{radio}, we show the 

1017: VLA images of 

1018: Cygnus A \citep{PDC84},

1019: 3C 223 \citep{LP91}, 

1020: 3C 284 \citep{LPR86}, and 

1021: 3C 219 \citep{CBBP92} in logarithmic scale. 

1022:  Contours in linear scale are also displayed  to

1023:  determine the position of hot spot accurately.

1024:  The overlaid straight lines that cross  each 

1025:  other at right angle on the hot spot are the lines we use to measure 

1026: $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$. 

1027: %%%%%%%%

1028: For simplicity, we neglect the projection effect of $r_{\rm h}$,

1029: which would be at most

1030:  a factor of a few 

1031: if we believe the unified model of AGN \citep{UP95}.

1032: %

1033: %

1034:  $A_{\rm h}$ is measured as a cross-sectional

1035:  area of the radio lobe at the position of the hot spot.

1036:  $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$ for  each source

1037:  are summarized in Table \ref{tab1}. 

1038: 

1039: 

1040: %

1041:  It should be noted that 

1042:  the plasma just around the hot spot is very fresh in the sense that

1043:  a significant synchrotron cooling is absent. 

1044: % cooling is not significant for the electrons just around

1045: % the hot spot which are emitting photons at the GHz band.

1046:  Hence,  the effect of radiative cooling does 

1047:  not introduce large ambiguity in the estimation of $A_{\rm h}$.

1048:  The adiabatic cooling, on the other hand, is not expected to

1049:  cause any problem in the estimation for the following reason.

1050:  Since the sound crossing time in the head region of

1051:  the cocoon, $\sim A_{\rm h}^{1/2} / c_{\rm s}$, where  

1052:  $c_{\rm s}=c/\sqrt{3}$ is the sound speed, is much

1053:  shorter than the age of the cocoon, we can regard the

1054:  head region to be uniform to the lowest order.

1055: %

1056:  Hence, the adiabatic cooling, if any,

1057:  would decrease the surface brightness gradually as the distance from 

1058:  the hot spot increases.

1059:   Contrary to this, the observed radio images

1060:    show a sharp decline of the 

1061:    surface brightness at the outer edge, which is most naturally interpreted 

1062:    as the existence of the periphery of cocoon head there.

1063: % 

1064: % the plasma just around the hot spot is very fresh in sense that

1065: % it directly traces the detailed shape of 

1066: % it flows through the head region of

1067: % cocoon  without  

1068: % significant synchrotron cooling. 

1069: % We also expect that effect of adiabatic cooling

1070: % does not cause large portion of 

1071: % cocoon head to be unobservable.

1072: % In fact, when the radio image of Cygnus A is superposed

1073: % with its X-ray image, it is seen that the head region of the 

1074: % radio lobe coincide with the cavity of ICM \citep{WSY06} 

1075: % which corresponds to the cocoon.

1076: % Furthermore, if we compare 

1077: % the radio image in GHz band and 333 MHz band (e.g., Carilli 1996),

1078: % no significant difference is found in the size of the head region.

1079: % Therefore, we can safely determine $A_{\rm h}$ this way from

1080: % Fig. \ref{radio} with little ambiguity 

1081: % since the observed radio image in the head region 

1082: % directly traces the cocoon head.

1083: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1084: 

1085: 

1086: 

1087: 

1088: 

1089: 

1090: 

1091: 

1092: 

1093: 

1094: 

1095: 

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: 

1100: 

1101: Next we address the issue in determining $A_{\rm h}$ 

1102: that arises from multiple hot spots.

1103: Double hot spots are actually

1104: observed in the radio lobes of Cygnus A

1105:  (see, e.g., Carilli \& Barthel 1996).

1106: %%

1107: In determining $A_{\rm h}$,  

1108: we adopt the ``disconnected-jet'' model by \citet{CG91}

1109: to Cygnus A.

1110: %%

1111:  The double hot spots are referred to 

1112: as primary and secondary as follows.  

1113: The primary hot spot 

1114: is  more compact and

1115: located in the inner part of the lobe,

1116: whereas  the secondary spot is 

1117: more diffuse and brighter and located  in the outer part

1118: of the lobe. 

1119: According to the disconnected-jet model,

1120: double hot spots are produced by the sudden change of the

1121: jet-orientation,

1122: or the disconnection, 

1123: which leads to the termination of energy supply to the original shock and

1124: the generation of a new jet.

1125: While the primary hot spot is produced by 

1126: the  terminal shock in the new jet, 

1127: the secondary hot spot remains as a relic in the original jet.

1128: The schematic picture of the model is illustrated in Fig. \ref{double}.

1129: Since the primary hot spot is predicted to be

1130: much younger than  

1131: the source age,

1132:  we employ  the position

1133: of the secondary hot spot to determine $A_{\rm h}$.

1134: We will discuss this point more in detail in the following.

1135: 

1136:  

1137: 

1138: 

1139: 

1140: 

1141:  The age of Cygnus A is roughly estimated to be 

1142:  $t_{\rm age}

1143:  \approx r_{\rm h}/\beta_{\rm hs}c

1144:  \approx 2.0\times 10^{7}(\beta_{\rm hs}/10^{-2})^{-1}$ yr,

1145:  where $\beta_{\rm hs}c$ is the advance velocity of the hot spot. 

1146:  On the other hand, 

1147:  since the primary hot spot is observed  simultaneously 

1148:  with the secondary hot spot,

1149:  its age should be younger than the duration,  $t_{\rm dur}$,

1150:  in which the secondary spot is bright.

1151:  $t_{\rm dur}$

1152: is expressed as a sum of the

1153: time up to the shut-off of the energy

1154:  supply from the disconnected-jet to the spot, $t_{\rm dis}$,

1155: and the cooling time, $t_{\rm cool}$:

1156: %

1157:  \begin{eqnarray} t_{\rm dur} = t_{\rm dis} + t_{\rm cool} \approx

1158:  {\rm max}(t_{\rm dis}, t_{\rm cool}) . \label{duration} 

1159: \end{eqnarray}

1160: The cooling time  is evaluated as

1161:  $t_{\rm cool} = {\rm min}(t_{\rm syn}, t_{\rm ad})$,

1162:  where  $t_{\rm syn}$ and $t_{\rm ad}$ are

1163:  the synchrotron cooling timescale and the adiabatic expansion

1164:  timescale, respectively.

1165: A typical value of  $t_{\rm syn}$ at the hot spot is 

1166: estimated as  $t_{\rm syn} \approx 1.0 \times 10^6 

1167:                  ({B}/{10^{-4}{\rm G}})^{-3/2} 

1168:                  ( {\nu}/{1~{\rm GHz}})^{-1/3}

1169:                   ~{\rm yr}$,

1170:  whilst $t_{\rm ad}$ is given by

1171:  $t_{\rm ad} \approx r_{\rm hs} / c_{\rm s}

1172:  = 5.6\times10^{3}(r_{\rm hs}/1{\rm kpc})~{\rm yr}$, 

1173:  where $r_{\rm hs}$

1174:  % and $c_{\rm s}=c/\sqrt{3}$ are

1175:  is the size of the hot spot.

1176: % and the sound speed, respectively.

1177:  These estimates lead to $t_{\rm cool} = t_{\rm ad}$  

1178: for the secondary hot spot.

1179:  On the other hand,  

1180: $t_{\rm dis}$ is given by

1181:  $t_{\rm dis}=r_{\rm dis} / v_{\rm j}$,    

1182:  where

1183:  $r_{\rm dis}$ is the distance from the tail to the hot spot in the

1184:  disconnected jet. 

1185:   Although we do not know  $r_{\rm dis}$ from observations,

1186:   we can at least put  the upper limit as 

1187:   $r_{\rm h}>r_{\rm dis}$.

1188: We then obtain $t_{\rm dis} < 2.0 \times 10^{5}

1189:   (r_{\rm h}/60~{\rm kpc})(v_{\rm j}/c)^{-1}$ yr.

1190:  Hence, from Eq. (\ref{duration}), we see that  $t_{\rm dur}$ is in the range

1191:  $\sim 5\times 10^3 \-- 2\times10^5$ yr.

1192:  From  these estimates, it is obtained that 

1193:  the age of the primary hot spot 

1194:  only makes up a small fraction of its whole lifetime. 

1195:  Therefore,  we adopt the

1196:  secondary spot for the determination of $A_{\rm h}$, which 

1197: reflects the whole evolution  of the cocoon (Fig. \ref{radio}). 

1198: 

1199: 

1200: \begin{figure}[ht]

1201: \begin{center} 

1202: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{f2.eps}

1203: \caption

1204: {A cartoon around the  double hot spots in the ``disconnected-jet'' model. 

1205: As a result of altering orientation, jet becomes disconnected

1206: and forms the primary and the secondary hot spot which are

1207:  the location of the present and the previous terminal shock, respectively.}

1208: \label{double}

1209: \end{center}

1210: \end{figure}

1211: 

1212: 

1213: 

1214: \subsection{$\cal{R}$}

1215: \label{calR}

1216: 

1217: 

1218:  In contrast to $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$,

1219:  it is difficult to measure the aspect ratio of cocoon, $\cal{R}$, 

1220: from the VLA radio images,

1221: since the  cocoon emission  from 

1222: the region far away from the hot spot

1223:  is very dim at GHz  frequency 

1224: because of the synchrotron cooling (see Fig. \ref{radio}).

1225: %

1226: It is well known that  this cooling effect can be used to infer the age 

1227: of radio galaxy

1228:  (the spectral ageing method, e.g., Carilli et al. 1991).

1229: %%

1230: As one utilizes lower frequencies, however, the cocoon 

1231: image is expected to be thicker,

1232: since lower-energy electrons

1233: have longer synchrotron cooling times

1234: (e.g., Carilli and Barthel 1996). 

1235: In fact, a few authors have reported 

1236: the existence of  prolate cocoons,

1237: based on the observations 

1238:  at a relatively low radio frequency (610 MHz) band 

1239: (e.g., Readhead et al. 1996).

1240: It is mentioned, however, that little attention has been paid to

1241: observational features concerning the structure of cocoons so far.

1242: 

1243: %%%%

1244: 

1245: On the other hand, theoretical

1246: studies of jet propagation and cocoon formation with multi-dimensional

1247: hydrodynamic simulations clearly support the existence of  cocoon for

1248: reasonably light beams going through surrounding ICM

1249: \citep{SA02, AG00, GM97, KF97, MHD97}. 

1250: %%%

1251: The intensity maps of the synchrotron emissivities obtained

1252: in these hydrodynamical simulations  

1253: well reproduce the

1254: double lobe structures as observed (e.g., Fig. 10 in Scheck et al. 2002).

1255: %

1256: It seems natural, therefore, to suppose that 

1257: cocoons are commonly produced, although there is 

1258: a room for further observational investigations.

1259: %%

1260: In the present study, we explore a  wide range of $0.5<{\cal R}<1$

1261: in order to take account of the large ambiguity on the shape of cocoon.

1262: %

1263:  It is worthwhile to note in this respect that the 

1264:  existence of cocoon can be confirmed for Cygnus A in the Chandra image

1265:  \citep{WY00, WSY06} and that the obtained aspect ratio $\sim 0.5 - 0.7$ 

1266:  lies in the range explored in this paper.

1267: %revision

1268: 

1269: 

1270: 

1271: 

1272: 

1273: 

1274: 

1275: 

1276: 

1277: 

1278: \section{RESULTS}

1279: 

1280: \subsection{Total kinetic power and dynamical age}

1281: \label{result1}

1282: 

1283: 

1284: The resultant $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$ 

1285: are displayed in Figs. \ref{CygApower}, \ref{3C223power},

1286: \ref{3C284power}, and \ref{3C219power}.

1287:  Since

1288:  most of the

1289:  radio sources show asymmetries in  the pair 

1290:  of  lobes,

1291:  we analyze each  lobe independently. 

1292: %%

1293:  Three oblique lines  in these figures are 

1294:  the obtained $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$ 

1295: for different $\alpha$'s, and their ranges reflect

1296:  the uncertainty in $\cal{R}$. 

1297: The thick solid line shows the result for 

1298: the parameter set  listed in Table \ref{tab1}.

1299:  The other two lines correspond to the results obtained 

1300:  by varying $\alpha$ by $\pm$0.5.

1301: %

1302:  From the figures, it is confirmed that the results are

1303:  rather insensitive to the value $\alpha$. 

1304: %

1305:  In each line, the power and age depend on the aspect ratio $\cal{R}$ as 

1306:  $L_{\rm j} \propto \cal{R}$$^{ 2 \alpha - 8}$  and

1307:  $t_{\rm age} \propto \cal{R}$$^{ 4 - \alpha}$, 

1308:  and, therefore,  satisfy 

1309:  $L_{\rm j} \propto t_{\rm age}^{ -2 }$.

1310: %

1311:  Since $\alpha$  does not exceed $4$ in any of the four sources,

1312:  a lower aspect ratio corresponds to

1313:  a higher power with a lower age.

1314: %%%%

1315: %%%%% 

1316: It should be noted that the  

1317:  uncertainty in the absolute values of $\rho_{\rm a}$ and $P_{\rm a}$ 

1318:  is not crucial,

1319:  since

1320: $P_{\rm a}$ is used only to judge 

1321:  whether the over-pressure condition is 

1322: satisfied or not,

1323:  and the dependence of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$ on

1324:  $\rho_{\rm a}$ is rather weak,

1325:  $L_{\rm j} \propto \rho_{\rm a}$ and 

1326:  $t_{\rm age} \propto \rho_{\rm a}^0$. 

1327:  The line outside the shaded region must be discarded,

1328:  since the over-pressure condition is violated. 

1329:  The Eddington luminosity, $L_{\rm Edd}$, of each source 

1330:  is also shown in these figures for comparison.

1331: In Table \ref{tab3}, we summarize 

1332: the allowed values of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$

1333:  and  other relevant physical parameters of  cocoon

1334:  obtained for the parameter set listed in Table \ref{tab1}.

1335: %

1336: %

1337: 

1338: 

1339: 

1340: 

1341: 

1342: 

1343: 

1344:  Cygnus A is one of the vastly studied nearby

1345:  FR II radio galaxies.

1346:  \citet{TMA03} estimated the SMBH mass of Cygnus A as

1347:  $2.5\times 10^9  M_{\odot}$, based on the gas kinematics in the narrow-line

1348:  region.

1349:  Its linear size is measured as $r_{\rm h} = 70$ kpc for the western jet

1350:  and  $r_{\rm h} = 60$ kpc for the eastern jet.

1351:  From the employed values of $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$,

1352:  the power and age are obtained as

1353:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.35 \-- 1.1)\times 10^{46}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}}$ and

1354:  $t_{\rm age} = 30 - 53~{\rm Myr}$ for the western jet 

1355:  and 

1356:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.4 - 2.6)\times 10^{46}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}}$ and

1357:  $t_{\rm age} = 19 - 47~{\rm Myr}$ for the eastern jet.

1358:  No significant difference is seen between the two jets, and

1359:  we interpret that the actual age lies in these ranges.

1360: Note that

1361:   $L_{\rm j}$  is  decreased and $t_{\rm age}$ is 

1362:  increased from those in KK05 by the improvement of $V_{\rm c}$

1363:  and the inclusion of $PdV$ work.

1364:  In fact,  while $L_{\rm j} = 1.3\times 10^{48}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$ and

1365:  $t_{\rm age} = 2.6~{\rm Myr}$ were obtained in KK05, we find

1366:  $L_{\rm j} = 2.6\times 10^{46}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$ and

1367:  $t_{\rm age} = 19~{\rm Myr}$  %revision

1368:  in this paper when the identical values of

1369:  $r_{\rm h} = 60$ kpc, $A_{\rm h} = 150~{\rm kpc}^{2}$,

1370:  and $\cal{R} = $ 0.5 are employed.

1371: 

1372: 

1373: 

1374: 

1375: 

1376:  3C 223 has  radio lobes that  extend up to

1377:  $r_{\rm h} = 340$ kpc in both sides.   

1378:  Its SMBH mass is estimated as $1.4 \times 10^{8}M_{\odot}$

1379:  by \citet{WU02}, based on the observed stellar velocity

1380:  dispersions.

1381:  As can be seen in Fig. \ref{radio},

1382:  3C 223 has asymmetry in $A_{\rm h}$.

1383:  While a well developed cocoon head is seen 

1384:  at the northern hot spot ($A_{\rm h} = 4300~{\rm kpc}^2$), 

1385:  the cocoon head 

1386:  at the southern hot spot 

1387:  is quite compact  ($A_{\rm h} = 1800~{\rm kpc}^2$).

1388:  Reflecting this asymmetry,

1389:  the obtained power and age

1390:  show quite large difference:

1391:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.15 - 2.9)\times 10^{46}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$

1392:  and $t_{\rm age} = 140 - 610$ Myr for the northern jet, 

1393:  and  $L_{\rm j} = (0.71 - 2.0)\times 10^{45}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$

1394:  and $t_{\rm age} = 330 - 560$ Myr for the southern jet.

1395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1396: 

1397: 

1398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1399:  3C 284  shows  

1400:  asymmetry both in $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$.

1401:  While $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$

1402:  in the western lobe are estimated as $ 380$ kpc and

1403:  $ 6200$ kpc$^2$, respectively, 

1404:  the corresponding values for the eastern lobe are $ 260$ kpc

1405:  and  $4600$ kpc$^2$.

1406:  The obtained power and age

1407:  are

1408:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.1 - 3.6)\times 10^{46}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$ and

1409:  $t_{\rm age} = 100 - 630$ Myr for the western jet and 

1410:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.03 - 1.8)\times 10^{47}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$ and  

1411:  $t_{\rm age} = 32 - 260$ Myr for the eastern jet.

1412: %%%%%%

1413:   Since there is no  estimate of the

1414:  SMBH mass of 3C 284 in the literature, 

1415:  we derive the mass from the 

1416:  B-band magnitude of the buldge estimated in

1417:  \citet{SRH05}. By using the equation in \citet{MCF04}

1418:  which gives the correlation of the B-band magnitude with the BH mass,

1419:  we obtain $M_{\rm BH} = 8.2\times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$.

1420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1421: 

1422: 

1423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1424:  In the case of 3C 219,

1425:  we only analyze the jet on the western side,

1426:  since the eastern lobe shows severe deformation (see

1427:  Fig. \ref{radio}).

1428:   We could not determine $A_{\rm h}$ on the eastern

1429:  side from its morphology.

1430: % In the same way as in 3C 223,

1431:  The central SMBH mass for 3C 219 is estimated by 

1432:  \citet{MCF04} 

1433:  as $6.3\times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}$.

1434:  $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$ of the western lobe are

1435:  measured as $ 210$ kpc and $ 5000$ kpc$^2$.

1436:  From these values, the  kinetic power and  age

1437:  are obtained as 

1438:  $L_{\rm j} = (0.26 - 4.3)\times 10^{47}~{\rm ergs~s}^{-1}$ and

1439:  $t_{\rm age} = 37 - 150$ Myr, respectively.

1440:  

1441: 

1442: 

1443: 

1444: 

1445: 

1446: Large asymmetry between the pair of lobes is observed   

1447: especially in 3C 223 and 3C 284, and 3C 219.

1448: Since it seems natural to suppose that

1449:  the jet properties  are intrinsically

1450: symmetric and the power and age are identical on

1451: both sides, 

1452: we expect that  the asymmetry in the pair of lobes is 

1453: due to the asymmetry and/or inhomogeneity in the ICM density profiles. 

1454: Although this is an interesting subject, a further pursuit is beyond the 

1455: scope of the present study.

1456: Here we assume that the actual values of $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$

1457: are lying 

1458: in the ranges obtained from both lobes.

1459: 

1460: 

1461: 

1462: 

1463: 

1464: 

1465: 

1466: In Table \ref{tab3} (column 4), the total kinetic powers of  jet

1467:  normalized by the corresponding Eddington luminosity, 

1468:  $2 L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$, are

1469: displayed. 

1470: It can be seen that $2 L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$ takes 

1471: quite high values ranging from $\sim 0.02$ to $\sim 10$. 

1472: %

1473: In exploring the physical relations between 

1474: the accretion power and the outflow, 

1475: the total kinetic power of jet normalized by the

1476: Eddington luminosity, $2 L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$,

1477: is one of the most fundamental parameters. 

1478: We will return to this issue in \S5.1.

1479: 

1480: 

1481: %

1482: 

1483: \subsection{Total internal energy vs. minimum energy}

1484: \label{resultmin}

1485: 

1486: 

1487: It is intriguing to compare 

1488: the  internal energy, $E_{\rm c}$, 

1489:  deposited in the cocoon with the widely discussed 

1490:  energy, 

1491: $E_{\rm min}$, obtained from the minimum energy condition

1492: \citep[e.g.,][]{M80}.

1493: %

1494:  $E_{\rm c}$ is linearly proportional to the total 

1495:  energy injected in the cocoon ($2L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$)

1496:  and is approximately given as $E_{\rm c} \simeq L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$.

1497: % Note that about  half of the energy is used as $PdV$ work.

1498:  The dependence on the aspect ratio is given by

1499:  $E_{\rm c}\propto L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}\propto L_{\rm j}^{1/2}

1500:  \propto {\cal R}^{\alpha - 4}$

1501: %, and,

1502: % therefore, also satisfies $E_{\rm c} \propto L_{\rm j}^{1/2}$

1503:  (\S \ref{result1}).

1504:  Hence, a smaller  aspect ratio

1505:  (or, equivalently, a larger power) corresponds to

1506:  a larger internal energy.

1507: %revision

1508:  $E_{\rm min}$ is the minimum value of the

1509:  total energy (the sum of the energies in radiating non-thermal electrons

1510:  and magnetic fields) required for a

1511:  given synchrotron luminosity and is evaluated as

1512: %

1513: \begin{eqnarray}

1514:  E_{\rm min}

1515:  = 

1516: \frac{7}{24 \pi} V_{\rm R}^{3/7} 

1517:   \Bigl[12\pi^{1/2}  f(\alpha_{\rm R}) (\nu_{\rm min}^{0.5 - \alpha_{\rm R}} 

1518:      -  \nu_{\rm max}^{0.5 - \alpha_{\rm R}}) \nu^{\alpha_{\rm R}}

1519:               L_{\nu} \Bigr]^{4/7}~~{\rm ergs},    

1520: \label{minimum}

1521: \end{eqnarray}

1522: %

1523:  where $V_{\rm R}$ is the volume of the emitting region,

1524:  $\alpha_{\rm R}$ is the spectral index of the synchrotron emission,  

1525:  and 

1526: $L_{\nu}$ 

1527: is the synchrotron luminosity  measured at frequency $\nu$,

1528:  and  $\nu_{\rm min}$ and $\nu_{\rm max}$ are the lower  and

1529:  higher cut-offs in the synchrotron emission, 

1530:  respectively.

1531:  $f(\alpha_{\rm R})$ is a function of spectral index

1532:  $\alpha_{\rm R}$ which

1533:  is  given as

1534: \begin{eqnarray}

1535:  f(\alpha_{\rm R}) \simeq

1536:  \frac{3.16 \times 10^{12}(0.145)^{\alpha_{\rm R}}

1537:         (2\alpha_{\rm R} + 1) \Gamma(\frac{\alpha_{\rm R}}{2} + 1)}

1538:       {(2\alpha_{\rm R}-1)

1539:        \Gamma(\frac{\alpha_{\rm R}}{2} + \frac{11}{6})

1540:        \Gamma(\frac{\alpha_{\rm R}}{2} + \frac{1}{6})

1541:        \Gamma(\frac{\alpha_{\rm R}}{2} + \frac{3}{2})

1542:    },\nonumber

1543: \end{eqnarray}

1544:  where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function (see, e.g., Longair 1994). 

1545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1546: 

1547: The values of the spectral

1548:  index $\alpha_{\rm R}$ at the low frequency band (178--750~MHz) and

1549:  the flux density, $F_{\nu}$, at 178MHz  are taken from 

1550:  Table 1 in \citet{HAP98}.

1551:   From the employed values of $F_{\nu}$, the synchrotron luminosities are

1552:  calculated  as $L_{\nu}=4 \pi d_{\rm L}^2F_{\nu}$, where

1553:  $d_{\rm L}$ is the luminosity distance.

1554: %%%%

1555: Although 

1556:  $L_{\nu}$

1557: is the sum of the luminosity  from lobes, jets and hot spots,

1558: no significant overestimate of $L_{\nu}$ is 

1559: expected because the radio emission is

1560:  dominated by the lobe-component for

1561:  most of FRII sources

1562:  \citep{BHL94,HAP98}. 

1563: %

1564:  The employed values of $\alpha_{\rm R}$, $L_{\nu}$

1565:  and  other relevant quantities are summarized in Table \ref{tab2}.

1566: Here we neglect

1567: the second term in Eq. (\ref{minimum}) 

1568:  in deriving $E_{\rm min}$,  since

1569: $\alpha_{\rm R}>0.5$ is satisfied in all sources.

1570:  The lower cut-off frequency $\nu_{\rm min}$ is taken

1571: as $10^{4}$~Hz. We will comment on this value in the next paragraph.

1572: % We derive $E_{\rm min}$  by inserting the employed values in

1573: % Eq. (\ref{minimum}).

1574: %

1575:  As noted in \S\ref{calR},

1576:  although GHz radio images do not show 

1577:  a cocoon-shape clearly and only a pair of lobes can be seen,

1578: it is known that radio images at lower frequencies reflect the cocoon

1579:  shape more closely \citep[e.g.,][]{RTX96, CPD91}

1580:  because of the absence of efficient radiative coolings.

1581: %

1582: % As noted in \S\ref{calR}, it is expected that

1583: % the emission

1584:  Since we utilize a relatively

1585:  low frequency (178MHz) band,

1586:  the volume of the emission region can be

1587:  approximated as $V_{\rm R} \sim V_{\rm c}$.

1588:  Here we employ the median value of ${\cal R}$, 

1589:   i.e. ${\cal R}=0.75$, in evaluating $V_{\rm R}$.

1590: % It should be noted that  the  small

1591: % difference between the actual emission

1592: % volume and the employed one does not

1593: % affect our result due to the weak dependence 

1594: % of $E_{\rm min}$ on the volume ($E_{\rm min}\propto V_{\rm R}^{3/7}$).

1595:  We define the 

1596:  ratio of  $E_{\rm c}$ to  $E_{\rm min}$ 

1597: as $\eta_{\rm c}$:

1598: %

1599: \begin{eqnarray}

1600: \eta_{\rm c}

1601: \equiv \frac{E_{\rm c}}{E_{\rm min}} .

1602: % , \qquad

1603: % E_{\rm c} = \frac{P_{\rm c} V_{\rm c}}{\hat{\gamma_{\rm c}}-1} .

1604: \label{ratio}

1605: \end{eqnarray}

1606: %

1607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1608:  The obtained values of $E_{\rm min}$, 

1609:   $E_{\rm c}$, and $\eta_{\rm c}$

1610:  are summarized in Table \ref{tab3}.

1611:  We find that $E_{\rm c}$ is larger than $E_{\rm min}$ and 

1612:   $\eta_{\rm c}$ is in

1613:  the range of 

1614:  $ 4< \eta_{\rm c} <310$.

1615:  %revision

1616: This implies that there is a substantial deviation

1617:  from the minimum energy condition.

1618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1619:  We will discuss  this topic  more in detail 

1620:  in \S\ref{content}.

1621:  

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: Lastly, we comment on the reliability of $\eta_{\rm c}$. 

1628: The lower cut-off frequency,

1629:  $\nu_{\rm min}$, is one of the ingredients, which introduce 

1630: uncertainties in $\eta_{\rm c}$

1631: because it is difficult to determine by radio observations.

1632: %%%%

1633:  The value employed above is  obtained from the following relation

1634:  $\nu_{\rm min} \approx10^{4}~(B/10^{-5}~{\rm G})

1635:   (\gamma_{\rm e,min}/10)^2~{\rm Hz}$,

1636:  where

1637:  $\gamma_{\rm e,min}$ is the minimum Lorentz factor of non-thermal

1638:  electrons.

1639:  Note that the

1640:  the resultant $E_{\rm min}$ does not change significantly by

1641:  the uncertainty in $\nu_{\rm min}$  because of its weak dependence.

1642:  For example, when a typical value of  $\alpha_{\rm R} = 0.8$

1643:  is employed 

1644: $ E_{\rm min} \propto

1645:  (\nu_{\rm min} / 10^4~{\rm Hz})^{6/35}$. 

1646: It should be also mentioned that  the 

1647:  difference between the actual emission

1648:  volume and the employed one, which we 

1649:  do not expect to vary by orders,

1650:  does not

1651:  affect our result, since the dependence 

1652:  of $E_{\rm min}$ on the emission volume $V_{\rm R}$ is weak, 

1653: $E_{\rm min}\propto V_{\rm R}^{3/7}$. Hence the precise determination of

1654:  the latter is not necessary.

1655: 

1656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1657: 

1658: 

1659: 

1660: 

1661: \subsection{On the estimation of $L_{\rm j}$ and $E_{\rm c}$}

1662: \label{estimate}

1663: 

1664: %\subsection{On the limits of $L_{\rm j}$ and $E_{\rm c}$}

1665: \subsubsection{Upper limits and lower limits}

1666: 

1667: 

1668: 

1669: 

1670:  It is important to consider the validity of the over-pressure

1671:  condition  (i.e. $P_{\rm c}> P_{\rm a}$), since

1672:  the lower limits of

1673:  $L_{\rm j}$ and $E_{\rm c}$ are

1674:  determined by this condition  in most cases (see

1675:  Figs. \ref{CygApower}-\ref{3C219power}).

1676: %

1677:  In our  model, a larger $P_{\rm c}$ corresponds to a smaller 

1678: ${\cal R}$. 

1679:  Though we explore a wide range of ${\cal R}$ ($0.5 \sim 1$), 

1680: it is intuitively more likely that ${\cal R}$ 

1681:  is smaller than unity, that is, the cocoon is prolate rather

1682:  than spherical.

1683:  Hence, the 

1684:  results of our analysis suggest that the sources examined

1685:  in the present study are likely to be over-pressured indeed.

1686:   Incidentally, the prolate shape of cocoon is endorsed by the

1687:  fact that independent age estimations of Cygnus A

1688:  \citep{CPD91} and 3C 284 \citep{AL87} based on the 

1689:  spectral ageing method are more consistent with the results

1690:  for the aspect ratio of $0.5$ than for $1.0$.

1691:  (Unfortunately, the age estimations are not available for 3C 223

1692:  and 3C 219 in the literature).

1693: 

1694: 

1695:  In all cases,

1696:  the maximum values of $L_{\rm j}$

1697:  and $E_{\rm c}$ correspond to the minimum value of ${\cal R}$ 

1698:  ($L_{\rm j} \propto {\cal{R}}^{2 \alpha - 8}$).

1699:  Though  ${\cal R}=0.5$ is chosen as the lower limit

1700:  in the present study (\S\ref{calR}),

1701:  the possibility of even smaller aspect ratios cannot

1702:  be ruled out, since the radius of cocoon body

1703:  $r_{\rm c}$ cannot be constrained very well from the radio images.

1704:  It is emphasized again 

1705:  that smaller values of ${\cal R}$ predict 

1706:  larger $L_{\rm j}$ 

1707:  and  $E_{\rm c}$.

1708:  

1709: % will strengthen the conclusions 

1710: % given in \S\ref{SD} which are based on

1711: % large values of $L_{\rm j}$ and $E_{\rm c}$.

1712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1713: 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: \subsubsection{Kinetic energy in the cocoon}

1717: 

1718: We have so far neglected the kinetic energy of bulk flows in the

1719: cocoon, assuming that the internal energy is dominated over the

1720: kinetic energy. This may be justified by the fact that the cocoon is

1721: filled with shocked jet matter, which are expected to flow

1722: subsonically. It is, 

1723: however, important to estimate the possible changes in $L_{\rm j}$ and

1724: $E_{\rm c}$ that the inclusion of the kinetic energy in 

1725: Eq. (\ref{energy}) (energy equation) may make, % \citep[e.g.,][]{CB92},

1726: since our results are rather sensitive to the 

1727: changes in the energy equation (see the discussion in \S \ref{improve}).

1728: Although the lack of our knowledge on the mass deposited in the cocoon makes 

1729: it difficult to estimate the kinetic energy quantitatively, 

1730: the changes in $L_{\rm j}$ and 

1731: $E_{\rm c}$ are not significant for the conclusion of the paper 

1732: even in the case, where the kinetic energy is comparable

1733: to the internal energy, as shown shortly.

1734: 

1735: Just as in \S \ref{improve}, the modification in energy equation is 

1736: reflected in the value of the numerical factor ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ of

1737: Eq.~(\ref{v_h}).

1738: %

1739: %Note that the effect of additional energy term on

1740: %${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ is equivalent to the effect of

1741: %increase in a fraction of total energy

1742: %$2L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age}$ used in $PdV$ work

1743: %since it decreases the fraction of the energy converted

1744: %to the internal energy.

1745: %

1746: Note that ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ depends linearly on the ratio of the 

1747: total internal energy to the total injected energy, 

1748: $\epsilon \equiv E_{\rm c}/(2L_{\rm j}t_{\rm age})$, 

1749: %

1750: which is $\sim 1/2$ in the present study, since roughly a 

1751: half of the injected energy is consumed for the $PdV$ work.  

1752: The inclusion of the kinetic energy modifies 

1753: $\epsilon$ as $\epsilon \sim 1/(2+f)$, where $f$ is defined 

1754: as the ratio of the kinetic energy to the internal energy and 

1755: ${\cal C}_{\rm vh}$ is reduced from the value obtained in the

1756: present study by a factor of $\sim 2/(2+f)$.

1757: %when term of kinetic energy  is 

1758: %added in Eq. (\ref{energy}).

1759: It is hence found that even if the kinetic energy is as

1760: large as the internal energy, namely $f\sim 1$,

1761: $L_{\rm j} (\propto {\cal C}_{\rm vh}^2)$  and

1762:  $E_{\rm c} (\propto {\cal C}_{\rm vh})$ are reduced only by 

1763: factors of $\sim 4/9$ and $\sim 2/3$, respectively.

1764: The inclusion of the kinetic energy, therefore, does not change the

1765: conclusion of this paper. 

1766: %revision

1767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1768: 

1769: 

1770: 

1771: 

1772: 

1773: 

1774: 

1775: 

1776: 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: 

1780: 

1781: \section{SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS}

1782: \label{SD}

1783: 

1784: 

1785: 

1786: 

1787: 

1788: 

1789: In this paper we have investigated the 

1790: total kinetic power and age of  powerful FR II jets.

1791: We have selected four FR II radio galaxies

1792: (Cygnus A, 3C 223, 3C 284, and 3C 219),

1793: for which the surrounding ICM densities and pressures

1794: are known in the literature.

1795: Below we summarize our main results.

1796: % and give some

1797: %discussions.

1798: 

1799: 

1800: (I) {\it  Large fractions of the Eddington power 

1801: in the range of  $\gtrsim 0.02 - 0.7$ are carried away 

1802: as a kinetic power of  jet in the FR II sources.}

1803: 

1804: (II) {\it The energy deposited in the cocoon, $E_{\rm c}$,

1805:  exceeds the minimum energy, $E_{\rm min}$,

1806:  by a factor of 

1807:  $4 - 310$.} %revision

1808: 

1809: 

1810: 

1811: 

1812:  Although our results  allow a wide range of $L_{\rm j}$

1813:  and $E_{\rm c}$, interesting implications can still be obtained

1814: % even from the this loose limit.

1815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1816: %

1817: and will be discussed below.

1818: %

1819: In \S 5.1., we address some issues concerning the ratio of $L_{\rm j}$

1820: to $L_{\rm Edd}$ by referring to the studies of X-ray binaries.

1821: In \S 5.2., the energetics in the cocoon is constrained 

1822: from the obtained $\eta_{\rm c}$.

1823: 

1824: 

1825: 

1826: 

1827: \subsection{$L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$}

1828: 

1829: 

1830: 

1831: 

1832: 

1833: Postulating that the relativistic jet is 

1834:  powered by the release  of 

1835: gravitational energy ($L_{\rm acc}$) of accreting matter

1836: (e.g., Marscher et al. 2002), 

1837:  the jet power can be expressed as

1838:  $2L_{\rm j} = \epsilon_{\rm j} L_{\rm acc}$, where

1839:  $\epsilon_{\rm j}$ is the efficiency of energy conversion

1840:  ($0<\epsilon_{\rm j}<1$).

1841: % Although the value of $\epsilon_{\rm j}$ is highly uncertain,

1842: % the maximum efficiency is $1$ in principle.

1843:  Hence, $2 L_{\rm j} / L_{\rm Edd}$ 

1844:  gives the minimum mass accretion rate

1845: normalized by the Eddington mass accretion rate.

1846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1847: Our results then suggest that quite high

1848:    mass accretion rates, at least above $0.02L_{\rm Edd}$, are

1849:   required to produce FRII radio sources.

1850:   Moreover, since $10 \gtrsim 2 L_{\rm j} /L_{\rm Edd} \gtrsim 0.65$

1851:   is predicted for 3C 219, some FRII radio sources may have

1852:  super-Eddington mass accretion rates.

1853: %Our results then indicate that the 

1854: %mass accretion rates are super-Eddington for

1855: %some FR II radio galaxies (3C 219), since 

1856: %$2 L_{\rm j} /L_{\rm Edd} \simeq 1$. 

1857: The theory of accretion disk predicts that

1858: the accretion disk of these objects is optically-thick and called the {\it

1859: slim-disk} (e.g., Abramowicz et al. 1988). 

1860: From three distinctive X-ray properties (the large photon index 

1861: $\Gamma \gtrsim 2$, rapid variability and soft X-ray excess), 

1862: narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) are considered to be

1863: super-Eddington objects and, therefore, are

1864: inferred to have a slim-disk  (e.g., Pounds et al. 1995; Boller et al. 1996; 

1865: Mineshige et al. 2000; Collin \& Kawaguchi 2004; Shemmer et al. 2006). 

1866: If  3C 219 is indeed super-Eddington, it is expected 

1867: to show the above mentioned X-ray features like NLS1s. 

1868: Note, however, that 3C 219 has a relatively hard X-ray spectrum 

1869: with $\Gamma =1.58 <

1870: 2 $ (Shi et al. 2005), and thus the physical state of the 

1871: accretion disk in 3C 219 could be different 

1872: from those in NLS1s.

1873: % (We have no X-ray data for 3C 284.) 

1874: 

1875: 

1876: In order to explore the nature of the accretion disk in 3C 219, 

1877: we  compare the characteristics of AGNs with

1878:  those of X-ray binaries (XRB),

1879: since both of them have common physical processes such as disk accretions, 

1880: relativistic jets, and quenching of these jets (e.g., Heinz \& Sunyaev 2003;

1881: Ho 2005; McHardy et al. 2006). 

1882: %%%

1883: Thanks to their much shorter dynamical timescales, 

1884: XRBs in various states have been observed in great detail and 

1885:  are found to occupy particular X-ray spectral states 

1886: (Fender et al. 2004; Remillard \& McClintock 2006 for a review)

1887:  as follows; 

1888: 

1889: 

1890: (i) $L_{\rm acc}/L_{\rm Edd}\lesssim 0.01$ (low/hard state: LS), 

1891: 

1892: 

1893: (ii) $0.01 \lesssim L_{\rm acc}/L_{\rm Edd}\lesssim 0.3$ 

1894:      (high/soft state: HS), 

1895: 

1896: 

1897: (iii) $L_{\rm acc}/L_{\rm Edd}\gtrsim 0.3$ (very high state: VHS). 

1898: 

1899: 

1900: 

1901: 

1902: State (i) is usually accompanied by a jet. 

1903: For $L_{\rm acc}/L_{\rm Edd}>0.01$,

1904: the  radio emission is quenched in state (ii), while

1905: in state (iii), the soft VHS, which has an  X-ray spectrum dominated by

1906: a  steep power-law component

1907:  (photon index  $\Gamma >2$), is radio quiet and the 

1908: hard VHS and/or the transition from the hard VHS to the soft VHS 

1909: is accompanied by relativistic ejection events. 

1910: 

1911: 

1912: If the analogy between XRBs and AGNs holds, NLS1s may be in the soft VHS, 

1913: since many NLS1s have a  steep power-law component and  high

1914: Eddington ratios $>$ 0.3 (e.g., Collin \& Kawaguchi 2004), that is,

1915: higher than the upper limit set by the stability of the 

1916: Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973) disk

1917:  (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973). 

1918: On the other hand, 3C 219 (FR II) may correspond to the hard VHS 

1919: and/or the transition state because it has 

1920: hard X-ray spectra and high Eddington

1921: luminosities. 

1922: In order to judge whether AGNs  are 

1923:  scaled-up XRBs, it is essential 

1924: to confirm that radio loud AGNs actually have the states analogous to the

1925:  spectral states

1926: (especially VHS) in XRBs\footnote{It has been well established 

1927: that low-luminosity AGNs

1928: are the high-mass counterpart of XRBs in LS's (Ho 2005).}.  

1929: 

1930: 

1931: 

1932: 

1933: 

1934: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1935: The co-evolution of a central black hole (BH) 

1936: and its host galaxy together with AGN feedbacks

1937: have been intensively studied in  various ways 

1938: (e.g., 

1939: Silk \& Rees 1998;

1940: Di Matteo et al. 2003; 

1941: Granato et al. 2004). 

1942: %%%

1943: The  intensive surveys of QSOs 

1944: show that the number density of QSOs  is 

1945: peaked at  $z\approx 2$ \citep{FNL01}.

1946: The existence of QSOs at $z\gtrsim 2$  with a central BH of 

1947: a mass smaller than predicted from the bulge BH-mass relation 

1948:  is naturally expected

1949: in the  build-up of SMBHs toward  $z\approx 2$.

1950: For the exploration of the co-evolution processes, dusty spheroidal

1951: galaxies (e.g., galaxies emitting

1952:  sub-millimeter radiations and  ultra-luminous

1953: infrared galaxies) are  the ones to be scrutinized,

1954: since the dusty-gas in them is one of the key quantities 

1955: for the co-evolution. 

1956: %%

1957: Kawakatu et al. (2003)

1958: pointed out the possibility of radio loud AGNs at high-$z$ being

1959: QSOs in the early evolution phase (we call them proto-QSOs) 

1960: that contain a growing BH.

1961: It is, however, difficult to explore the nature of proto-QSOs 

1962: at high-$z$ by  observations in optical and X-ray bands

1963: owing to severe dust-absorptions. 

1964: In contrast, the estimate of 

1965: $L_{\rm j}$ and $t_{\rm age}$ presented in this work 

1966: is applicable even to high-$z$ sources (e.g., Schmidt et al. 2006)

1967:  without being suffered from the dust extinction. 

1968: Therefore, the estimate of 

1969: $L_{\rm j}/L_{\rm Edd}$ based on the cocoon

1970: dynamics is a potential new powerful tool to discover proto-QSOs

1971: among high-$z$ radio loud AGNs.

1972: 

1973: 

1974: 

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: 

1979: 

1980: 

1981: 

1982: 

1983: 

1984: 

1985: 

1986: 

1987: 

1988: 

1989: 

1990: 

1991: 

1992: \subsection{The energetics}

1993: \label{content}

1994: 

1995: 

1996: 

1997: %Here we investigate the energetics in the cocoon

1998: %using the obtained energy ratio $\eta_{\rm c} \equiv E_{\rm c}/E_{\rm min}$.

1999:  Lastly, we discuss the energetics in the cocoon.

2000:  Summing up in advance,

2001:  the total internal energy of invisible components such as thermal

2002:  leptons and/or protons tends to be larger than those of radiating non-thermal

2003:  electrons and magnetic fields. 

2004:   $E_{\rm c}$ is expressed by components as

2005:  $E_{\rm c} = (U_{\rm e} + U_{\rm B} + U_{\rm inv})V_{\rm c}$,

2006:  where $U_{\rm e}$, $U_{\rm B}$, and

2007:  $U_{\rm inv}$ are the energy densities

2008:  of  non-thermal leptons (electrons and positrons), magnetic fields,

2009:  and  invisible particles, 

2010: % such

2011: % as thermal leptons and/or protons,

2012:  respectively.

2013:  The energy ratio $\eta_{\rm c}\equiv E_{\rm c}/E_{\rm min}$

2014:  can be then expressed as

2015:  $\eta_{\rm c} =  (U_{\rm e} + U_{\rm B} + U_{\rm inv}) / U_{\rm min}$,

2016:  where  $U_{\rm min}=E_{\rm min}/V_{\rm c}$ is the minimum energy density.

2017:  From the obtained values of $\eta_{\rm c}$,

2018:  we investigate here the contribution of $U_{\rm inv}$

2019:  to the total energy by evaluating $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min}$

2020:  and $U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min}$.

2021: 

2022: 

2023: 

2024: % Let us evaluate the contributions of $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min}$

2025: % and $U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min}$ on $\eta_{\rm c}$.

2026:  It is useful to express $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min}$ and

2027:  $U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min}$

2028:  in terms of $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm B}$, since 

2029:  $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm B}$ has been intensively investigated by a lot of authors

2030:  (e.g., Isobe et al. 2002; Kataoka et al. 2003;

2031:   Croston et al. 2004; Kataoka \& Stawarz 2005; Croston et al. 2005).

2032: % Note that

2033:  Since the synchrotron luminosity $L_{\nu}$ is proportional

2034:  to $U_{\rm e}U_{\rm B}^{3/4}V_{\rm c}$,

2035:  we obtain the relation $U_{\rm e}\propto (U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm B})^{3/7}$,

2036:  or equivalently  

2037:  $U_{\rm B}\propto (U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm B})^{-4/7}$ for

2038:  fixed values of $L_{\nu}$ and $V_{\rm c}$.

2039:  From this relation and Eq. (\ref{minimum}), we can

2040:  derive the  following expressions:

2041: \begin{eqnarray}

2042: \frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm min}} 

2043: \simeq 0.5 \left(\frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm B}}\right)^{3/7},

2044:  \qquad

2045:  \frac{U_{\rm B}}{U_{\rm min}} 

2046: \simeq 0.5 \left(\frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm B}}\right)^{-4/7}.

2047: \label{ratio2}

2048: \end{eqnarray}

2049:  Hence,  $U_{\rm inv}/U_{\rm min}$ is given by

2050: \begin{eqnarray}

2051:  \frac{U_{\rm inv}}{U_{\rm min}} \simeq

2052:  \eta_{\rm c} - 

2053:  0.5 \left\{ \left(\frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm B}}\right)^{3/7}

2054:           + \left( \frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm B}}\right)^{-4/7} \right\}.

2055: \label{inv}

2056: \end{eqnarray} 

2057:  Recent observations show that the ratio 

2058:  of $U_{\rm e}$ to $U_{\rm B}$ is 

2059:  $1 \lesssim U_{\rm e} / U_{\rm B} \lesssim 10$  on average.

2060: % From the tendency of particle dominance,

2061: % it is obvious that the we can discard the magnetic fields from

2062: % the origin of large excess of $E_{\rm c}$

2063: % from $E_{\rm min}$.

2064:  Substituting these values in  Eq. (\ref{ratio2}),

2065:  we  find $0.13\lesssim U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min} \lesssim 0.5$ and

2066:  $0.5\lesssim U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min} \lesssim 1.3$. 

2067: % Hence, if the energies of unonservable particles

2068: % are negligible, $\eta_{\rm min} $ 

2069: % Hence, $U_{\rm inv}/U_{\rm min}$ is evaluated as

2070: %\begin{eqnarray}

2071: % \frac{U_{\rm inv}}{U_{\rm min}} \simeq

2072: % \eta_{\rm min} - 

2073: % 0.5 \left(\frac{U_{\rm e}}{U_{\rm B}}\right)^{3/7}.

2074: %\end{eqnarray} 

2075:  Since the obtained range of $\eta_{\rm c}$

2076:  is

2077:  $\sim 4-310$,

2078:  %revision

2079: % it is clear that contribution of

2080:   $U_{\rm inv}/U_{\rm min}$ is evaluated as

2081:  $3\lesssim U_{\rm inv}/U_{\rm min} \lesssim 310$

2082:  %revision

2083:  from Eq. (\ref{inv}).

2084: % on $\eta_{\rm min}$ must dominate over

2085: % those of $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min}$ and $U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min}$.

2086: % Hence, it is clear that

2087: % the contribution of  $U_{\rm inv}/U_{\rm min}$ on $\eta_{\rm c}$

2088: % must be larger than (or at least comparable to) 

2089: % $U_{\rm e}/U_{\rm min}$ and $U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm min}$. 

2090: % Thus, we conclude that

2091:  Thus, we conclude that

2092:  the internal energy  of invisible particles

2093:  must be larger than  %(or at least comparable to)

2094:  those of radiating 

2095:  non-thermal leptons and magnetic fields 

2096: ($U_{\rm e}, U_{\rm B} \lesssim U_{\rm inv}$)

2097:  to explain the result obtained in this paper 

2098:  that $E_{\rm c}$ is larger than

2099:  $E_{\rm min}$ by a factor of 4 at least.

2100: 

2101: 

2102: 

2103: 

2104:  

2105:  

2106: 

2107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2108: 

2109: 

2110: \acknowledgments

2111: 

2112: We are grateful to A. Celotti for useful comments.

2113: We thank M. Machida for useful comments and discussions on \S 5.1.

2114:  This work was partially supported by the Grants-in-Aid for the

2115:  Scientific Research (14740166, 14079202) from Ministry of Education,

2116:  Science and Culture of Japan and by Grants-in-Aid for the 21th century

2117:  COE program ``Holistic Research and Education Center for Physics of

2118:  Self-organizing Systems''.

2119:  This research has made use of SAOimage DS9, developed by Smithsonian

2120:  Astrophysical Observatory.

2121:  

2122: % 

2123: %MK acknowledge the Grant-in-Aid  for Scientific Research of 

2124: %the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

2125: %Technology No. 14079025.

2126: %

2127: %HI acknowledge the Grant-in-Aid for the 21st Century COE Program

2128: %(Physics of Self-Organization Systems) and

2129: %a Grant for Special Research Projects at Waseda University. 

2130: 

2131: 

2132: 

2133: 

2134: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2135: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1988)]{ACP88} Abramowicz, M. A.,

2136:   Czerny, B., Laosta, J. P.,

2137:   \& Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, \apj, 332, 646

2138: 

2139: 

2140: 

2141: 

2142: 

2143: %\bibitem[Achterberg et al.(2001)]{AGK01} Achterberg, A.,

2144: %  Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G., \& Guthmann, A. W. 2001, \mnras, 328, 393

2145: 

2146: 

2147: 

2148: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2006)]{ADF06}  Allen, S. W.,

2149:  Dunn, R. J. H., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G. B., \& Reynolds, C. S. 2006,

2150: 				   \mnras, 372, 21

2151: 

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[Alexander 

2154: \& Leahy(1987)]{AL87} Alexander, P., \& Leahy, J.~P.\ 1987, \mnras, 225, 1 

2155: 

2156: 

2157: 

2158: 

2159: 

2160: 

2161: \bibitem[Aloy et al.(2000)]{AG00} Aloy, M. A.,

2162:   Gomez, J. L., Ibanez, J. M., Marti, J. M.,  \& Muller, E.

2163:    2000, \apj, 528, 85

2164: 

2165: %\bibitem[Arnaud et al.(1984)]{AE84} Arnaud, K. A.,

2166: %  Fabian, A. C., Eales, S. A., Jones, C.,  \& Forman, W.

2167: %   1984, \mnras, 211, 981

2168: 

2169: 

2170: 

2171: %\bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb(2002)]{BL02} Barkana, R.,

2172: %  \& Loeb, A.

2173: %   2002, \apj, 578, 1

2174: 

2175: %\bibitem[Bednarz \& Ostowski(1998)]{BO98} 

2176: %Bednarz, J., \& Ostrowski, M. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 3911

2177: 

2178: 

2179: 

2180: \bibitem[Begelman(1996)]{B96} Begelman, M.~C.\ 1996, Cygnus 

2181: A -- Study of a Radio Galaxy, 209

2182: 

2183: \bibitem[Begelman  et al.(1984)]{BBR84}  Begelman, M. C.,

2184:   Blandford, R. D., \& Rees, M. J. 1984, Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 255

2185: 

2186: 

2187: \bibitem[Begelman \& Cioffi(1989)]{BC89} Begelman, M. C.,

2188:     \& Cioffi, D. F.  1989,  \apj, 345, 21

2189: 

2190: 

2191: 

2192: \bibitem[Bicknell et al.(1997)]{BDO97}

2193:  Bicknell, G. V., Dopita, M. A., \& O'Dea, C. P.

2194:  1997,

2195:  \apj,   485, 112

2196: 

2197: %\bibitem[Birkinshaw \& Worrall(1993)]{BW93} Birkinshaw, M.,

2198: %   \& Worrall, D. M.  1993, \apj, 412, 568

2199: 

2200: 

2201: 

2202: %\bibitem[Blandford \& Mckee(1976)]{BM76} Blandford, R. D.,

2203: %   \& Mckee, C. F.

2204: %   1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130

2205: 

2206:  

2207: %\bibitem[Blandford \& Rees(1974)]{BR74} Blandford, R. S., \&

2208: % Rees, M, J.

2209: % 1974, \mnras, 169, 395

2210: 

2211: 

2212: 

2213: 

2214: 

2215: \bibitem[B$\rm{\ddot{o}}$hringer et al.(1993)]{BVF93}

2216:  B$\rm{\ddot{o}}$hringer, H.,

2217:   Voges, W., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C.,

2218:  \& Neumann, D. M. 1993, \mnras, 264, 25

2219: 

2220: \bibitem[Boller et al.(1996)]{BBF96}

2221:  Boller, T., Brandt, W. N., \& Fink, H. 1996, A\&A, 305, 53

2222: 

2223: 

2224: 

2225: \bibitem[Bridle et al.(1994)]{BHL94} Bridle, A. H.,

2226:  Hough, D. H., Lonsdale, C. J., Burns, J. O., 

2227:   \& Laing, R. A. 1994, \aj, 108, 766 

2228: 

2229: \bibitem[Carilli \& Barthel(1996)]{CB96} Carilli, C. L.,

2230:    \& Barthel, P. D.  1996,  A\&A Rev, 7, 1

2231: 

2232: 

2233: \bibitem[Carilli et al.(1991)]{CPD91} Carilli, C. L.,

2234:  Perley, R. A., Dreher, J. W., \& Leahy, J. P.

2235:    1991, \apj, 383, 554

2236: 

2237: 

2238: %\bibitem[Carilli et al.(1998)]{CPH98} Carilli, C. L.,

2239: % Perley, R., Harris, D. E., \& Barthel, P. D.

2240: %   1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 1981

2241: 

2242: 

2243: 

2244: \bibitem[Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano(1978)]{CF78} Cavaliere, A.,

2245:    \& Fusco-Femiano, R.  1978,  A\&A, 70, 677

2246: 

2247: 

2248: 

2249: 

2250: 

2251: 

2252: 

2253: 

2254: 

2255: 

2256: 

2257: \bibitem[Celotti \& Fabian(1993)]{CF93} Celotti, A., \&

2258:  Fabian, A. C.

2259:  1993, \mnras, 264, 228

2260: 

2261: %\bibitem[Celotti et al.(1997)]{CPG97} Celotti, A., 

2262: % Padovani, P., \& Ghisellini, G.

2263: % 1997, \mnras, 286, 415

2264: 

2265: 

2266: \bibitem[Cioffi \& Blondin(1992)]{CB92} Cioffi, D.~F., \& 

2267: Blondin, J.~M.\ 1992, \apj, 392, 458 

2268: 

2269: 

2270: \bibitem[Clarke et al.(1992)]{CBBP92} Clarke, D. A.,

2271:    Bridle, A. H., Burns, J. O., Perley, R. A.,  \& Norman, M. L.

2272:    1992, \apj, 385, 173

2273: 

2274: 

2275: %\bibitem[Clarke \& Burns(1991)]{CB91} Clarke, D. A.,

2276: %   \& Burns, J. O.

2277: %   1991, \apj, 369, 308

2278: 

2279: 

2280: \bibitem[Collin \& Kawaguchi(2004)]{CK04} 

2281: Collin, S., \& Kawaguchi, T. 2004, A\&A, 426, 797

2282: 

2283: 

2284: %\bibitem[Cowie et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112..839C} Cowie, L.~L., Songaila, 

2285: %A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839 

2286: 

2287: 

2288: \bibitem[Cox et al.(1991)]{CG91} 

2289:    Cox, C. I., Gull, S. F., \& Scheuer, P. A. G. 1991,

2290:    \mnras, 252, 558

2291: 

2292: 

2293: 

2294: 

2295: \bibitem[Croston et al.(2004)]{CB04} Croston, J. H.,

2296:    Birkinshaw, M., Hardcastle., M. J., \& Worrall, D. M.  2004,

2297:    \mnras, 353, 879

2298: 

2299: 

2300: \bibitem[Croston et al.(2005)]{CHH05} Croston, J. L.,

2301:  Hardcastle, M. H., Harris, D. E., Besole, E., Birkinshaw, M.,

2302:  \& Worrall, D. M. 2005, \apj, 626, 733

2303: 

2304: 

2305: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2003)]{DCS03} 

2306: Di Matteo, T., Croft, R. A. C., Springel, V., \&

2307:  Hernquist, L. 2003, \apj, 593, 56

2308: 

2309: 

2310: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.433..604D} Di Matteo, T., 

2311: Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604

2312: 

2313: 

2314: 

2315: 

2316: \bibitem[Dunn \& Fabian(2004)]{DF04} Dunn, R. J. H.,

2317:  \& Fabian, A. C. 2004, \mnras, 355, 862 

2318: 

2319: %\bibitem[Dunn et al.(2005)]{DFT05} Dunn, R. J. H.,

2320: % Fabian, A. C.,  \& Taylor, G. B. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1343 

2321: 

2322: 

2323: 

2324: 

2325: \bibitem[Fabian(1999)]{F99} Fabian, A.~C.\ 1999, \mnras, 

2326: 308, L39 

2327: 

2328: 

2329: 

2330: \bibitem[Fabian et al.(2002)]{FCB02} Fabian, A. C.,

2331:  Celotti, A., Blundell, K. M., Kassim, N. E., 

2332:   \& Perley, R. A. 2002, \mnras, 331, 369 

2333: 

2334: 

2335: 

2336: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2001)]{FNL01} 

2337: Fan, X., et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 2833

2338: 

2339: 

2340: 

2341: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2004)]{FBG04} Fender, R. P.,

2342:  Belloni, T. M.,

2343:   \& Gallo, E. 2004, \mnras, 355, 1105 

2344: 

2345: 

2346: 

2347: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{FM00} Ferrarese, L., \& 

2348: Merritt, D.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L9 

2349: 

2350: 

2351: \bibitem[Gomez et al.(1997)]{GM97} Gomez, J. L.,

2352:    Marti, J. M.,  Marscher, A. P.,  Ibanez, J. M.,  \& Alberdi, A.

2353:    1997, \apj, 482, 33

2354: 

2355: 

2356: \bibitem[Granato et al.(2004)]{G04} Granato, G.~L., De 

2357: Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 580 

2358: 

2359: 

2360: 

2361: 

2362: 

2363: %\bibitem[Hardcastle et al.(1997)]{HAP97} Hardcastle, M. J.,

2364: %  Alexander, P., Pooley, G. G., \& Riley, J. M.  1997, \mnras, 288, 859

2365: 

2366: \bibitem[Hardcastle et al.(1998)]{HAP98} Hardcastle, M. J., Alexander,  P.,

2367:   Pooley, G. G., \& Riley, M. J. 1998, \mnras, 296, 445

2368: 

2369: \bibitem[Hardcastle \& Worrall(1999)]{HW99} 

2370:    Hardcastle, M. J., \& Worrall, D. M.  1999,

2371:    \mnras, 309, 969

2372: 

2373: \bibitem[Hardcastle \& Worrall(2000)]{HW00} Hardcastle, 

2374: M.~J., \& Worrall, D.~M.\ 2000, \mnras, 319, 562 

2375: 

2376: 

2377: %\bibitem[Harvanek \& Stocke(2002)]{HSa02} Harvanek, M.,

2378: % \& Stocke, J. T. 2002, \apj, 124, 1239 

2379: 

2380: 

2381: 

2382: 

2383: %\bibitem[Harvanek \& Stocke(2002)]{HSb02} 

2384: %Heinz, S., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, \mnras, 343, L59

2385: 

2386: 

2387: 

2388: %\bibitem[Hirotani et al.(1999)]{HIK99} 

2389: %   Hirotani, K., Iguchi, S., Kimura, M.,  \& Wajima, K.  1999,

2390: %   \pasj, 51, 263

2391: 

2392: 

2393: 

2394: %\bibitem[Ho(2002)]{Ho02} Ho, L. C. 2002, \apj, 564, 120

2395: 

2396: 

2397: \bibitem[Ho(2005)]{Ho05} 

2398: Ho, L. C. 2005, \apss, 300, 219

2399: 

2400: 

2401: 

2402: \bibitem[Isobe et al.(2002)]{ITM02} 

2403: Isobe, N., Tashiro, M., Makishima, K., Iyomoto, N., Suzuki, M., Murakami, M. M., Mori, M., \& Abe, K. 2002, \apj, 580, L111

2404: 

2405: 

2406: 

2407: 

2408: 

2409: 

2410: 

2411: 

2412: 

2413: 

2414: \bibitem[Kaiser \& Alexander(1997)]{KA97} Kaiser, C. R., \&

2415:  Alexander, P.

2416:  1997, \mnras, 286, 215

2417: 

2418: \bibitem[Kataoka et al.(2003)]{KLE03} 

2419: Kataoka, J., et al. 2003, A\&A, 410, 833

2420: 

2421: 

2422: 

2423: \bibitem[Kataoka \& Stawarz(2005)]{KS05} Kataoka, J.,

2424:  \& Stawarz, L. 2005, \apj, 622, 797

2425: 

2426: 

2427: \bibitem[Kauffman et al.(2003)]{KHT03} 

2428: Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055

2429: 

2430: 

2431: 

2432: \bibitem[Kawakatu et al.(2003)]{KUM03} Kawakatu, N., Umemura, 

2433: M., \& Mori, M.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 85 

2434: 

2435: 

2436: \bibitem[Kawakatu \& Kino(2006)]{KK06} Kawakatu, N., 

2437:  \& Kino, M.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 1513 

2438: 

2439: 

2440: \bibitem[King(2003)]{K03} King, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 596, L27 

2441: 

2442: 

2443: \bibitem[Kino \& Kawakatu(2005)]{KK05} Kino, M.,

2444:     \& Kawakatu, N.  2005, \mnras, 364, 659

2445: 

2446: \bibitem[Kino et al.(2007)]{KKI07} Kino, M.,

2447:      Kawakatu, N., \& Ito, H.  2007,  \mnras, 376, 1630

2448: 

2449: 

2450: 

2451: %\bibitem[Kino \& Takahara(2004)]{KT04} Kino, M.,

2452: %    \& Takahara, F.

2453: %   2004, \mnras, 349, 336

2454: 

2455: 

2456: %\bibitem[Kirk \& Duffy(1999)]{KD99} Kirk, J. G.,

2457: %  \& Duffy, P. 1999, J. Phys. G, 25, 163

2458: 

2459: 

2460: 

2461: \bibitem[Komissarov \& Falle(1997)]{KF97} Komissarov, S. S.,

2462:   \& Falle, S. A. E. G.

2463:    1997, \mnras, 288, 833

2464: 

2465: 

2466: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{1995ARA&A..33..581K} Kormendy, J., \& 

2467: Richstone, D.\ 1995, \araa, 33, 581 

2468: 

2469: 

2470: 

2471: \bibitem[Kubo  et al.(1998)]{KTM98}  Kubo, H.,

2472:   Takahashi, T., Madejski, G., Tashiro, M., Makino, F., 

2473:   Inoue, S., \& Takahara, F. 1998, \apj, 504, 693

2474: 

2475: 

2476: %\bibitem[Lapi et al.(2006)]{L06} Lapi, A., Shankar, F., 

2477: %Mao, J., Granato, G.~L., Silva, L., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L.\ 2006, 

2478: %\apj, 650, 42 

2479: 

2480: 

2481: 

2482: %\bibitem[Leahy et al.(1997)]{LBD97} Leahy, J. P.,

2483: %  Black, A. R. S., Dennett-Thorpe, J., Hardcastle, M. J., Komissarov,

2484: %  S., Perley, R. A., Riley, J. M., \& Scheuer, P. A. G.

2485: %   1997, \mnras, 291, 20

2486: 

2487: 

2488: 

2489: \bibitem[Leahy \& Gizani(2001)]{LG01} Leahy, J. P.,

2490:    \& Gizani, N. A. B.

2491:    2001, \apj, 555, 709

2492: 

2493: 

2494: 

2495: \bibitem[Leahy \& Perley(1991)]{LP91} Leahy, J. P.,

2496:    \& Perley, R. A.

2497:    1991, \aj, 102, 537

2498: 

2499: 

2500: 

2501: \bibitem[Leahy et al.(1986)]{LPR86} Leahy, J. P.,

2502:     Pooley, G. G., \& Riley, M.

2503:    1986, \mnras, 222, 753

2504: 

2505: 

2506: \bibitem[Liu et al.(1992)]{LPR92} Liu, R., Pooley, G., \& 

2507: Riley, J.~M.\ 1992, \mnras, 257, 545 

2508: 

2509: 

2510: \bibitem[Longair(1994)]{Lon94} Longair, M. S. 1994, 

2511:  High Energy Astrophysics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

2512: 

2513: 

2514: %\bibitem[Lonsdale \& Barthel(1986)]{LD86} 

2515: %   Lonsdale, C. J., \& Barthel, P. D. 1986,

2516: %   \aj, 92, 1

2517: 

2518: 

2519: 

2520: 

2521: 

2522: %\bibitem[Maccarone et al.(2003)]{MGF03} Maccarone, T. J.,

2523: %  Gallo, E., \& Fender, R.

2524: %   2003, \mnras, 345, 19

2525: 

2526: 

2527: 

2528: %\bibitem[Machalski et al.(2007)]{MCS07}

2529: % Machalski, J., Chy\.zy, K.T.,

2530: % Stawarz, \L ., \& Kozie\l , D., 2007,  A\&A, 462,43 

2531: 

2532: 

2533: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115.2285M} Magorrian, J., et 

2534: al.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2285 

2535: 

2536: 

2537: 

2538: 

2539: 

2540: 

2541: %\bibitem[Maraschi \& Tavecchio(2003)]{MT03} Maraschi, L.,

2542: % \& Tavecchio, F. 2003, \apj, 593, 667 

2543: 

2544: 

2545: 

2546: \bibitem[Marchesini et al.(2004)]{MCF04} Marchesini, D.,

2547:    Celotti, A.,  \& Ferrarese, L.  2004, \mnras, 351, 733

2548: 

2549: 

2550: 

2551: \bibitem[Marscher et al.(2002)]{MJG02} Marscher, A. P.,

2552:   Jorstad, S. G., Gomez, J., Aller, M. S., Terasranta, H., Lister,

2553:   M. L.,   \& Stirling, A. M.  2002,  Nature, 417, 625

2554: 

2555: 

2556: \bibitem[McHardy et al.(2006)]{MKK06} McHardy, M.,

2557:   Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., 

2558:    \& Fender, R. P.  2006,  Nature, 444, 730

2559: 

2560: 

2561: 

2562: %\bibitem[Merloni et al.(2003)]{MHM03} Merloni, A.,

2563: %  Heinz, S., \& Matteo, T. D.

2564: %   2003, \mnras, 345, 1057

2565: 

2566: 

2567: \bibitem[Miley(1980)]{M80} 

2568: Miley, G. 1980, \araa, 18, 16

2569: 

2570: 

2571: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2003)]{MNG03} Miller, C. J.,

2572:   Nichol, R. C., Gomez, P. L., Hopkins, A. M.,

2573:   \& Bernardi, M.

2574:    2003, \apj, 597, 142

2575: 

2576: 

2577: 

2578: 

2579: 

2580: \bibitem[Mineshige et al.(2000)]{MKT00}

2581:   Mineshige, S., Kawaguchi, T., Takeuchi, M.,

2582:   \& Hayashida, K. 2000, PASJ, 52, 499

2583: 

2584: 

2585: 

2586: \bibitem[Mioduszewski et al.(1997)]{MHD97} Mioduszewski, A. J.,

2587:   Hughes, P. A., \& Duncan, G. C.

2588:    1997, \apj, 476, 649

2589: 

2590: 

2591: 

2592: \bibitem[Perley et al.(1984)]{PDC84} Perley, R. A.,

2593:    Dreher, J. W., \& Cowan, J. J.

2594:    1984, \apj, 285, 35

2595: 

2596: 

2597: \bibitem[Pounds et al.(1995)]{PDO95} 

2598: Pounds, K. A., Done, C., \& Osborne, J. P. 1995, \mnras, 277, L5

2599: 

2600: 

2601: \bibitem[Rawlings \& Saunders(1991)]{RS91} Rawlings, S.,

2602:    \& Saunders, R.  1991,  Nature, 349, 138

2603: 

2604: \bibitem[Readhead et al.(1996)]{RTX96}

2605: Readhead, A. C. S., Taylor, G. B., Xu, W., Pearson, T. J.,

2606:    Wilkinson, P. N., \& Polatidis, A. G. 1996, \apj, 460, 612

2607: 

2608: \bibitem[Remillard \& McClintock(2006)]{RM06}

2609: Remillard, R. A., \& McClintock, J. E. 2006, \araa, 44, 49

2610: 

2611: 

2612: \bibitem[Reynolds \& Fabian(1996)]{RF96} Reynolds, C. S.,

2613:     \& Fabian, A. C.  1996, \mnras, 278, 479

2614: 

2615: 

2616: 

2617: 

2618: 

2619: %\bibitem[Saxton et al.(2005)]{SBS05} Saxton, C. J.,

2620: % Bicknell, G. V.,  Sutherland, R. S., \& Midgley, S.

2621: % 2005, \mnras, 359, 781

2622: 

2623: 

2624: 

2625: %\bibitem[Scannapieco et al.(2005)]{SSB05} Scannapieco, E.,

2626: % Silk, J,  \& Bowens, R.

2627: %   2005, \apj, 635, L13

2628: 

2629: 

2630: 

2631: \bibitem[Scheck et al.(2002)]{SA02} Scheck, L.,

2632:   Aloy, M. A., Marti, J. M., Gomez, J. L.,  \& Muller, E.

2633:    2002, \mnras, 331, 615

2634: 

2635: 

2636: %\bibitem[Scheuer(1974)]{S74} Scheuer, P. A. G. 1974, \mnras, 166, 513

2637: 

2638: 

2639: %\bibitem[Scheuer(1982)]{S82} Scheuer P. A. G.  1982,  

2640: %   In \textit{Extragalactic Radio Sources}, IAU Symposium No.97, edited by

2641: %   D. S. Heeschen and C. M. Wade (Reidel, Dordrecht), p. 163.

2642: 

2643: 

2644: \bibitem[Scheuer(1995)]{S95} Scheuer, P.~A.~G.\ 1995, 

2645: \mnras, 277, 331 

2646: 

2647: 

2648: \bibitem[Schmidt et al. (2006)]{SCH06} Schmidt, S. J.,

2649:   Connolly, A. J.,   \& Hopkins, A. M.

2650:    2006, \apj, 649, 63

2651: 

2652: 

2653: 

2654: 

2655: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{SS73} 

2656: Shakura, N. I., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337

2657: 

2658: 

2659: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2006)]{SBN06} 

2660:  Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., \& Kaspi, S.

2661:   2006, \apj, 646, L29

2662: 

2663: \bibitem[Shi et al.(2005)]{SRH05} 

2664: Shi, Y., et al. 2005, \apj, 629, 88

2665: 

2666: 

2667: 

2668: %\bibitem[Sikora \& Madejski(2000)]{SM00} Sikora, M.,

2669: %  \& Madejski, G.

2670: %   2000, \apj, 534, 109

2671: 

2672: 

2673: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees(1998)]{SR98} Silk, J., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 

2674: 1998, \aap, 331, L1 

2675: 

2676: 

2677: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{SW02} Smith, D. A., Wilson, A. S.,

2678:    Arnaud, K. A., Terashima, Y.,   \& Young, A. J.  2002, \apj, 565, 195

2679: 

2680: 

2681: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{SVP03} Spergel, D. N., et al.

2682:     2003, \apjs, 148, 175

2683: 

2684: 

2685: 

2686: 

2687: 

2688: %\bibitem[Stocke et al.(1985)]{SBC85} Stocke, J. T.,

2689: %  Burns, J. O., \& Chrisitiansen, W. A.  1985,  \apj, 299, 799

2690: 

2691: 

2692: 

2693: 

2694: 

2695: 

2696: \bibitem[Tadhunter et al.(2003)]{TMA03} Tadhunter, C.,

2697:   Marconi, A., Axon, D., Wills, K., Robinson, T. G., \& Jackson, N.

2698:    2003, \mnras, 342, 861

2699: 

2700: 

2701: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{TGB02} 

2702: Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, \apj, 574, 740

2703: 

2704: 

2705: 

2706: 

2707: 

2708: 

2709: 

2710: 

2711: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani(1995)]{UP95} Urry, C. M.,

2712:  \& Padovani, P. 1995, \pasp, 107, 803

2713: 

2714: 

2715: %\bibitem[Volonteri \& Rees(2005)]{VR05} 

2716: %Volonteri, M., \& Rees, M. J. 2005, \apj, 633, 624

2717: 

2718: 

2719: 

2720: 

2721: 

2722: 

2723: %\bibitem[Wardle et al.(1998)]{WHO98} Wardle, J. F. C.,

2724: % Homan, D. C., Ojha, R.,  \& Roberts, D. H. 1998,  Nature, 395, 457

2725: 

2726: 

2727: %\bibitem[Williams \& Gull(1985)]{WG85} Williams, A. G.,

2728: %   \& Gull, S. F.  1985,  Nature, 313, 34

2729: 

2730: 

2731: \bibitem[Willot et al.(1999)]{WRB99} Willot, C. J., 

2732:  Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., \& Lacy, M.

2733:  1999, \mnras, 309, 1017

2734: 

2735: 

2736: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2000)]{WY00} Wilson, A. S.,

2737:    Young, A. J.,  \& Shopbell, P. L.  2000,  \apj, 544, 27

2738: 

2739: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2006)]{WSY06} Wilson, A.~S., Smith, 

2740: D.~A., \& Young, A.~J.\ 2006, \apjl, 644, L9 

2741: 

2742: \bibitem[Woo \& Urry(2002)]{WU02} Woo, J.-H., \& Urry, 

2743: C.~M.\ 2002, \apj, 579, 530 

2744: 

2745: 

2746: 

2747: \bibitem[Young et al.(2002)]{YW02} Young, A. J.,

2748:   Wilson, A. S., Terashima, Y., Arnaud, K. A.,    \& Smith, D. A.

2749:    2002, \apj, 564, 176

2750: 

2751: 

2752: 

2753: 

2754: 

2755: 

2756: 

2757: 

2758: 

2759: 

2760: 

2761: 

2762: 

2763: \end{thebibliography}

2764: 

2765: 

2766: 

2767: 

2768: 

2769: 

2770: 

2771: %\clearpage

2772: 

2773: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

2774: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

2775: %% To embed the sample graphics in

2776: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

2777: %% \includegraphics commands

2778: %%

2779: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

2780: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

2781: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

2782: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

2783: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,R

2784: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

2785: %%

2786: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

2787: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

2788: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

2789: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

2790: %% journal to journal.

2791: 

2792: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

2793: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

2794: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

2795: %% available in the electronic journal.

2796: 

2797: 

2798: 

2799: 

2800: 

2801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2802: 

2803: 

2804: 

2805: \begin{figure}

2806:  \begin{center}

2807: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.50]{f3.eps}

2808: \caption{Logarithmic-scaled 5-GHz VLA map of Cygnus A (upper-left) and 1.5GHz VLA maps of

2809:   3C 223 (upper-right), 3C 284 (lower-left), and

2810:  3C 219 (lower-right) with linearly spaced contours are displayed.  

2811:  The straight 

2812:  lines overlaid in each map denote the lines we have used

2813:  to measure $r_{\rm h}$ and $A_{\rm h}$.}

2814: \label{radio}

2815:  \end{center}

2816: \end{figure}

2817: 

2818: 

2819: 

2820: 

2821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2822: \begin{table}

2823: \begin{center}

2824: \caption{The quantities measured from observations.\label{tab1}}

2825: \begin{tabular}{cccccccrrrrrrr}

2826: \tableline\tableline

2827: 

2828: 

2829:  Source & $r_{\rm h}$ (kpc)

2830:        & $A_{\rm h}$ (kpc$^2$)

2831:        & $\rho_{\rm a}$  (g cm$^{-3}$)

2832:        & $P_{\rm a}$  (dyne cm$^{-2}$)

2833:        & $\alpha$

2834:        & Ref. \\

2835:  

2836: 

2837: 

2838:  (1) & (2)

2839:        & (3)

2840:        & (4)

2841:        & (5)

2842:        & (6)

2843:        & (7)\\

2844: \tableline

2845: 

2846: 

2847: 

2848: 

2849:  Cygnus A E & 60 & 150  &

2850:  8.3$\times$10$^{-27}$   & 8.0$\times$10$^{-11}$

2851:    & 1.5 & 1,2 \\

2852: 

2853:  Cygnus A W  & 70 & 150  &  6.6$\times$10$^{-27}$ & 6.4$\times$10$^{-11}$

2854:    & 1.5 & 1,2\\

2855: 

2856: 

2857: 

2858: 3C 223 N & 340 & 4300 & 5.5$\times$10$^{-28}$ & 

2859:   1.2$\times$10$^{-12}$  & 1.6 & 3 \\

2860: 

2861: 3C 223 S & 340 & 1800 & 5.5$\times$10$^{-28}$ &  

2862:   1.2$\times$10$^{-12}$  & 1.6 & 3  \\

2863: 

2864: 

2865: 

2866: 3C 284 E & 260 & 4600 & 4.0$\times$10$^{-28}$ & 

2867:  6.4$\times$10$^{-13}$  & 1.0 & 3  \\

2868: 

2869: 3C 284 W & 380 & 6200 & 2.3$\times$10$^{-28}$ & 

2870:   3.7$\times$10$^{-13}$   & 1.4 & 3 \\

2871: 

2872: 3C 219 W & 210 & 5000 & 1.0$\times$10$^{-27}$ & 

2873:  1.6$\times$10$^{-12}$  & 2.0 & 4 \\

2874:  

2875: 

2876: 

2877: \tableline

2878: \end{tabular}

2879: 

2880: 

2881: \tablecomments{Column (1) shows the names of  radio sources, and the

2882:  following alphabet distinguishes the pair of  jets (see Fig. \ref{radio}

2883:  ). 

2884:  Columns (2) and (3) display, respectively, the cocoon lengths and the cross

2885:  sectional areas of cocoon head  measured from Fig. \ref{radio}

2886:  .

2887:  Columns (4) and (5) give the estimated 

2888:  ICM densities and pressures at $r = r_{\rm h}$.

2889:  In Column(6), the estimated power-law indexes of the ICM density are

2890:  presented.

2891:  References for the density profiles and pressures are listed in column (7)}

2892: 

2893: \tablerefs{

2894: (1) \citet{RF96}; (2) \citet{SW02}; 

2895:  (3) \citet{CB04};% (4)\citet{HB02};

2896:  (4)\citet{HW99}.}

2897: 

2898: 

2899: \end{center}

2900: \end{table}

2901: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2902: 

2903: \begin{table}[ht]

2904: \begin{center}

2905: \caption{The observed radio information.\label{tab2}}

2906: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccrrr}

2907: \tableline\tableline

2908: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Source\tablenotemark{a}} 

2909: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_h$\tablenotemark{a}}

2910: %       & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$A_h$\tablenotemark{b}}

2911: %       & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\rho_a$\tablenotemark{c}}

2912: %       & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$P_a$\tablenotemark{d}}

2913: %       & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$\tablenotemark{e}} \\

2914: 

2915:  Source & z

2916:        & d$_{\rm L}$

2917:        & $F_{\nu}$

2918:        & $\alpha_{\rm R}$ 

2919:        & $L_{\nu}$  \\

2920: %       & $L_{\rm R}$  \\

2921: 

2922: 

2923:   & 

2924:        & (Mpc)

2925:        & (Jy)

2926:        &

2927:        & (ergs s$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$) \\

2928: %       & (ergs s$^{-1})       \\

2929: 

2930: 

2931:  (1) & (2)

2932:        & (3)

2933:        & (4)

2934:        & (5)

2935:        & (6) \\

2936: %       & (7) \\

2937: 

2938: \tableline

2939: 

2940: 

2941:  Cygnus A   & 0.0565 & 249  & 9660 & 0.74

2942:    & 6.2$\times$10$^{35}$ \\ %  & 1.1$\times$10$^{44}$ \\

2943: 

2944: 

2945: 

2946: 3C 223  & 0.1368 & 635 & 16.0 & 

2947:   0.74  &  7.7$\times$10$^{33}$ \\ %  & 1.4$\times$10$^{42}$ \\

2948: 

2949: 

2950: 3C 284  & 0.2394 & 1182 & 12.3 & 

2951:   0.95   &  1.0$\times$10$^{34}$ \\ %    &   1.8$\times$10$^{42}$ \\

2952: 

2953: 

2954: 3C 219  & 0.1744 & 829 & 44.9 & 

2955:  0.81  &  3.7$\times$10$^{34}$ \\ %  &   6.5$\times$10$^{42}$  \\

2956: 

2957:  

2958: 

2959: 

2960: 

2961: 

2962: 

2963: 

2964: 

2965: \tableline

2966: \end{tabular}

2967: 

2968: 

2969: \tablecomments{Column (1) shows the names of radio sources. 

2970:  Columns (2) and (3) display, respectively, the redshift and the

2971:  luminosity distance calculated for the cosmology with  $H_0=71$km s$^{-1}$,

2972:  $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, and  $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7$.

2973:  Columns (4) and (5) give the values of flux densities and spectral

2974:  indexes at 178MHz, which are taken from the table (Table 1) of \citet{HAP98}.

2975:  In Column (6)  the calculated luminosity densities at 178MHz is presented

2976: % In Column(6) and (7), the calculated luminosity densities at 178MHz and

2977: % the radio  luminosities, which we calculated from the relation

2978: % $L_{\rm R} = \nu L_{\nu}$

2979: % are presented, respectively.

2980:  }

2981: 

2982: 

2983: 

2984: 

2985: \end{center}

2986: \end{table}

2987: 

2988: 

2989: 

2990: 

2991: 

2992: 

2993: 

2994: 

2995: 

2996: 

2997: \begin{figure}[ht]

2998: \begin{center} 

2999: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f4.eps}

3000: \caption

3001: {The obtained ranges of power and age of Cygnus A.

3002:  The three oblique lines, which lie closely to each other

3003:  are the solutions for 

3004: the power-law index of the ICM density ($\alpha$) shown by

3005:  arrow;

3006:  The solid line represents the solution for the estimated power-law

3007:  index (see Table \ref{tab1}). The dashed  and 

3008:  dot-dashed lines represent the solutions for the power-law index

3009:  increased by $0.5$ and decreased by $0.5$, respectively.

3010:  The shaded regions show  allowed ranges where the overpressure

3011:  condition ($P_{\rm c} > P_{\rm a}$) is satisfied.

3012:  Also  the Eddington luminosities are displayed 

3013:  by the horizontal lines for comparison.} 

3014: \label{CygApower}

3015: \end{center}

3016: \end{figure}

3017: 

3018: 

3019: 

3020: 

3021: \begin{figure}[ht]

3022: \begin{center} 

3023: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f5.eps}

3024: \caption

3025: {Same as Fig. \ref{CygApower}, but for 3C 223.}

3026: \label{3C223power}

3027: \end{center}

3028: \end{figure}

3029: 

3030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3031: 

3032: 

3033: \begin{figure}[ht]

3034: \begin{center} 

3035: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f6.eps}

3036: \caption

3037: {Same as Fig. \ref{CygApower}, but for 3C 284.}

3038: \label{3C284power}

3039: \end{center}

3040: \end{figure}

3041: 

3042: 

3043: 

3044: 

3045: \begin{figure}[ht]

3046: \begin{center} 

3047: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{f7.eps}

3048: \caption

3049: {Same as Fig. \ref{CygApower}, but for 3C 219.}

3050: \label{3C219power}

3051: \end{center}

3052: \end{figure}

3053: 

3054: 

3055: 

3056: 

3057: 

3058: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccrrrrrrr}

3059: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3060: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

3061: \rotate

3062: \tablecaption{The obtained properties of the jet and the cocoon together

3063:  with minimum energy of the radio lobe.}

3064: \tablewidth{0pt}

3065: 

3066: 

3067: 

3068: \startdata

3069: \tableline\tableline

3070: 

3071: 

3072: 

3073:  Source & $L_{\rm j}$ 

3074:        & $t_{\rm age}$ 

3075:        & $M_{\rm BH}$

3076:        & $2 L_{\rm j}/L_{\rm Edd}$   

3077:        & $E_{\rm c}$ 

3078:        & $E_{\rm min}$ 

3079:        & $\eta_{\rm c}$

3080:  \\ 

3081: 

3082:        

3083:   & ($10^{46}$ ergs s$^{-1}$)

3084:        & (Myr)

3085:        & ($M_{\odot}$)

3086:        &

3087:        & ($10^{60}$ ergs)

3088:        & ($10^{60}$ ergs)

3089:        &    \\

3090:        

3091:  (1) & (2)

3092:        & (3)

3093:        & (4)

3094:        & (5) 

3095:        & (6)

3096:        & (7)

3097:        & (8)  \\

3098: 

3099: \tableline

3100: 

3101: 

3102: 

3103: 

3104:  Cygnus A E & 0.4 - 2.6 & 19 - 47  & 

3105:       2.5$\times$10$^9$(2) &      

3106:       0.025 - 0.16 &

3107:       %3.4 - 8.8  &

3108:        6.2 - 16  & %revision

3109:        1.4 &  

3110:      %  2.3 - 6.1

3111:        4.4 - 11   %revision   

3112:       \\

3113: 

3114: 

3115: 

3116:  Cygnus A W & 0.35 - 1.1 & 30 - 53  &

3117:       2.5$\times$10$^9$(2) &

3118:       0.021 - 0.068 &

3119:      % 3.2 - 5.7  &

3120:        6.1 - 11  & %revision

3121:       1.4 &  

3122:     %   2.2 - 4.0

3123:        4.3 - 7.8   %revision

3124:       \\

3125: 

3126: 

3127: 

3128:  3C 223 N & 0.15 - 2.9 & 140 - 610  &

3129:       1.4$\times$10$^8$(1) &

3130:       0.16 - 3.2 & 

3131:      % 16 - 70  &

3132:        30 - 130  & %revision

3133:       0.88  &

3134:     %  18 - 79

3135:        34 - 150   %revision

3136:       \\

3137: 

3138: 

3139:  3C 223 S & 0.071 - 0.2 & 330 - 560  &

3140:       1.4$\times$10$^8$(1) &

3141:       0.078 - 0.22 & 

3142:      % 6.9 - 12  &

3143:        12 - 22  & %revision

3144:       0.88 &

3145:      % 7.8 - 13

3146:        14 - 25   %revision

3147:       \\

3148: 

3149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3150: 

3151: 3C 284 E  & 0.3 - 18 & 32 - 260  & 

3152:       8.2$\times$10$^8$(3,4) &

3153:       0.053 - 3.4 & 

3154:      % 14 - 110  &

3155:        26 - 210  & %revision

3156:        1.8    &

3157:      % 7.7 - 62 

3158:        14 - 120   %revision  

3159:       \\

3160: 

3161: 

3162: 

3163:  3C 284 W &  0.1 - 3.6  & 100 - 630  &

3164:       8.2$\times$10$^8$(3,4) &

3165:       0.018 - 0.67 & 

3166:     %  11 - 68  &

3167:        21 - 130  & %revision

3168:       3.0   &

3169:     %  3.7 - 23

3170:        7 - 43   %revision

3171:       \\

3172: 

3173: 

3174: 

3175: 

3176: 

3177: 

3178: 3C 219 W  & 2.6 - 43 & 37  - 150  &

3179:      6.3$\times$10$^8$(3) &

3180:       0.65 - 10 &

3181:     %  63 - 250  &

3182:        130 - 500  & %revision

3183:       1.6    &

3184:    %   40 - 160

3185:        79 - 310  & %revision

3186:        \\

3187: 

3188: 

3189: 

3190: \enddata

3191: 

3192: 

3193: \tablecomments{Column (1) shows the names of  radio sources, and the

3194:  following alphabet distinguishes the

3195:  pair of  jets (see Fig. \ref{radio}).

3196:  Columns (2) and (3) display, respectively, the total kinetic powers and 

3197:  ages of the radio jets. In column (4) and (5),  the black hole mass

3198:  and the kinetic powers

3199:  normalized by the corresponding Eddington luminosity are displayed,

3200:  respectively.

3201:  References for the

3202:  central SMBH mass are given in parentheses.

3203:  In Columns (6) and (7), 

3204:  the total energies

3205:  deposited in the cocoon  and

3206:  the minimum energies required for the synchrotron emission 

3207:  are displayed,

3208:  respectively.

3209:  Column (8) gives the ratios between $E_{\rm c}$ and $E_{\rm min}$.}

3210: 

3211: \tablerefs{

3212:  (1) \citet{WU02}; 

3213:  (2) \citet{TMA03}; 

3214:  (3) \citet{MCF04};

3215:  (4) \citet{SRH05}.}

3216: \label{tab3}

3217: \end{deluxetable}

3218: 

3219: 

3220: 

3221: 

3222: 

3223: 

3224: 

3225: 

3226: 

3227: 

3228: 

3229: 

3230: 

3231: 

3232: 

3233: 

3234: 

3235: 

3236: 

3237: 

3238: 

3239: 

3240: 

3241: 

3242: 

3243: 

3244: 

3245: 

3246: 

3247: 

3248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3249: \end{document}

3250: 

3251: 

3252: %%

3253: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

3254: 

3255: 

3256: