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

2: %%%%\usepackage{color}

3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: \newcommand{\et}{et al.}

5: \newcommand{\lum}{{\rm luminosity}}

6: \newcommand{\fv}{F_{\rm var}}

7: \newcommand{\fvar}{F_{\rm var}}

8: \newcommand{\Fvar}{F_{\rm var}}

9: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}

10: \newcommand{\Tb}{T_{\rm b}}

11: \newcommand{\fracfvar}{\frac{F_{var,soft}}{F_{var,hard}}}

12: \newcommand{\Dtsamp}{{\Delta}T_{{\rm samp}}}

13: \newcommand{\Dtsm}{{\Delta}T_{{\rm sim}}}

14: \newcommand{\rxte}{{\it RXTE}}

15: \newcommand{\xte}{{\it RXTE}}

16: \newcommand{\exosat}{{\it EXOSAT}}

17: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it XMM-Newton}}

18: \newcommand{\nh}{N_{\rm H}}

19: \newcommand{\Msun}{\hbox{$\rm\thinspace M_{\odot}$}}

20: \def\lineindex#1{{\thinspace\small#1}}

21: \def\I{\lineindex I} \def\II{\lineindex{II}} \def\III{\lineindex{III}}

22: \slugcomment{}

23: \shorttitle{X-ray Spectrum of NGC 3227}

24: \shortauthors{Markowitz et al.}

25: 

26: \begin{document}

27: 

28: \title{A Comprehensive X-ray Spectral Analysis of the Seyfert 1.5 NGC 3227}

29: 

30: \author{A. Markowitz\altaffilmark{1}, J.N. Reeves\altaffilmark{2}, I.M. George\altaffilmark{3,4}, V.\ Braito\altaffilmark{5}, R.\ Smith\altaffilmark{5}, S.\ Vaughan\altaffilmark{5}, P.\ Ar\'{e}valo\altaffilmark{6}, F.\ Tombesi\altaffilmark{4,7,8,9}

31: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego, M.C.\ 0424, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0424, USA}

32: \altaffiltext{2}{Astrophysics Group, School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK}

33: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD, 21250, USA}

34: \altaffiltext{4}{X-ray Astrophysics Laboratory, Code 662, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, 20771, USA}

35: \altaffiltext{5}{X-ray Astronomy Group, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK}

36: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ}

37: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N.\ Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}

38: \altaffiltext{8}{INAF-IASF Bologna, via Gobetti 101, 40129, Bolognia, Italy}

39: \altaffiltext{9}{Departimento di Astronomia, Universit\`{a} degli Studi di Bologna, via Ranzini 1, 40127, Bologna, Italy} 

40: }

41: 

42: \begin{abstract}

43: We present results of a 100 ks {\it XMM-Newton} observation of the 

44: Seyfert 1.5 AGN NGC 3227.

45: Our best-fit broadband model to the EPIC pn spectrum consists of a moderately

46: flat (photon index of 1.57) hard X-ray power-law absorbed by cold 

47: gas with a column density of $3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{2}$, plus 

48: a strong soft excess, modeled as a steep power law with a photon index of 3.35,

49: absorbed by cold gas with a column density of 9 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. 

50: The soft excess increases in normalization by $\sim$20$\%$ in $\sim$20 ks, 

51: independently of the hard X-ray emission component, and

52: the UV continuum, tracked via the OM, 

53: also shows a strong increasing trend over the observation, consistent with reprocessing of soft X-ray emission.

54: Warm absorber signatures are evident in both the EPIC and RGS spectra;

55: we model two absorbing layers, with ionization parameters log$\xi$ = 1.2 and 2.9 erg cm s$^{-1}$, and

56: with similar column densities ($\sim$ 1--2 $\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$).

57: The outflow velocities relative to systemic of the high- and low-ionization absorbers are

58: estimated to be --(2060$^{+240}_{-170}$) km s$^{-1}$ and --(420$^{+430}_{-190}$) km s$^{-1}$, respectively.

59: The Fe K$\alpha$ line FWHM width is 7000 $\pm$ 1500 km s$^{-1}$; 

60: its inferred distance from the black hole is consistent with the BLR and with the inner radius of the dust

61: reverberation-mapped by Suganuma et al.  An emission feature near 6.0 keV is 

62: modeled equally well as a narrow redshifted Fe K line, possibly associated with a 

63: disk ``hot-spot,'' or as the red wing to a relativistically broadened Fe line profile.

64: {\it Swift}-BAT and archival {\it RXTE} data suggest at most a weak Compton reflection 

65: hump ($R \lesssim 0.5$), and a high-energy cutoff near 100 keV. From {\it RXTE} monitoring, 

66: we find tentative evidence for a significant fraction of the Fe line flux 

67: to track variations in the continuum on time scales $<$ 700 days.

68: 

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: 

72: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: Seyfert --- X-rays: galaxies --- galaxies: individual (NGC 3227) }

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: 

77: 

78: A 1993 {\it Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA)} 

79: observation of the nucleus of the Seyfert 1.5

80: NGC 3227 first revealed evidence for 

81: ionized absorbing gas with $N_{\rm H,WA}$ $\sim$ 1--4$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$

82: (Netzer \et\ 1994, Ptak \et\ 1994). Komossa \& Fink (1997b),

83: using 1993 {\it R\"{o}ntgen Satellite (ROSAT)}-PSPC data, and George \et\ (1998b), 

84: using {\it ASCA} data taken in 1993 and 1995,

85: further modeled the warm absorber, finding it to be relatively

86: lowly-ionized relative to most other Seyferts' warm absorbers. 

87: Given the low-resolution spectra,

88: the solution for further progress was to obtain a gratings spectrum.

89: Komossa (2002) reported on a {\it Chandra}-LETGS observation of NGC 3227

90: in October 2000, noting edge-like features near 0.7 keV. %%%% , associated with ionized absorption.

91: {\it XMM-Newton} first observed NGC 3227 in 

92: November 2000, when the source was undergoing a 3-month long period

93: of very high levels of obscuration due to a compact cloud with 

94: $N_{\rm H}$ near $3 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, covering 90$\%$ of the central source, and

95: likely associated with the BLR, traversing the line of sight (Lamer \et\ 2003). 

96: The soft X-ray data from this observation indicated the 

97: warm absorber to have ionization parameter log$\xi$\footnote{The ionization parameter $\xi \equiv L_{\rm ion} n_{\rm e}^{-1} r^{-2}$, where $L_{\rm ion}$ is the isotropic 1--1000 Ryd ionizing continuum luminosity, $n{\rm e}$ is the electron number density, and $r$ is the distance from the central continuum source to the absorbing gas.} = 1.7--2.0 erg cm s$^{-1}$ and

98: a column density $N_{\rm H,WA}$ = 2--9$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Gondoin \et\ 2003).

99: 

100: 

101: 

102: Optical spectra of the nucleus of NGC 3227 have indicated strong reddening

103: due to the presence of dust along the line of sight.

104: The narrow line H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio, for instance, indicates reddening,

105: with measured ratios in NGC 3227 implying visual extinctions $A_{\rm V}$ =  (H$\alpha$/H$\beta$)/3.1 

106: near 1.2--1.7 (Cohen 1983; Gonzalez Delgado \& Perez 1997),

107: though $A_{\rm V}$ values of 4.5--4.9 have been reported

108: (Mundell \et\ 1995a, Rubin \& Ford 1968)\footnote{The 

109: H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio is intrinsically 3.1, assuming case B recombination and assuming that collisional excitation 

110: is negligible, applicable for typical NLR conditions, but see warnings by Netzer 1990 regarding

111: uncertainties in the intrinsic Balmer decrement.}.

112: The broad H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ line ratio shows a similar level of reddening,

113: $A_{\rm V}$ = 1.4 (Cohen 1983, Winge \et\ 1995).

114: The steep drop in NGC 3227's continuum flux from the near-UV 

115: to the far-UV also supports reddening: the spectral index from {\it International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)}

116: measurements is $\alpha_{\rm IUE} = -2.9$ for NGC 3227, whereas $\alpha_{\rm IUE} = -1.4$

117: is more typical for

118: Seyfert 1s (Komossa \& Fink 1997b; Courvoisier \& Paltani 1992; Kinney \et\ 1991).

119: Assuming a standard Galactic gas/dust ratio of

120: %%%%% $N_{\rm H}$ / $E_{\rm (B-V)}$ = 6$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ magn$^{-1}$ or 

121: $N_{\rm H}$/$A_{\rm V}$ = 2$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ magn$^{-1}$

122: (e.g., Shull \& van Steenburg 1985), the amount of NLR and BLR

123: reddening implies that the dust is associated with 

124: a column of gas with $N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 2--3 $\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

125: 

126: 

127: 

128: Komossa \& Fink (1997b) and George \et\ (1998b) also reported local absorption due to cold material

129: with a column density $N_{\rm H}$ = 3--6 $\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$,

130: in addition to the Galactic column (2.1$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$,

131: Dickey \& Lockman 1990, Murphy \et\ 1996). The inferred local cold column density

132: agrees with that derived from 21cm VLA observations (Mundell \et\ 1995b);

133: however, it is not sufficient to produce the observed optical reddening,

134: assuming a standard Galactic gas/dust ratio.

135: The agreement between the inferred column density associated with the

136: dust and the column density of the ionized gas, however, prompted Komossa \& Fink (1997b) to 

137: suggest that the dust was embedded in the warm absorber and not

138: associated with the cold gas. Brandt, Fabian, \& Pounds (1996) first suggested 

139: this "dusty warm absorber" concept for the quasar IRAS 13349+2438.

140: 

141: %%%%KF97b: dust-free and dust-contained: same fit results

142: 

143: However, Kraemer \et\ (2000) suggested that it was

144: unlikely dust could survive within the high-ionization gas.

145: They proposed a configuration consisting of {\it two}

146: warm absorber zones, in addition to the cold column.

147: One warm absorber is dust-free and highly-ionized,

148: responsible for the oxygen edges; the other is a very lowly-ionized absorber with dust mixed in,

149: referred to as a "dusty lukewarm absorber." Those authors 

150: modeled the latter absorber with a density of 20 cm$^{-3}$ and 

151: a location encompassing or lying just outside the NLR, which has a 

152: radius of $\sim$100 pc (based on [O III] imaging; Schmitt \& Kinney 1996).

153: Using {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}-STIS, Crenshaw \et\ (2001) first observed

154: the features of the dusty lukewarm absorber, evident in the form of 

155: optical/UV absorption lines due to intermediate species of C, N and Si;

156: Crenshaw \& Kraemer (2001)

157: suggested that the absorber may possibly be a relatively highly-ionized

158: component of the NLR seen in absorption. 

159: Kraemer \et\ (2000) suggested that the dust may evaporate off the 

160: putative molecular torus and be swept up in an outflowing wind

161: (e.g., Reynolds 1997).

162: Based on V-band-to-K-band reverberation mapping (the latter band dominated by

163: thermal dust emission) conducted by the MAGNUM collaboration, 

164: Suganuma \et\ (2006) concluded that 

165: the innermost extent the dust was at a radius of $\sim$5--20 light-days,

166: suggesting an alternate or additional site from which an outflowing wind 

167: could sweep up dust.

168: 

169: 

170: 

171: In 2006, we obtained a new, 100 ks {\it XMM-Newton} observation of NGC 3227 in an unobscured

172: state, to better characterize the broadband X-ray continuum and X-ray

173: warm absorber features, search for signatures of dust in the X-ray spectrum, 

174: relate the X-ray and dusty optical/UV warm absorbers,

175: and study Fe K bandpass emission features.

176: $\S$2 describes the observations and data reduction.

177: $\S$3 and $\S$4 describe EPIC spectral fits to the time-averaged spectrum, 

178: focusing on the Fe K bandpass and then extending to the 

179: 0.2--10 keV bandpass, respectively.

180: $\S$5 describes the fits to the RGS spectra. 

181: $\S$6 describes spectral analysis of archival {\it RXTE} data to constrain

182: the hard X-ray continuum.

183: $\S$7 describes time- and flux-resolved spectral fits to the EPIC data,

184: including $F_{\rm var}$ spectra, and time-resolved spectral fits

185: to the {\it RXTE} data to quantify the temporal behavior of the Fe line.

186: X-ray/UV correlations are presented in $\S$8.

187: The results are discussed in

188: $\S$9, and a brief summary is given in $\S$10.

189: 

190: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

191: 

192: \subsection{{\it XMM-Newton} data reduction}

193: 

194: NGC 3227 was observed by {\it XMM-Newton} during Revolution 1279, on 

195: December 3--4, 2006, for a duration of 99 ks.

196: {\it XMM-Newton}'s European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) consists of one pn CCD

197: back-illuminated array sensitive to 0.15--15 keV photons (Str\"{u}der

198: \et\ 2001), and two MOS CCD front-illuminated arrays sensitive to

199: 0.15--12 keV photons (MOS 1 and MOS 2, Turner \et\ 2001).

200: Data from the pn were taken in Large Window mode; data from both MOSes

201: were taken in PrimePartialW2/small window mode. 

202: The medium filter was used for all three EPIC instruments.

203: Spectra were extracted using {\it XMM-Newton}-SAS version 7.1.0 and using standard

204: extraction procedures. For all three cameras, source data were

205: extracted from a circular region of radius 40$\arcsec$; backgrounds were

206: extracted from circles of identical size, centered $\sim$3$\arcmin$ away

207: from the core. Hot, flickering, or bad pixels were excluded. Data were

208: selected using event patterns 0--4 for the pn and 0--12 for the MOSes. 

209: Using the SAS task {\sc epatplot}, we verified that pile-up was negligible

210: for the pn. For the MOS, pile-up was minimal ($<$3$\%$) up to 8 keV,

211: and a bit higher (3--10$\%$) above 8 keV.

212: The effect of such pile-up is to artifically flatten the spectrum.

213: However, we also extracted counts from the MOS CCDs

214: using an annular region with inner radius 5$\arcsec$ and outer

215: radius 40$\arcsec$ to minimize pile-up; the resulting spectra

216: were virtually identical to those extracted using the circular region.

217: We elected to fit the spectra extracted using circular regions

218: in order to maximize the photon statistics associated with 

219: emission features in the Fe K bandpass.

220: 

221: We inspected the 10--12 keV pn background

222: light curve; there were no significant flares (the 10--12 keV rate

223: never exceeded 0.04 ct s$^{-1}$). The total good exposure time 

224: was 90.7 ks for pn and 96.4 ks for each MOS.

225: The 0.2--10 keV pn light curve, binned to 600 s and normalized by its

226: mean count rate (11.74 ct s$^{-1}$), is displayed in the top

227: panel of Figure 1. Similarly displayed in Figure 1 are the 0.2--1 and 3--10 keV

228: light curves; in these energy ranges, the total continuum is dominated

229: by the soft excess and hard X-ray power-law components, respectively,

230: as will be demonstrated in $\S$4.

231: 

232: 

233: The Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) data were extracted using standard extraction

234: procedures, including the SAS task {\sc rgsproc} and the most recent calibration files.

235: We used the first-order data only; spectra were binned every 10 channels ($\sim$0.1$\AA$, or roughly the RGS resolution).

236: Virtually all bins contained at least 20 counts, allowing use of the $\chi^2$ statistic.

237: Bad RGS channels were ignored. The good exposure time was 99.2 ks for each RGS.

238: 

239: 

240: The Optical Monitor (OM) was in Science User Defined

241: mode, with one ``image'' window $5.17\arcmin \times 5.17\arcmin$ centered on NGC 3227.

242: The UVW1 filter, whose effective area peaks near 260 nm, was used throughout.

243: Extraction proceeded in a manner similar to $\S$2--3 of Smith \& Vaughan (2007). 

244: Source photons were collected using a 12-pixel radius circle centered on NGC 3227.

245: Emission from the host galaxy was not subtracted; the effect of including

246: such a constant component is that any variability we observe is thus 

247: likely a lower limit to the intrinsic level of variability associated with the AGN. 

248: The background was extracted from a circular region away from the host galaxy.

249: The resulting net light curve, extracted in 1400 s bins,

250: is displayed in Figure 1.

251: 

252: 

253: \subsection{{\it RXTE} PCA and HEXTE extraction}

254: 

255: To investigate the form of the $>$10 keV continuum and estimate

256: the strength of any Compton reflection hump present, we

257: examined archival 

258: Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer {\it RXTE} Proportional Counter Array (PCA;

259: Swank \et\ 1998)

260: and High-Energy X-Ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE; Rothschild \et\ 1998) monitoring data.

261: NGC 3227 was observed in November 1996 for $\sim$260 ks.

262: NGC 3227 was also monitored from 1999 January 2 until 2005 December 4,

263: with one visit every 2--7 days, along with a period of more intensive monitoring 

264: approximately four times daily from 2000 April 2 to 2000 June 7

265: (see Uttley \& M$^{\rm c}$Hardy 2005 for further details regarding sampling patterns).

266: Each monitoring snapshot typically lasted 1 ks.

267: There were no observations simultaneous with the 2006 {\it XMM-Newton} observation, so we considered

268: all available data in the public archive in order to estimate average long-term properties.

269: However, data taken from late 2000 to early 2001 (modified Julian day [MJD] 51850--52050), 

270: affected by the passage of the compact cloud across the line of sight, were ignored

271: during spectral fitting. 

272: 

273: 

274: PCA data were extracted and screened using standard 

275: methods and tools. 

276: The 'L7-240' background models, appropriate for faint sources, were used.

277: See e.g., Markowitz, Edelson \& Vaughan (2003) 

278: for details on PCA data extraction and background subtraction, the 

279: dominant source of systematic uncertainty (e.g., in total broadband count rate)

280: in these data.

281: Counts were extracted from Proportional Counter Units (PCUs) 0--2, 0 and 2, and 2 only for data

282: observed before 1999 December 23, between 1999 December 23 and 2000 May 12, and after

283: 2000 May 12, respectively. 

284: Response files were generated for gain epochs 3, 4 and 5 separately

285: (data observed before 1999 March 22, between 1999 March 22 and 2000 May 12, and

286: after 2000 May 12, respectively).

287: As the response of the PCA slowly hardens

288: over time due to the gradual leak of propane into the xenon layers,

289: data within each gain epoch were further split into roughly equal segments, each

290: spanning durations of roughly

291: a couple hundreds days, and separate response files were

292: generated for each segment. Spectra and responses were then added,

293: weighting by exposure times, using the FTOOLS {\sc sumpha} and {\sc addrmf}, respectively.

294: The total exposure time for all PCA data was 842.7 ks.

295: 

296: 

297: The HEXTE instrument consists of

298: two independent clusters (A and B), each containing four scintillation 

299: counters  which share a common 1$\degr$ FWHM 

300: field of view. Source and background spectra were extracted from each 

301: individual \xte\ visit using Science Event data and standard extraction 

302: procedures. The same good time intervals used for the PCA data (e.g., 

303: including Earth elevation and SAA passage screening) were applied to the 

304: HEXTE data. To measure real-time background measurements, the two HEXTE 

305: clusters each undergo two-sided rocking to offset positions, in this 

306: case, to 1.5$\arcdeg$ off-source, switching every 32 seconds

307: (16 seconds before 1998 Jan.). No strong 

308: contaminating hard X-ray source within 2$\degr$ is evident

309: (e.g., from the {\it RXTE}-PCA or {\it Swift}-BAT all-sky slew survey data

310: available at the HEASARC's online SkyView service).

311: Cluster A data taken between 

312: 2004 Dec 13 and 2005 Jan 14 were excluded, as the cluster did not rock 

313: on/off source. Detector 2 aboard Cluster B lost spectral capabilities

314: in 1996; these data were excluded from spectral analysis. Cluster A and B 

315: data were extracted separately and not combined, as their response matrices 

316: differ slightly.  Deadtime corrections were applied.

317: All data within each cluster were combined,

318: except for the 1996 data; %%%\footnote{REMOVE THIS FOOTNOTE BEFORE SUBMITTING:

319: %%%%%% As part of my duties as part of the HEXTE team, I'd spent some time

320: %%%%%% investigating HEXTE performance for faint objects (e.g., AGN).

321: %%%%%% I verified that we can go down to 1$\%$ of the background; the HEXTE

322: %%%%%% spectrum in this paper might be the faintest published yet,

323: %%%%%% esp.\ for a Seyfert (to my knowledge).

324: %%%%%% But there was a weird background subtraction error appearing when I

325: %%%%%% summed the 1996 spectrum (16 s rocking) and 1999-2005 spectrum (32 s rocking) together (each indiv.\ spectrum looks fine).

326: %%%%%% Rick R.\ thinks it has something to do 

327: %%%%%% with the fact that between successive off-source pointings,

328: %%%%%% one assumes a linear background vs.\ time relation.

329: %%%%%% But the real background count rate decays exponentially.

330: %%%%%% This overestimate of the background is larger

331: %%%%%% for 32-sec rocking than for 16-sec rocking.

332: %%%%%% This may lead to the bkgd subtraction issue, but ONLY for very faint

333: %%%%%% sources ($\lesssim1-2\%$ of the background).} 

334: that is, the 1996 (16 s rocking)

335: and 1999--2005 (32 s rocking) spectra were fit separately.

336: We note that the 1996 and 1999--2005 spectra agree well with each other for each cluster,

337: illustrating HEXTE's performance down to source fluxes which are

338: 1$\%$ of the background.

339: Good exposure times for the four HEXTE source spectra

340: were 237.1 ks (cluster A) and 234.2 ks (cluster B)

341: for the 1999--2005 data, and 41.5 (A) and 41.8 ks (B) for

342: the 1996 data. All data were grouped as follows:

343: channels 17--30, 31--39, 40--47, 48--67, 68--79 and $\geq80$

344: were grouped by factors of 2,3,4,5,6 and 10, respectively.

345: The LLAGN/LINER source NGC 3226 is located about 2$\arcmin$ away and is thus

346: in the field of view of both the PCA and HEXTE, but its flux

347: is a factor of $\sim$ 50 fainter than that of NGC 3227 in the 2-10 keV band

348: (Binder et al, in prep.; George \et\ 2001).

349: 

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: 

354: 

355: 

356: \section{EPIC pn spectral fits to the Fe K Bandpass}

357: 

358: 

359: {\sc xspec} (Arnaud 1996) v.11.3.2ag was used for all spectral fitting.

360: All errors below correspond to $\Delta$$\chi^2$ = 2.71

361: (90$\%$ confidence level for one interesting parameter when the errors are symmetric) unless

362: otherwise noted.

363: The abundances of Lodders (2003) were used.

364: NGC 3227's redshift is 0.00386 (de Vaucouleurs et al.\ 1991);

365: a distance of 20.3 Mpc was used (Mould et al.\ 2000)

366: was used to calculate luminosities.

367: In all models, we included a

368: column of neutral absorption fixed at the Galactic column

369: of 2.1$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Dickey \& Lockman 1990, Murphy \et\ 1996). 

370: 

371: We started by fitting the EPIC-pn data, 4--10 keV only.

372: Residuals to a simple power-law fit

373: ($\chi^2$/$dof$ = 1515/999) showed an obvious Fe K$\alpha$ emission

374: line, but also some interesting structure near 6.0 keV; see Figure 2a.

375: In our fits, we tested two competing models that explain the

376: emission features roughly equally well. As explained below,

377: in both models, narrow emission features are detected at

378: 6.40 keV and 7.37 keV (Fe K$\alpha$ and Ni K$\alpha$ respectively).

379: The models differ in how emission near 6.0 keV is modeled:

380: as a narrow Gaussian emission line, or as a relativistic diskline

381: (hereafter ``GA'' and ``DL'' models). 

382: 

383: We started with the former case. First, we included

384: a Gaussian component at 6.40 keV to model the

385: Fe K$\alpha$ line. In the best-fit ``GA'' model,

386: the Fe K$\alpha$ line best-fit energy, intensity and $EW$

387: were 6.403$^{+0.011}_{-0.010}$ keV, consistent with neutral Fe. 

388: Its intensity and $EW$ were 

389: 3.5$\pm$0.4 $\times 10^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 91$\pm$10 eV,

390: respectively. Its width $\sigma$ was 65$\pm$14 eV, which corresponds to a

391: FWHM velocity of 7000$\pm$1500 km s$^{-1}$. 

392: 

393: 

394: Figure 3 shows contour plots resulting from adding a 

395: ``sliding Gaussian'' to the ``power-law + Fe K$\alpha$ line'' model 

396: to trace the emission residuals after the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line

397: was modeled. That is, we added a Gaussian with width $\sigma$ fixed at 10 eV

398: and searched over 4--9 keV in units of 0.1 keV, i.e., in

399: steps smaller than the instrumental resolution. The narrow feature

400: near 6.0 keV is clear; other residuals near 7.0 and 7.4 keV

401: also warrant further investigation.

402: 

403: 

404: To model Fe K$\beta$ emission,

405: we added a Gaussian to the model, keeping the   

406: energy centroid fixed and width $\sigma$ tied to that of the Fe K$\alpha$ line.

407: However, the line was not significantly detected according to an $F$-test.

408: The upper limit to the line's $EW$ was 15 eV;

409: the upper limit on the K$\beta$/K$\alpha$ normalization ratio

410: was 0.19 (yielding no useful constraints on the ionization 

411: state of the Fe-line emitting material).  

412: We included this feature in the rest of the fits for completeness,

413: with intensity fixed to 0.13 times that of the Fe K$\alpha$ line.

414: Residuals to a model consisting of the power-law and

415: the K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ lines (where $\chi^2$/$dof$ was 1028.3/996)

416: are plotted in Figure~2b.

417:  

418: 

419: We next added an Fe K edge at 7.11 keV (energy fixed) 

420: likely associated with reflection; $\chi^2$/$dof$ dropped to 1017.6/995; 

421: residuals to a model including the edge are plotted in Figure~2c.

422: In the best-fit model, the optical depth $\tau$ was 0.05$\pm$0.03. 

423: 

424: 

425: Next, we used a Gaussian component

426: to model an emission line at 7.39$^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ keV,

427: with width $\sigma$ tied to that of the Fe K$\alpha$ line,

428: consistent with emission from Ni K$\alpha$.

429: Its intensity and equivalent width were 

430: $4^{+4}_{-3} \times 10^{-6}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 

431: $13^{+13}_{-10}$ eV, respectively.  $\chi^2$/$dof$ dropped to 1010.2/993;

432: it was significant at 97.3$\%$ 

433: confidence according to an $F$-test to include this line.

434: Residuals to a model including this line are plotted in Figure~2d.

435: 

436: 

437: Next, we added a narrow Gaussian emission profile near 6.0 keV 

438: to model those residuals;

439: $\Delta$$\chi^2$ was --24.94 for 3 less $dof$,

440: significant at $>$99.99$\%$ confidence according a standard $F$-test.

441: This line is not resolved 

442: (width $\sigma$ $<$ 200 eV). Its intensity and 

443: $EW$ are $9^{+8}_{-4} \times 10^{-6}$ ph cm $^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and     

444: 21$^{+19}_{-9}$ eV, respectively.   

445: A contour plot of intensity versus energy (confidence levels are for

446: two interesting parameters) is shown in Figure 4.

447: The best-fit line energy is 6.04$^{+0.18}_{-0.04}$ keV

448: inconsistent with 6.24 keV, the lowest photon energy 

449: associated with a Compton shoulder scattering feature.

450: Using a Gaussian to model a Compton shoulder, we should expect 

451: a centroid energy $>$ 6.24 keV; fixing the Gaussian line energy at 6.24 keV

452: failed to fully model away the 6.0 keV residuals.

453: We performed Monte Carlo simulations to assess the statistical

454: significance of this emission feature, as standard usage of 

455: the $F$-test may overestimate the statistical significance of

456: lines at arbitrary energies such as this one (see e.g., warnings by Protassov \et\ 2002).

457: The simulations were conducted following $\S$4.3.3 of Markowitz, Reeves \& Braito (2006); see

458: also $\S$3.3 of Porquet \et\ (2004). 

459: The simulations indicated that the likelihood that

460: the 6.0 keV emission line is photon noise is $<$0.1$\%$, i.e., the line is

461: significant at $>$99.9$\%$ confidence.

462: 

463: 

464: In this best-fit ``GA'' model, $\chi^2$/$dof$ was 983.2/990;

465: $\Gamma$ was 1.57$\pm$0.03. Other best-fit parameters are shown in Table~1.

466: Residuals are plotted in Figure~2e.

467: 

468: 

469: Next, we tried to model the 6.0 keV feature as the red wing

470: of a relativistic diskline profile. 

471: We used a {\sc Laor} model profile (Laor 1991) to 

472: model the diskline, with emissivity index 

473: $\beta$\footnote{radial emissivity per unit area is quantified as a power law, $r^{-\beta}$}

474: fixed at 3. $\chi^2$/$dof$ was 988.7/989 ($\Delta$$\chi^2$ = --16.8;

475: significant at 99.8$\%$ confidence in an $F$-test)

476: in the best-fit ``DL'' model.  The $EW$ of the diskline was 81$^{+42}_{-30}$ eV;

477: its inclination was $<$25$\degr$, and the inner radius was $<$22 $R_{\rm g}$\footnote{1 $R_{\rm g} \equiv GM_{\rm BH}/c^2$}. Visually, there still remained correlated, emission-like residuals from 5.9--6.1 keV,

478: as shown in Figure 2f, which might at first 

479: suggest that the 6.0 keV emission feature may be better modeled

480: as a narrow feature than as a red wing of a diskline. However, given the similar values of

481: $\chi^2$/$dof$ and the instrument resolution, it would be difficult to demonstrate

482: that the difference in residuals between the two models is not consistent with 

483: photon noise. 

484: 

485: %%%%%%The 3-Gaussian model seems preferred.

486: 

487: \subsection{MOS 1+2 spectral fits to the Fe K bandpass} 

488: 

489: As a double-check on spectral modeling, we applied

490: our best-fit ``GA'' model to both time-averaged

491: MOS spectra (fit simultaneously, with all line 

492: parameters tied between both MOS spectra). The power-law 

493: indices and normalizations were allowed to differ between MOS 1

494: and MOS 2. Overall,

495: the MOS and PN yielded qualitatively similar results. 

496: A simple power-law fit resulted in $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 771.9/558; 

497: data/model residuals are plotted in the top panel of Figure 5.

498: Adding Gaussian components to represent Fe K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ emission

499: in a manner similar to the pn fits caused $\chi^2$/$dof$ to drop to

500: 546.86/555. Again we performed a ``sliding narrow ($\sigma$ = 10 eV)

501: Gaussian'' test; the resulting contours are plotted in Figure 6 and again indicate

502: emission near 6.0-6.1 keV. 

503: 

504: Finally, adding a narrow Gaussian (width $\sigma$ fixed

505: at 10 eV) at $6.11^{+0.06}_{-0.13}$ 

506: keV further improved the fit; $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 

507: 535.87/553 ($\Delta\chi^2 = -11.0$ for two less $dof$; 

508: significant at 99.7$\%$ confidence

509: according to an $F$-test used in the standard way). 

510: The best-fit values of the intensity and $EW$ were $6.4 \pm 3.4 \times 10^{-6}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$

511: and $13 \pm 7$ eV, respectively.

512: Data/model residuals for the best-fit model are plotted in the bottom panel of

513: Figure 5 (There remain $\sim$10--15$\%$ 

514: residuals in ratio space near 7.0 and 7.5 keV

515: in Figure 5, but Figure 6 indicates that those features are not detected

516: with high significance.). 

517: A contour plot of the intensity of the emission line at 6.11 keV versus line energy

518: is plotted in Figure 7.

519: Again we performed Monte Carlo simulations

520: to gauge the detection significance, finding the line to be detected at 95$\%$ confidence

521: in the MOS 1+2 spectrum i.e., independent of the pn detection. 

522: In fact, we can multiply the independent null hypothesis probabilities

523: for the pn and MOS ($<$ 0.001 and 0.05) 

524: to yield a ``effective'' null hypothesis probability of $<$ $5\times10^{-5}$.

525: 

526: 

527: The detection of features at 6.0--6.1 keV in simultaneous pn and

528: MOS 1+2 spectra illustrates the importance of observing with 

529: multiple X-ray instruments to attempt to

530: distinguish between narrow and/or weak features which may be intrinsic to the target and 

531: features which are artifacts associated with photon noise

532: (even when Monte Carlo simulations are used to gauge the detection

533: significances in individual spectra). The likelihood that a strong emission feature could appear 

534: at the same energy in both the pn and the MOS 1+2 spectra and be due to photon noise

535: is likely quite small.  

536: 

537: The photon indices for the MOS 1 and MOS 2  

538: spectra were 1.37$\pm$0.04  and 1.46$\pm$0.04, respectively; the flatter

539: values of the photon index compared to the pn are

540: likely the result of pile-up (MOS spectra extracted using only pattern 0 events

541: has photon indices which were $\sim$0.3 steeper than the MOS pattern 0--12 spectra).

542: Finally, we added an Fe K edge (energy fixed at 7.11 keV);

543: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 517.4/552 for $\tau = 0.09 \pm 0.04$.

544: Emission from Ni K$\alpha$ was not significantly

545: detected. All other parameters were consistent at 

546: the 90$\%$ confidence level with those measured by the pn.

547: 

548: 

549: We also applied the best-fit ``DL'' model to the MOS 1+2 spectrum.

550: $\chi^2$/$dof$ was 504.9/550, with all diskline and

551: Fe K$\alpha$ line parameters consistent with those in the pn fits.

552: 

553: 

554: %%%%% comparing PN vs MOS hardband only:

555: %%%%% MOS

556: %%%%% HX Gamma = 1.41 (+/-0.04)        PN: 

557: %%%%% Tau = 0.16 +/- 0.05              PN: 0.05+/-0.03

558: %%%%% Int = 3.2e-5 (+0.4e-5,-0.5e-5)   PN:  3.5+/-0.4 e-5  

559: %%%%% EW = 70 eV (+9,-11)              PN:  91+/- 10

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

564: \section{EPIC pn Broadband Spectral Modeling}

565: 

566: We started with the best-fit ``GA'' model and

567: included data down to 0.2 keV. 

568: In addition to the Galactic column, we included

569: a {\sc zwabs} component at the systemic redshift

570: to model any excess cold absorption 

571: associated with e.g., the host galaxy or circumnuclear material,

572: $N_{\rm H,local}$.

573: 

574: The residuals (Figure 8a) showed a large soft excess 

575: and a large absorption trough at 

576: $\sim$0.73 to $\sim$0.92 keV which we identify as 

577: an Fe UTA feature. A narrow absorption feature near 

578: 1.34 keV is apparent, likely due to Mg XI.

579: A narrow absorption feature near 1.85 keV could be due to Si XIII, 

580: but could also be due to calibration uncertainties associated with 

581: the instrumental Si K edge.

582: 

583: 

584: We first modeled the soft excess using a steep power-law with

585: photon index $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ near 3. Our final, best-fit model (including

586: modeling the warm absorbers and \ion{O}{7} emission line; see below) 

587: is henceforth referred to as the ``SXPL (soft X-ray power law)'' model.

588: In the best-fit SXPL model, $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ was 3.35$^{+0.27}_{-0.10}$.

589: We also added another layer of cold 

590: absorption at the systemic redshift, applying it only to the hard X-ray power 

591: law; in the best-fit SXPL model, its column density $N_{\rm H,HX}$ was 

592: 2.9$^{+0.3}_{-0.8}$$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

593: This improved the overall fit substantially 

594: ($\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 3070.3/1730), but the 0.7--0.9 keV trough remained; see

595: Figure 8b. In this model, $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ was 1.64;

596: we note that forcing the photon indices of

597: the soft and hard power-law components $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$

598: and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ to be equal resulted in

599: a very poor fit, with $\chi$/$dof$ =  6057/1731.

600: 

601: 

602: Next, we used an {\sc xstar} grid, which 

603: assumed a turbulent velocity width of 100 km s$^{-1}$,

604: to model a layer of warm absorption with ionization 

605: parameter log$\xi$ and column density $N_{\rm H}$.

606: The grid assumed an underlying optical to X-ray spectral energy distribution described as follows:

607: Below 0.001 keV, a power-law component with spectral index $\alpha$ = 1.0 ($\Gamma=2.0$);

608: from 0.001 to 0.04 keV, a power law with $\alpha$ = 0.2 ($\Gamma=1.2$), following e.g.,

609: Elvis \et\ (1994) and Netzer (1996);

610: from 0.04 to 1.0 keV, a steep power law with $\alpha$ = 1.9 ($\Gamma=2.9$; the intrinsic EUV continuum is not well studied,

611: but we assume that the soft excess seen in the {\it XMM-Newton} spectrum extends down to 0.04 keV);

612: and above 1.0 keV, a power law with $\alpha$ = 0.5 ($\Gamma=1.5)$, with the

613: $>$0.04 keV power law indices based on the best-fitting SXPL model.

614: Initially, solar abundances and a zero velocity offset relative to systemic

615: were assumed. Applying one zone of warm absorption to the model,

616: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 2184.1/1728 for log$\xi$ $\sim$ 2.2 and

617: $N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 2$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. As shown in Figure 8c, however,

618: significant data/model residuals remained. A model incorporating

619: two zones of warm absorption successfuly modeled all the absorption-like residuals,

620: including the trough near 0.75 keV; $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 1942.1/1726.

621: In this model, the two X-ray absorbers had ionization parameters

622: log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ near 0.3 and log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ near 2.5.

623: We henceforth refer to the two X-ray absorbers as the

624: low-ionization X-ray absorber (though the ionization parameter

625: is still higher than that of the optical/UV lukewarm absorber; see $\S$9),

626: and high-ionization X-ray absorber, respectively.

627: 

628: By now, the residuals (see Figure 8d) showed a narrow emission 

629: feature near 0.56 keV, likely due to \ion{O}{7}. 

630: Adding a narrow Gaussian component 

631: at 0.58$\pm$0.01 keV with width $\sigma$ fixed at 1 eV caused $\chi^2$ to drop

632: by 75 for two less $dof$. 

633: However, we note that the warm absorbers each predict 

634: narrow absorption lines due to \ion{O}{7}, so there are likely large systematic 

635: uncertainties associated with the measured intensity of the \ion{O}{7} emission line.

636: This model, with $\chi^2$/$dof$=1866.9/1724,

637: is our best-fit  SXPL  model. In this model,

638: the column densities and ionization parameters of the 

639: low- and high-ionization absorbers are:                                        

640: $N_{\rm H,lo} = 1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$,

641: log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ = $1.45^{+0.16}_{-0.07}$,

642: $N_{\rm H,hi} = 1.8^{+1.2}_{-0.6} \times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$,

643: and log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ = $2.93^{+0.15}_{-0.09}$.

644: Other best-fit parameters are listed in Table 2.

645: The data/model residuals are shown in Figure 8e.

646: Residuals near 1.8 and 2.2  keV are instrumental

647: (Si K and Au M). Narrow emission-like features near 0.42 and 0.92 

648: are tempting to identify as \ion{N}{6} and \ion{Ne}{9} emission, but they are

649: likely narrower than the instrument resolution. 

650: There also appear to be some negative residuals near 6.8 keV, close to

651: the energies associated with \ion{Fe}{25} and \ion{Fe}{26}. However,

652: fitting this feature with an inverted Gaussian does not yield

653: significant improvement to the fit; it is likely a spurious feature

654: and will not be discussed further.

655: 

656: Note that residuals near the expected O and Fe L3

657: edge energies due to dust (0.53 and 0.71 keV) are fine; we do not require

658: additional edges at those energies (though we revisit this issue with the

659: higher resolution RGS data below).

660: If dust is present in the warm absorber,

661: abundances of O and Fe (and also Si and C)

662: may be expected to be low due to depletion onto grains (see Snow \& Witt 1996).

663: However, the measured O and Fe abundances of the warm absorber

664: are consistent with solar, and left fixed at solar values for

665: the remainder of the paper.

666: 

667: 

668: 

669: In the best-fit SXPL model, the hard X-ray power-law component has

670: a photon index $\Gamma_{\rm HX} = 1.57 \pm 0.02$,

671: a couple tenths lower than ``canonical'' values of 1.8--1.9 in many broad-line

672: Seyferts. We therefore explored the possibility that the observed

673: low value of the photon index is an artifact caused by a 

674: yet-unmodeled partial-covering absorbing component

675: with column density $N_{\rm H,PC} \sim 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ 

676: along the line of sight to the nucleus.

677: Such material is expected to exist within light-days

678: of the black hole, as demonstrated by the 2000-1 obscuration event.

679: Furthermore, such a column is required to explain the origin of the 

680: Fe K$\alpha$ line (see $\S$9.4) in the absence of strong Compton 

681: reflection (see $\S$6).

682: Modifying the hard X-ray power-law component

683: to be absorbed by a partial-covering neutral

684: absorber with $N_{\rm H,PC}$ 

685: set to 0.3, 1.0 or 3.0 $\times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, we find 

686: only upper limits to the covering fraction in the range 5--15$\%$. 

687: In the best fit models, $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ was never higher than about 1.6.

688: Partial-covering models are not analyzed further.

689: 

690: 

691: As before, we applied our best-fit SXPL model to the time-averaged

692: MOS 1+2 spectra as a double-check. 

693: The MOS fits, using this model and fitting over 0.4--10 keV,

694: and allowing power-law component parameters to differ between MOS 1 and MOS 2, 

695: yielded $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 1406.33/1017, and

696: required slightly higher values of the column density and ionization parameter

697: of the high-ionization warm absorber 

698: ($N_{\rm H,hi} = 1.2^{+0.3}_{-0.5} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and 

699: log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ = 3.22$^{+0.04}_{-0.11}$ erg cm s$^{-1}$, respectively)  

700: compared to the pn.

701: %%%%% G1 = 1.43   G2 = 1.47   <---pat0-12

702: %%%%% G1 = 1.58   G2 = 1.64   <---pat0

703: $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ for MOS1 and MOS2 were consistent with

704: that for the pn. $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ for MOS1 was $1.52 \pm 0.01$, slightly flatter

705: than that for the pn. $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ for MOS2 was $1.57 \pm 0.02$, consistent with the pn.

706: %%%% Due to pile-up, the measured photon indices for these pattern 0--12

707: %%%% spectra (1.43$^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$ and 1.48$^{+0.06}_{-0.02}$ for 

708: %%%% MOS 1 and 2, respectively) were flatter by

709: %%%% 0.15--0.17 compared to spectra extracted from single pattern event data.

710: All other parameters were consistent at 

711: the 90$\%$ confidence level with those measured by the pn.

712: 

713: \subsection{Alternate parametrizations of the soft excess}

714: 

715: We returned to the pn data to consider alternate methods of modeling

716: the soft excess. An alternate parametrization of the soft excess, a blackbody,

717: yields a nearly identical value of $\chi^2$/$dof$ (1870.4/1724).

718: Data/model residuals are plotted in Figure 8f.

719: The blackbody temperature $k_{\rm B}T$ = 83$^{+1}_{-4}$ eV 

720: in the pn fit ($77 \pm 3$ eV for the MOS), similar            

721: to values found for model fits

722: incorporating blackbody components for most other Seyferts,

723: e.g., $k_{\rm B}T$ $\sim$100--150 eV for many narrow-line Seyfert 

724: 1s. It is generally accepted now that a blackbody is a physically unplausible

725: description of the soft excess in AGN.

726: Bechtold et al.\ (1987) were the first to point out 

727: that the best-fit blackbody temperatures are generally too high to

728: be associated with accretion disks around supermassive black holes.

729: The consistency of blackbody temperatures across a wide range of 

730: Seyfert 1 properties, including black hole mass, 

731: furthers suggests that a blackbody is an unphysical

732: parametrization (e.g., Gierli\'{n}ski \& Done 2004).

733: However, the best-fit blackbody temperature in the current fit is

734: consistent with previous results for NGC 3227 (e.g., Komossa \& Fink 1997b).

735: We note that in this model (henceforth denoted simply as the

736: ``BB'' model), $N_{\rm H,HX}$ has dropped to 

737: $\leq$ $N_{\rm H,local}$,

738: i.e., the value of $N_{\rm H,HX}$ is model dependent.

739: 

740: 

741: We next tried fitting the soft excess using

742: the Comptonization model {\sc CompST} (Sunyaev \&

743: Titarchuk 1980). Such components have been used 

744: e.g., by Gierli\'{n}ski \& Done (2004) to

745: model the soft excess emission as Comptonization of

746: accretion disk seed photons in

747: a cool ($k_{\rm B}T \sim 0.3$ keV), 

748: optically-thick corona, distinct from the optically-thin, hot 

749: ($k_{\rm B}T \sim 100$ keV) corona

750: generally thought to be responsible

751: for the hard X-ray power-law component in Seyferts.

752: Physically, such a component could be potentially 

753: associated with the transition region between 

754: an optically-thick accretion disc and 

755: an optically-thin inner corona 

756: (Magdziarz et al.\ 1998), or in the hot, ionized surface of

757: the accretion disk (Hubeny \et\ 2001; Janiuk, Czerny \& Madejski 2001).

758: However, similar to the blackbody component, using such Comptonization

759: components to model soft excesses tends to yield a 

760: narrow range of best-fit temperatures across a range

761: of Seyfert properties.

762: In our best-fit model (``COMPST'', where $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 1863.4/1723), 

763: $k_{\rm B}T = 0.35^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ keV,

764: and optical depth $\tau = 24^{+2}_{-4}$,     

765: similar to previous fits to other AGN

766: (however, see e.g., Vaughan \et\ 2002 for warnings regarding

767: the covariance of optical depth and temperature in this model).

768: Best-fit parameters for the models using

769: the blackbody and {\sc CompST} components are listed in Table 2,

770: though the reader must bear in mind the difficulties

771: each of these models faces in terms of physical plausibility.

772: Data/model residuals are not plotted, as they are virtually identical

773: to those for the SXPL model (Figure 8e).

774: 

775: Figure 9 shows unfolded model spectra for the SXPL, BB and COMPST            

776: models, demonstrating how the steep soft excess is produced in each

777: (and demonstrating why the value of $N_{\rm H,HX}$ depends on how 

778: the soft excess is modeled).

779: 

780: 

781: Many recent forays into modeling soft excesses have found success 

782: using ionized reflection models 

783: modified by relativistic smearing, i.e., a blurred

784: ionized reflector (e.g., Crummy \et\ 2006);

785: an origin in atomic features could plausibly explain the consistency

786: of soft excess features across a range of Seyfert black hole masses.

787: Starting with the best-fit SXPL model, we removed

788: the soft X-ray power-law and the 6.04 keV emission line,

789: and added a Ross \& Fabian (2005) reflection

790: component convolved with the kernel associated with

791: relativistic motion around a Kerr black hole

792: (a {\sc Laor} profile). The photon index of the illuminating

793: continuum was tied to that of the hard X-ray power-law.

794: The disk outer radius was fixed at 400 $R_{\rm g}$;

795: the emissivity index was fixed at 3.

796: The 6.4 keV Fe K$\alpha$ and Ni K$\alpha$ line parameters 

797: were fixed at the values in the time-averaged spectrum.

798: The best-fit model had $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 2698.4/1721,                 

799: with large ($\pm$10$\%$) correlated residuals below $\sim$2 keV

800: (see Figure 8g).

801: The best-fit Fe abundance was $<$0.15,

802: and the best-fit value of the reflector ionization

803: parameter $\xi$ pegged at the lower limit of 30 erg cm s$^{-1}$,

804: likely indicating

805: that lower values of $\xi$ may be more appropriate. 

806: The low level of Compton reflection $>$ 10 keV in NGC 3227,

807: $R$ $\lesssim$ 0.5,

808: as demonstrated in $\S$6, also suggests that

809: ionized reflection in NGC 3227, if it exists, is not strong.

810: We do not consider this model further.

811: 

812: 

813: Finally, we tried to model the soft excess 

814: using smeared absorption to model

815: ionized absorbing material moving at relativistic velocity,

816: such as a wind launched from the inner accretion disk

817: {\sc swind1} (Gierli\'{n}ski \& Done 2006).

818: Assuming a single power-law to model the intrinsic

819: continuum emission, modified by smeared absorption, 

820: yielded a poor fit ($\chi^2/dof$ = 8388/1728).

821: Modeling the intrinsic continuum using two power-laws,

822: as in the SXPL model, and adding smeared absorption

823: plus the low-ionization X-ray absorber,

824: yielded a good fit ($\chi^2/dof$ = 1892/1723), in 

825: which a smeared ionized absorber with 

826: log$\xi$ $\sim$2.7 erg cm s$^{-1}$ was able to 

827: mimic the high-ionization X-ray absorber, 

828: given the resolution of the pn. 

829: However, analysis of the RGS spectrum ($\S$5)

830: supports the need for

831: both the low- and high-ionization X-ray absorbers, and so

832: we do not consider this model further.

833: 

834: 

835: 

836: 

837: 

838: \section{RGS modeling of the ionized absorbers and emission lines}

839: 

840: We first modeled the continuum of the RGS spectrum

841: with a model of the same form as the SXPL model from the pn fits:

842: a steep soft power-law with $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ $\sim$ 3.2 

843: absorbed by a cold column $N_{\rm H,local} = 1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$,

844: and a hard power-law absorbed by a column $N_{\rm H,HX} \sim 1 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$,

845: and dominating the continuum only above $\sim$ 1.5 keV

846: (and with both $N_{\rm H,HX}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ very poorly constrained,

847: given that the RGS only covers up to 2 keV).

848: %%%%% Given the RGS/EPIC cross calibration, we do not expect to measure identical photon indices.

849: The residuals to this model ($\chi^2$/$dof$ = 1156/433)

850: are shown in Figure 10. 

851: 

852: There is a broad absorption feature at $\sim$740--780 eV, which we identify as

853: an Fe M-shell UTA trough. Its energy range (assuming a velocity offset from systemic near zero)

854: indicates that log$\xi$ of the gas where this feature originates must be in

855: the range $\sim$ +0.3 to +1.4, according to an {\sc xstar} table; and absorption is mainly due to

856: species of Fe in the ionization range $\sim$ \ion{}{6}--\ion{}{13}, and likely not due to 

857: Fe $\sim$ \ion{}{14}--\ion{}{16} (Gu et al.\ 2006)

858: 

859: 

860: %%%%%% high-xi UTA's energy indicates gas must have log xi in the range $\sim$ +1.7 to +2.9.

861: 

862: %%%%% UTA -- the bottom isn't flat. Sub-dips at 755 and 780 eV

863: %%%%%       RGS 2 has dip in eff area at 755 eV, but RGS 1 does not

864: 

865: Many narrow absorption features are evident; the tentative identifications (and lab-frame energies) of

866: the most visually prominent ones are labeled in Figure 10 and include

867: \ion{C}{6} Ly$\alpha$ (368 eV), \ion{C}{6} Ly$\beta$ (436 eV),

868: \ion{N}{7} (500 eV), \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$ (653 eV), \ion{O}{7} He$\beta$ (666 eV; perhaps blended with the \ion{N}{7} edge),

869: \ion{O}{7} He$\gamma$ (698 eV), \ion{Fe}{17} 3d--2p (812 eV),

870: \ion{Ne}{9} (922 eV, though this line may

871: be blended with Fe absorption lines at $\sim$ 918--934 eV), \ion{Ne}{10} (1022 eV) and \ion{Mg}{11} (1352 eV).

872: 

873: %%%%%O VII $\beta$ (664 eV), Absn lines around 806, 816eV (Fe L 17 lines at 812,819eV(lab)?)

874: %%%%% 695 eV (instrumental fluorine edge)

875: 

876: A strong edge at 739 eV due to \ion{O}{7} is not obvious, though it could be

877: blended with the Fe UTA feature. Similarly, an edge at 870 eV

878: due to \ion{O}{8} is not obvious. The lack of a very strong ($\gtrsim 20-30 \%$ drop) 

879: \ion{O}{8} edge suggests that any absorbing material containing \ion{O}{8}

880: has a hydrogen column density $N_{\rm H}$ $<$ 10$^{22.5}$ or so. 

881: There are also narrow emission features near the energies for 

882: the \ion{O}{7} and \ion{N}{6} resonance lines (574 eV and 428 eV, lab-frame); these are discussed

883: further below.

884: 

885: We next modeled the two ionized X-ray absorbers discussed in the pn fits above, using the same

886: {\sc xstar} table models, with their respective

887: velocity offsets relative to

888: systemic initially frozen at zero, and with abundances fixed to solar values. 

889: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 955.40/429 for values of log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ and log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ near

890: 1.2 and 2.8, respectively, and with column densities for each near 1 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

891: However, many of the absorption lines seemed to be blueshifted slightly.

892: 

893: We tried various combinations of allowing the absolute redshift of each

894: absorber, $z_{\rm lo}$ and $z_{\rm hi}$, to be thawed from the sytemic value.

895: Thawing $z_{\rm hi}$ only yielded $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 884.87/428 for a best-fit value of 

896: $z_{\rm hi}$ near --0.0036 (--0.0075 relative to systemic).

897: Thawing both $z_{\rm hi}$ and $z_{\rm lo}$, but keeping their values tied, yielded

898: $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 887.46/428 for a best-fit value of $z_{\rm hi}$ = $z_{\rm lo}$ = 

899: --0.0033 (--0.0072 relative to systemic).

900: Finally, thawing both $z_{\rm hi}$ and $z_{\rm lo}$ and allowing them to vary independently,

901: yielded $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 864.09/427 for best-fit values of 

902: $z_{\rm hi}$ = --0.0034 (--0.0073 relative to systemic) and

903: $z_{\rm lo}$ = +0.0016 (--0.0023 relative to systemic).

904: 

905: 

906: Finally, to this last model (which had the lowest $\chi^2$ value), 

907: we added five narrow (width $\sigma$=0.5 eV) Gaussian components to represent emission

908: at the systemic redshift from the \ion{O}{7} $(f)$, $(i)$ and $(r)$, \ion{N}{7}, 

909: and \ion{N}{6} $(r)$ (note that we model the sum of the two intercombination lines for \ion{O}{7}).

910: Their measured energies, intensities, and fit parameters are listed in Table 3.

911: \ion{N}{6} $(f)$ and \ion{N}{6} $(i)$ emission lines were detected only as upper limits,

912: with intensities $< 6.7 \times 10^{-5}$ and $< 3.0 \times 10^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively, and so

913: are not listed in Table 3.

914: However, as for the pn fits, we caution that since both warm absorbers require some \ion{O}{7}, \ion{N}{6} and \ion{N}{7} absorption,

915: the emission line intensities likely have large systematic uncertainties.

916: Final parameters for the ionized absorbers in our best-fit SXPL model (with $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 785.7/417) are

917: log$\xi_{\rm lo} = 1.21^{+0.18}_{-0.08}$,

918: $N_{\rm H,lo} = 1.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, 

919: log$\xi_{\rm hi} =  2.90^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$, and

920: $N_{\rm H,hi} = 2.4^{+2.0}_{-1.2} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$; other model parameters 

921: are listed in Table 4. We note that $\Gamma_{\rm SX} = 3.00 \pm 0.25$ and

922: $N_{\rm H,local} = 10.5^{+1.2}_{-1.9} \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, both consistent with the best-fit SXPL model

923: for the EPIC data.

924: 

925: 

926: In this model, the best-fit value for the redshift of the high-ionization absorber is

927: $z_{\rm hi}$ (absolute) =   $-0.00302^{+0.00057}_{-0.00080}$  or

928: $z_{\rm hi}$ (relative to systemic) = $-0.00688^{+0.00057}_{-0.00080}$, which corresponds to an outflow velocity

929: of --(2060$^{+240}_{-170}$) km s$^{-1}$ relative to systemic.

930: For the low-ionization absorber, 

931: $z_{\rm lo}$ (absolute) =   $+0.00246^{+0.00144}_{-0.00064}$ or

932: $z_{\rm lo}$ (relative to systemic) = $-0.00140^{+0.00144}_{-0.00064}$, corresponding to an outflow velocity

933: of --(420$^{+430}_{-190}$) km s$^{-1}$ relative to systemic.

934: Given the best-fit values of the two warm absorbers here and the relative 

935: line strengths expected in those cases, the outflow velocity for the 

936: high-ionization absorber is constrained primarily by the narrow absorption 

937: lines due to \ion{Ne}{9}, \ion{Ne}{10}, and \ion{Mg}{11}; constraining the 

938: respective energies of each of these lines separately yielded corresponding 

939: outflow velocities relative to systemic of $1300^{+650}_{-300}$, 

940: $600\pm600$, and $1800\pm600$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Isolating 

941: the observed \ion{C}{6} Ly$\beta$, \ion{N}{7} and \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$

942: absorption lines yielded similar velocity offsets ($2700\pm700$, 

943: $1800\pm600$ and $1840\pm460$, respectively), though contributions to 

944: these lines from both the low- and high-ionization absorber are 

945: expected, given the best-fit ionization levels.

946: The only strong absorption features which are unique to only the low-ionization absorber

947: and unambiguously studied here are the (possibly blended) Fe UTA feature and the 

948: \ion{O}{7} edge.  Models wherein the outflow

949: velocity of the low-ionization absorber is either much closer to systemic,

950: equal to that of the dusty lukewarm UV absorber (tens of km s$^{-1}$; Crenshaw \et\ 2001),

951: or equal to that of the high-ionization absorber are not definitively ruled out at

952: high confidence. Setting the absolute value of $z_{\rm lo}$ equal to systemic,  

953: +0.00353 (--0.00033 relative to systemic, corresponding to an outflow

954: velocity of 100 km s$^{-1}$), or $z_{\rm hi}$

955: or +0.003859 and refitting yielded increases in $\chi^2$ of only 9, 6, and 16 respectively.

956: In each case, the outflow velocity for the high-ionization absorber

957: remained virtually unchanged from the best-fitting SXPL model.

958: 

959: As an additional confirmation on the {\sc xstar} table results,

960: we measured the $EW$s of selected individual absorption features.

961: The measured $EW$ for the Fe UTA (--(13$^{+4}_{-8}$)) eV is consistent with the prediction from

962: an {\sc xstar} table with $N_{\rm H,lo} = 1.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and log$\xi_{\rm lo}$=1.21.

963: The measured $EW$s for \ion{Ne}{9} ($-5.5\pm2.0$ eV), \ion{Ne}{10} ($-4.4\pm1.6$ eV) and \ion{Mg}{11} ($-4.1\pm2.0$ eV) are

964: in good or reasonable agreement (given the data quality)

965: with the predicted $EW$s from an {\sc xstar} table with 

966: $N_{\rm H,hi} = 2.4 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and log$\xi_{\rm hi}$=2.90 (these lines are not expected 

967: to be generated with significantly noticeable $EW$ in the low-ionization absorber).

968: The measured $EW$s for \ion{C}{6} Ly $\beta$ ($-1.0\pm0.9$ eV), \ion{N}{7} (--(1.1$^{+1.3}_{-0.2}$) eV) and \ion{O}{8} ($-3.3\pm0.7$ eV)

969: are in good or reasonable agreement (given the data quality)

970: with the sums of the predicted $EW$s from the two {\sc xstar} tables.

971: 

972: Most of the remaining data/model residuals are consistent with RGS calibration uncertainties or

973: are instrumental in nature (Pollack \et\ 2007; observed energies listed): a small dip near 394 eV;

974: large residuals near the O instrumental edge, 524--530 eV;

975: a small dip at 573--577 eV (which further adds to the systematic uncertainties associated

976: with \ion{O}{7} emission lines intensity); %%%%%a small residual near 584 eV;

977: residuals at $\sim$680--695 eV, associated with an instrumental fluorine feature;

978: an apparent edge at 850 eV; and

979: a dip at 937--943 eV. 

980: Many of these instrumental features are also seen in other RGS spectra of Seyferts (e.g., Braito \et\ 2007).

981: 

982: We rely on the RGS primarily for determination of

983: warm absorber and soft X-ray emission line parameters;

984: all hard X-ray parameters are best constrained by the EPIC data.

985: Still, for the SXPL model, most best-fit parameters (including those for the warm

986: absorbers) were consistent at the $\Delta\chi^2 = 2.71$ significance level between the RGS and the pn;

987: $N_{\rm H,HX}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ were the exceptions,

988: and clearly better constrained by the EPIC. 

989: Simultaneous RGS/pn fitting using the SXPL model ($\chi^2$/$dof$ = 3220/2161) 

990: yielded best-fit values for $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$, $N_{\rm H,local}$ 

991: and warm absorber column densities and ionization parameters

992: consistent with those measured by the RGS and EPIC-pn separately.

993: Similarly, modeling the continuum in the RGS data

994: using a blackbody or a {\sc CompST} component yielded good fits

995: ($\chi^2$/$dof$ = 805.7/417 and 806.4/416, respectively), with

996: a best-fit blackbody temperature and {\sc CompST} parameters consistent with

997: those measured using only EPIC data, and

998: with no significant changes to the warm absorber or emission line parameters

999: compared to using a soft power-law component to model the soft excess.

1000: 

1001: To this point, we have been assuming that the ionized absorbers along the

1002: line of sight have been full-covering. Using the RGS data, we 

1003: tested a model wherein only a fraction of the continuum radiation

1004: is absorbed by the ionized absorbers. We found the upper limit to

1005: the fraction of continuum radiation that remains unattenuated by

1006: ionized absorption to be 30$\%$, i.e., a covering fraction of $>70\%$      

1007: for the RGS data. For the pn data, the covering fraction is inferred

1008: to be $>93\%$.

1009: 

1010: We also tested for the presence of radiative recombination continuum

1011: (RRC) features in the RGS data associated with

1012: H- or He-like ions, expected if the emission lines are associated with gas that is

1013: photo-ionized. Using a {\sc redge} component in {\sc xspec} with

1014: energy fixed and with $k_{\rm B}T$ fixed at 

1015: 0.5 keV (arbitrary value), we found upper limits in the range 5--8 eV for 

1016: \ion{C}{5}, \ion{C}{6}, \ion{N}{6} and \ion{O}{7} RRCs, upper limits  $\leq$ 20 eV for \ion{O}{8} and 

1017: \ion{Ne}{9}, and an upper limit near 50 eV for an \ion{Ne}{10}

1018: RRC. A \ion{N}{7} RRC at 667 eV significantly improved the fit, but

1019: that was due to fitting the instrumental fluorine feature,

1020: and therefore is likely not real.

1021: Finally, we note no significant emission from the \ion{Fe}{17} L line (3d--2p) 

1022: at 826 eV (upper limit of 1 eV), limiting the possibility that the observed

1023: emission lines are generated via collisional ionization processes.

1024: 

1025: 

1026: We now discuss the search for X-ray spectral features in the RGS

1027: associated with dust embedded in the warm absorbers.

1028: The expected effects of embedded dust on the X-ray spectrum

1029: are: 1) Edges due to neutral Fe, O, C, Si and Mg

1030: (depending on dust composition) in excess from the absorption expected from gas.

1031: The O edge would be at 531 eV. The three Fe edges are the L3, L2, and L1 edges,

1032: at 707, 721 and 846 eV (assuming oxidized Fe; edges due to pure Fe would be $\sim$3 eV higher), 

1033: roughly in a 10:5:1 ratio (e.g., Kortright \& Kim 2000; Bearden \& Burr 1967; Schulz \et\ 2002).

1034: 2) There may be weak, narrow absorption lines due to Fe oxide species, in

1035: particular at 702 eV (e.g., Crocombette \et\ 1995). 

1036: 3) Fe, C and O abundances in the warm absorber would be

1037: low due to depletion onto dust grains (Snow \& Witt 1996; Komossa \& Fink 1997a).

1038: 

1039: %%%%%% Komossa \& Fink 1997a (327,483) ).

1040: 

1041: Near 707 eV and 721 eV (the Fe L3 and Fe L2 edge energies)

1042: the residuals in the RGS spectrum of NGC 3227

1043: do not appear obviously edge-like.

1044: Inserting an edge at any of neutral Fe or O energies does not improve the

1045: fit; upper limits to the optical depths of O, Fe L3 and Fe L2 in excess of the neutral absorption

1046: associated with the gas components modeled above (both local and Galactic) 

1047: are 0.17, 0.05 and 0.21, respectively.

1048: In contrast, the Fe L3 edges seen in Cyg X-1 (Schulz \et\ 2002) and MCG--6-30-15 (Lee \et\ 2001)

1049: with the {\it Chandra} HETGS are both $\gtrsim$50$\%$ drop across the edge ($\tau \gtrsim 0.7$).

1050: From the Fe L3 edge in NGC 3227, the implied upper limit on the \ion{Fe}{1} column density is

1051: $\sim10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1052: Assuming the abundances of Lodders (2003), the corresponding

1053: equivalent hydrogen column density is constrained to be less than

1054: $\sim10^{21.5}$ cm$^{-2}$. This limit is consistent with the 

1055: equivalent hydrogen column density implied by optical line absorption (see $\S$1).

1056: The limit on the $EW$ (relative to locally-determined and unabsorbed continuum) of

1057: a narrow (width $\sigma$ = 0.5 eV) absorption line at 702 eV is --0.5 eV. 

1058: Finally, thawing the abundances of Fe, O, and Mg in the warm absorbers

1059: (abundances in both absorbers tied) does not yield significant evidence for

1060: deviations from solar abundances.

1061: 

1062: 

1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1064: 

1065: 

1066: 

1067: 

1068: \section{Constraining the $>$10 keV continuum with RXTE and Swift-BAT}

1069: 

1070: We fit archival {\it RXTE} data and {\it Swift} Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) 9-month survey

1071: data to constrain 

1072: the amount of the Compton reflection and constrain any high-energy power-law cutoff.

1073: We did not do simultaneous fitting with the EPIC spectrum,

1074: since the {\it XMM-Newton} and latest {\it RXTE} and BAT data obtained

1075: were separated by a year and since

1076: the only two broadband model components in the range of overlap

1077: are the variable hard X-ray power-law and the hard X-ray absorber,

1078: whose column $N_{\rm H,HX}$ $\lesssim 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ is not well constrained by the PCA.

1079: However,  the observed 2--10 keV flux during the 2006 {\it XMM-Newton} observation, 

1080: $F_{2-10}$ = 3.5$\times$10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, fell in the approximate range 

1081: probed by the {\it RXTE} monitoring; only during MJD $\sim$51850--52050

1082: was $F_{2-10}$ observed to be consistently below 2$\times$10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. 

1083: This suggests that {\it XMM-Newton} caught the source in a ``typical'' flux state.

1084: 

1085: 

1086: We fit the PCA data over the 3.3--30 keV range; the source is

1087: not well detected at higher energies.

1088: HEXTE data below 24 keV were ignored as the responses of 

1089: clusters A and B diverge somewhat for faint sources (N.\ Shaposhnikov, 

1090: private communication, 2005); there is good agreement above this energy. 

1091: HEXTE data above 100 keV were also ignored. 

1092: 14--195 keV BAT data were included; four-channel spectra and response matrices

1093: were taken from the BAT 9-month AGN catalog 

1094: website\footnote{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/results/bs9mon/}.

1095: A constant coefficient was included in all spectral models

1096: to account for minor normalization offsets between the PCA and HEXTE; its value for

1097: the HEXTE spectra relative to the PCA spectrum was typically 0.8--0.9.

1098: No constant was needed for the BAT spectrum relative to the PCA spectrum.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: We applied a model consisting of a power-law (initially with a high-energy cutoff

1102: set arbitrarily at $E_{\rm c}$ 500 keV),

1103: a Gaussian emission line at 6 keV to model Fe K$\alpha$ emission,

1104: and a component to model Compton reflection from neutral material, using

1105: {\sc pexrav} (Magdziarz \& Zdziarski 1995), all modified by

1106: a cold column $N_{\rm H,HX}$ constrained to be less than $6 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1107: The {\sc pexrav} component's inclination was fixed at 45$\degr$, solar Fe abundances were assumed,

1108: and the high energy cutoff was tied to that of the power-law.

1109: The best-fit model had $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 297/111, the

1110: photon index $\Gamma_{HX}$ was 1.66$\pm$0.01, and the 

1111: value of the Compton reflection strength 

1112: $R$\footnote{$R \equiv \Omega/2\pi$, where $\Omega$ is the solid angle subtended by the reflector} 

1113: was $0.16^{+0.08}_{-0.02}$. Allowing the high-energy cutoff to be free and re-fitting,

1114: $\chi^2$/$dof$ fell to 222/110 (significant at 5.6$\sigma$ confidence according to an $F$-test).

1115: $\Gamma_{HX}$ was 1.63$\pm$0.02, $R$ was 0.40$\pm$0.07, and $E_{\rm c}$ = 90$\pm$20 keV.

1116: The cold column $N_{H,HX}$ was $6.0^{+0}_{-0.8} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$

1117: (uncertainty pegged at upper limit).

1118: The residuals to the best-fit models with and without a high-energy cutoff

1119: are shown in Figure 11\footnote{The presence of the high-energy cutoff is also inferred from fitting PCA+HEXTE

1120: only: excluding the BAT data, and refitting, we find that including a high-energy cutoff 

1121: still significantly improves the fit, with best-fit values consistent with the

1122: PCA + HEXTE + BAT fit, though the statistical uncertainty on $E_{\rm c}$ is 1.8 times larger.

1123: Ignoring the HEXTE data, and fitting PCA + BAT only,

1124: the best-fit values of $\Gamma_{HX}$, $R$, and $E_{\rm c}$ are 1.62$^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$, 

1125: 0.53$^{+0.19}_{-0.08}$ and $65^{+10}_{-25}$ keV, respectively.}. 

1126: 

1127: 

1128: Because the {\it RXTE} and {\it XMM-Newton}

1129: observations were not simultaneous, it is not clear whether the

1130: slightly flatter value of $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ for the pn in the SXPL model (1.57$\pm$0.02) 

1131: compared to that for the time-averaged {\it RXTE} spectrum 

1132: is due to source variability or associated with systematic differences in

1133: modeling spectra taken with two instruments with very different energy resolution. 

1134: For example,

1135: the average Fe K$\alpha$ line flux as measured by the PCA was $9 \pm 1 \times 10^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,

1136: but this is not automatically 

1137: an indication of line variability between the {\it RXTE} and {\it XMM-Newton}

1138: observations given the differences in PCA and EPIC resolution, the

1139: systematic uncertainties associated with fitting such a complex model to the low-resolution

1140: PCA data, and possible uncertainties associated with PCA/pn cross-calibration.

1141: %%%%% \footnote{See warnings by Yaqoob \et\ 2003 and in an {\it ASCA} Guest Observatory Facility memo at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/asca/calibration/3c273\_results.html.}.

1142: All uncertainties listed here are

1143: one-dimensional statistical errors only and do not account

1144: for systematic uncertainties associated with correlations between

1145: parameters or for systematic instrumental uncertainties associated

1146: with observing faint objects.

1147: However, we can safely conclude that the value of $R$ must be relatively low:

1148: Figure 12 shows contour plots for $E_{\rm c}$ and $R$ as a 

1149: function of $\Gamma_{HX}$ from the joint {\it RXTE}+{\it Swift}-BAT fit, 

1150: demonstrating that values of $R$ $>$ 0.6 are rejected at high confidence. 

1151: 

1152: 

1153: 

1154: \section{Time- and Flux-Resolved Spectral Fits}

1155: 

1156: We investigated the temporal behavior of the X-ray spectrum of NGC 3227 on

1157: a range of time scales.  Any rapid variation in ionization parameter

1158: would rule out models where the warm absorber is spatially extended

1159: and/or located very far from the black hole;

1160: tracking ionization responses to continuum flux variations

1161: can yield constraints on the location of the warm absorbers

1162: (e.g., Krongold \et\ 2007).   

1163: Similarly, any rapid variation in the strength of an Fe K emission feature

1164: (e.g., Tombesi \et\ 2007) would suggest an origin close to the X-ray illuminating source.

1165: We used the {\it XMM-Newton} spectrum to study variability on time scales $\lesssim$ 1 day

1166: (hereafter ``short'' time scales);

1167: we used the {\it RXTE} intensive monitoring from 2000 April to June to investigate

1168: variability on time scales from $\sim$2 weeks to 2 months (hereafter ``medium'' time scales),

1169: and the 1999--2005 monitoring to investigate variability on time scales from

1170: months to several years (``long'' time scales'').

1171: 

1172: \subsection{{\it XMM-Newton} time-resolved spectral fits}

1173: 

1174: We investigated the $<$1-day time-resolved spectral behavior 

1175: of NGC 3227 during the {\it XMM-Newton} observation

1176: by first splitting the EPIC-pn data into five segments

1177: of equal duration (good exposure time 18 ks); shorter durations would not have yielded

1178: adequate photon statistics in narrow features.

1179: In the Fe K bandpass, spectral fitting revealed several

1180: ``candidate'' narrow transient emission features between 4.5 and 5.2 keV,

1181: each with $\Delta$$\chi^2$ in the range --11 to --14.

1182: Monte Carlo simulations (see $\S$3) showed that each of these emission

1183: features were significant at 92--97$\%$ confidence.

1184: However, when one takes into consideration the number of segments searched over

1185: (Vaughan \& Uttley 2008),

1186: the significance levels drop to 60--85$\%$ confidence; these features are

1187: not discussed further. Considering the broadband spectrum, all 

1188: parameters for the neutral and ionized absorbers and the \ion{O}{7}

1189: emission line were consistent with those found in the

1190: time-averaged spectrum. 

1191: Similarly, flux-resolved spectral analysis,

1192: performed on high- and low-flux pn spectra (extracted above and 

1193: below a 0.2--12 keV pn count rate of 11.0 ct s$^{-1}$, respectively), 

1194: yielded no significant evidence for variability of the neutral or 

1195: ionized absorbers, the 6.4 keV Fe K$\alpha$ line, or the \ion{O}{7} line.

1196: The 6.04 keV line was not significantly detected with these

1197: short exposures.

1198: 

1199: However, we noticed in these time-resolved fits that

1200: the normalization of the soft excess increased by $\sim$25$\%$

1201: from the first 20 ks segment to the second segment.

1202: Similar results were obtained when modeling the soft excess as

1203: a steep power-law, a blackbody, or a {\sc CompST} component.

1204: 

1205: The rapid (ks and shorter) variations seen simultaneously in both the

1206: hard and soft X-ray light curves (Figure 1) are similar to those routinely

1207: detected in other Seyferts; the associated variability 

1208: mechanisms will be explored in depth in a future paper (Ar\'{e}valo 

1209: et al., in prep) and are not discussed further here. 

1210: Here, we are concentrating on the soft X-ray band's 

1211: relatively slower and distinct trend. 

1212: Since this trend occurs over tens of ks, we will refer to it

1213: as "rapid" for the remainder of this paper.

1214: 

1215: 

1216: We repeated the time-resolved analysis, dividing the data into

1217: ten segments of equal duration (9 ks good exposure time), fitting

1218: the SXPL model, and

1219: keeping all warm and cold absorber, \ion{O}{7} line

1220: and Fe emission line parameters frozen at their time-averaged values.

1221: 

1222: The resulting light curves of $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$, $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ 

1223: and the normalizations of the SXPL and HXPL components 

1224: are plotted in Figure 13. The SXPL normalization 

1225: seems to track the light curve of 0.2--1 keV flux in Figure 1.

1226: To further illustrate the rapid variability of the soft excess, the

1227: data for segments 1 (the lowest soft excess flux bin), 2, and 6 

1228: (the highest soft excess flux bin) are plotted in Figure 9.

1229: 

1230: Finally, fractional variability amplitudes ($F_{\rm var}$

1231: see Vaughan \et\ 2003 for a definition) were calculated for 

1232: 16 energy bands. The resulting $F_{\rm var}$ for the entire duration, for

1233: the first 20 ks, and for the final 80 ks are plotted in Figure 14,

1234: further illustrating the rapid variability in the soft excess.

1235: Further detailed variability analysis of the variable X-ray continuum,

1236: including coherence, intra-X-ray time lags and power spectral

1237: density function measurement, will be presented in a future 

1238: paper (Ar\'{e}valo et al., in prep).

1239: 

1240: 

1241: 

1242: \subsection{{\it RXTE} time-resolved spectral fits}

1243: 

1244: 

1245: Time-resolved spectral fitting of the {\it RXTE} data

1246: closely followed Markowitz, Edelson \& Vaughan (2003).

1247: Bin sizes were chosen to optimize the

1248: trade off between minimizing the uncertainties on

1249: Fe line flux and maximizing the number of bins.

1250: This yielded 5 bins, each of duration 13 days, for the medium

1251: time scale. On the long time scale, start/stop times were 

1252: chosen to avoid 60-days gaps where {\it RXTE} did not observe the

1253: source due to sun-angle constraints, with most

1254: durations roughly 100 days before loss of PCU0 on 2000 May 12, 

1255: and 150 days afterward, yielded 16 bins. 

1256: Response matrices were generated separately for each segment.

1257: 

1258: We used a model consisting of a power law component, 

1259: a Gaussian component to model Fe K emission, and

1260: a {\sc pexrav} component to model Compton reflection,

1261: all absorbed by cold material (with a column density $N_{\rm H, HX}$

1262: constrained to be $ < 6 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$,

1263: unless the bins included data taken during the 2000-1 obscuring event).

1264: In the best fit models, the best-fit values of $R$, Fe line rest-frame

1265: energy centroid, and Fe line width $\sigma$ were

1266: $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ ($0.2 \pm 0.1$),

1267: $6.26^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$  ($6.27^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$) keV, and

1268: $0.50^{+0.32}_{-0.14}$  ($0.33^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$) keV

1269: in the medium (long) time scale fits, respectively.

1270: To determine which parameters to leave free during each

1271: time-resolved fit, we first fit all segments simultaneously with

1272: all parameters tied, and thawed one parameter at a time,

1273: testing for significant improvement in the fit according to an $F$-test.

1274: We found it was significant to thaw the power law normalization, $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$,

1275: Fe line intensity $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$, and $N_{\rm H,HX}$ in the individual,

1276: time-resolved fits.

1277: 

1278: %%%% The PCA has crappy energy resolution, but XMM has shown that the narrow line dominates,

1279: 

1280: %%%%% MED:

1281: %%%%% R = 0.4 (+0.2,-0.1)

1282: %%%%% Ener = 6.26 (+0.10,-0.11)   (rest-frame)

1283: %%%%% sigma = 0.50 (+0.32,-0.14) keV

1284: 

1285: %%%%% LONG

1286: %%%%% R = 0.2 (+/-0.1)

1287: %%%%% Ener = 6.27 (+0.05,-0.04)   (rest-frame)    par12

1288: %%%%% sigma = 0.33 (+0.09,-0.08) keV       par13

1289: 

1290: 

1291: 

1292: Errors for $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$

1293: were derived using the point-to-point 

1294: variance\footnote{See $\S$3.3 of Markowitz, Edelson \& Vaughan 

1295: (2003) for further details and the definition of the point-to-point variance}.

1296: Errors on values of $F_{2-10}$ within a time bin 

1297: were determined from the 2--10~keV continuum light curve,

1298: using the mean flux error on the $\sim$1~ks exposures in that time bin.

1299: Figure 15 shows the resulting light curves for $F_{2-10}$,

1300: $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$, and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$.

1301: 

1302: 

1303: Fractional variability amplitudes $F_{\rm var}$ were calculated.

1304: For the medium time scale, $F_{\rm var}$ for

1305: the $F_{2-10}$ and $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ light curves were

1306: 38.4$\pm$0.3$\%$ and 22.7$\pm$10.3$\%$, respectively,

1307: although we caution that with only 5 data points, these measured

1308: values of $F_{\rm var}$ are likely not highly reliable.

1309: For the long time scale, 

1310: $F_{\rm var}$ for $F_{2-10}$ and $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ were

1311: 32.7$\pm$0.7$\%$ and 20.0$\pm$4.3$\%$.

1312: Qualitatively, these 

1313: results are consistent with what Markowitz, Edelson

1314: \& Vaughan (2003) found for a small sample of Seyferts:

1315: the Fe line does not vary as strongly as the continuum flux.

1316: 

1317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% new paragraph.

1318: 

1319: Inspection of the $F_{2-10}$ and $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$

1320: light curves would seem to indicate, to the human eye at least,

1321: similar variability trends. However, with so few points 

1322: (especially for the medium time scale), 

1323: such a statement is not highly significant. 

1324: On the medium time scale, the best-fit linear relation is 

1325: $I_{\rm FeK\alpha} = 2.05 \pm 1.31 \times F_{2-10} +  4.1 \pm 3.1$,

1326: with $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ in units of 10$^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and

1327: $F_{2-10}$ in units of $10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.

1328: Figure 16 shows the zero-lag correlation plot of

1329: $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ as a function of $F_{2-10}$,

1330: with the best-fit linear relations plotted as dashed lines.

1331: The zero-lag Spearman rank correlation coefficient\footnote{calculated at http://www.wessa.net/rankcorr.wasp} is 0.700; the corresponding null hypothesis

1332: probability (the probability that the

1333: correlation could arise from randomly chosen data points)

1334: is 16$\%$; i.e., the correlation is significant only at 84$\%$

1335: confidence. 

1336: 

1337: For the long time scale data, the best-fit linear relation is 

1338: $I_{\rm FeK\alpha} = 1.44 \pm 0.30 \times  F_{2-10}  + 3.5 \pm 1.2 $.

1339: The zero-lag Spearman rank correlation coefficient is 

1340: r=0.739, significant at 99.6$\%$ confidence. 

1341: We searched for lags using an Interpolated Cross Correlation Function

1342: (ICF; Gaskell \& Peterson 1987, White \& Peterson 1994), with errors determined

1343: using the bootstrap method of Peterson et al.\ (1998).

1344: The ICF peak correlation coefficient $r_{max}$=0.854

1345: was reached at a delay of 75 $\pm$ 690 days ($F_{2-10}$

1346: leading $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$), i.e., consistent with 

1347: zero lag. 

1348: 

1349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1350: With such few data points and low correlation  

1351: coefficients on both medium and long time scales, 

1352: any claim of a correlation must be deemed tentative at best.

1353: Cross correlation analysis is further complicated by the red-noise nature 

1354: of the continuum (and likely line) light curves. Specifically, 

1355: cross-correlation between two unrelated red-noise

1356: light curves can randomly yield spurious correlations

1357: with higher than expected values of the

1358: correlation strength $r_{\rm max}$ (e.g., Welsh 1999).

1359: Lags where $r_{\rm max}$ is not very close to 1.0

1360: should thus be treated with skepticism.

1361: Additional monitoring, spanning much longer durations and

1362: wider ranges in both $F_{2-10}$ and $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ and encompassing 

1363: additional upward/downward trends in the light curves

1364: of both $F_{2-10}$ and $I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ are required to 

1365: critically test for any significant correlation.

1366: We therefore conclude that there is, at best, tentative

1367: evidence from the {\it RXTE} time-resolved spectral fits for a significant

1368: fraction of the the Fe line intensity to respond to continuum 

1369: variations on time scales shorter than 700 days.

1370: The lack of strong hard X-ray variability during the

1371: {\it XMM-Newton} observation ($F_{\rm var} = 8.5\pm0.2\%$ for the

1372: 3--10 keV light curve, binned to 600 s)

1373: means we cannot draw any conclusions about the response

1374: of the line on $\lesssim1$ day time scales.

1375: 

1376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1377: 

1378: 

1379: 

1380: \section{X-ray/UV continuum light curve correlations}

1381: 

1382: 

1383: %%%%%Fvar for optical is 2.7 +/- 1 $\%$

1384: 

1385: The OM light curve of NGC 3227 displayed in Figure 1 shows a 

1386: $\sim$10$\%$ increase across the observation, with an RMS of 

1387: 2.8$\%$. Rapid optical/UV variability in Seyferts on time scales

1388: of $\lesssim$ 1 day is relatively rare. Of the sample of 8 

1389: Seyferts examined by Smith \& Vaughan (2007), NGC 3783 displayed 

1390: the strongest variability on $\lesssim$ 1 day time scales, with 

1391: an RMS of 2.9$\%$ in the UVW2 filter; there were only 

1392: 3 additional observations using either the UVW2 or U filter

1393: where the RMS was $> 1.8\%$.

1394: The current {\it XMM-Newton} data would thus seem to indicate that

1395: NGC 3227 is towards the top of the list of Seyferts which display

1396: strong UV continuum variability on $\lesssim$ 1 day time scales.

1397: In NGC 3227, the X-rays are much more strongly variable on these

1398: time scales (RMS for the 0.2--1 and 3--10 keV light curves

1399: were 15.8$\%$ and 8.9$\%$, respectively), a result similar to 

1400: what Smith \& Vaughan (2007) found for their sample.

1401: 

1402: Visually, it is tempting to connect the gradual brightening 

1403: observed in the OM light curve with that observed simultaneously

1404: in the soft X-ray band during the {\it XMM-Newton} observation. 

1405: However, the rise in soft X-ray flux ($\sim$40$\%$) is much greater

1406: than that observed in the UV band ($\sim$10$\%$).

1407: We calculated ICFs and Discrete Correlation Functions (DCF; Edelson \& Krolik 1988) between the UV and soft X-ray light curves (the latter rebinned to 1400 s); the results are 

1408: plotted in Figure 17, along with 90 and 95$\%$ confidence limits

1409: from the Bartlett method. We found no significant correlation:

1410: $r_{\rm max}$ peaks at only $\sim$0.5; there are no ``bends'' or

1411: multiple trends in the OM light curve to drive a correlation.

1412: The warning regarding cross-correlation analysis performed on two

1413: unrelated red-noise light curves bear repeating:

1414: beware of spuriously high values of $r_{\rm max}$ (e.g., Welsh 1999)

1415: and treat values of $r_{\rm max}$ which are not very close to 1.0

1416: with skepticism. The suggestion of a correlation between the 

1417: soft X-ray band and the UV band, while visually tempting, is 

1418: thus speculative at best.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \section{Discussion}

1422: 

1423: We have analyzed a $\sim$100 ks {\it XMM-Newton}

1424: long-look of NGC 3227, observed in December 2006. 

1425: In both the EPIC-pn and RGS spectra, we have modeled the ionized 

1426: X-ray absorber using two components, with very similar column

1427: densities, and  

1428: with ionization parameters log$\xi$ near 1.2 and 2.9 (in the RGS spectrum),

1429: With the RGS, we have constrained

1430: the outflow velocity of the high-ionization absorber to be

1431: --(2060$^{+240}_{-170}$) km s$^{-1}$ relative to systemic.

1432: The best estimate for the outflow velocity relative to systemic for the low-ionization

1433: absorber is --(420$^{+430}_{-190}$) km s$^{-1}$,

1434: though a wider range of possible outflow velocities

1435: cannot be ruled out at very high confidence.

1436: In $\S$9.1, we discuss further details of these ionized outflows,

1437: including exploring connections to the low-velocity, very low ionization,

1438: dusty lukewarm absorber observed in the UV.

1439: 

1440: The steep soft excess, which does not seem be to affected by the same neutral material

1441: obscuring the hard X-ray continuum, is shown with the EPIC pn to be rapidly variable

1442: compared to other Seyferts on $\lesssim$ 1 day time scales; its

1443: normalization increases by $\sim$25$\%$ in $\sim$20 ks.

1444: The UV continuum light curve during the {\it XMM-Newton}

1445: observation also shows a relatively strong 

1446: increase compared to most other Seyferts on $\lesssim$ 1 day time scales.

1447: Possible origins for these behaviors are discussed in $\S$9.2.

1448: 

1449: 

1450: The hard X-ray power-law continuum in both the {\it XMM-Newton} pn and MOS

1451: fits and in the PCA + HEXTE + BAT fits is somewhat low, $\Gamma_{\rm HX} \sim 1.5-1.6$.

1452: Using accumulated {\it RXTE} PCA and HEXTE archival data from

1453: over 6 years of monitoring, plus {\it Swift}-BAT 9-month survey data,

1454: we constrain the strength of the Compton reflection component $R$

1455: to be $\lesssim$ 0.5. We also find the first evidence 

1456: for a high-energy continuum cutoff in this source, at 90$\pm$20 keV.

1457: The high-energy continuum is discussed further in $\S$9.3.

1458: 

1459: The narrow Fe K$\alpha$ emission line at 6.4 keV is resolved in the pn

1460: spectrum. From time-resolved spectral fits to the {\it RXTE}-PCA

1461: data, we find tentative evidence for a significant fraction

1462: of the Fe K line flux to track variations in

1463: the continuum flux $F_{2-10}$ on time scales of $<$700 days. The 6.4 keV

1464: Fe K$\alpha$ line properties are discussed further in $\S$9.4.

1465: 

1466: 

1467: In addition, we find significant evidence for emission near 6.0 keV 

1468: in both the pn and MOS 1+2 spectra.

1469: It is modeled approximately equally well as a narrow 

1470: emission line or as the red wing to a relativistically-broadened Fe K emission line,

1471: as discussed in $\S$9.5.

1472: 

1473: 

1474: 

1475: 

1476: \subsection{Overview of the X-ray absorbers}

1477: 

1478: In the {\it XMM-Newton} RGS spectrum, we model two zones of

1479: absorption, with log$\xi_{\rm lo} = 1.21^{+0.18}_{-0.08}$ and log$\xi_{\rm hi} = 2.90^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$, and with very

1480: similar column densities, 

1481: $N_{\rm H,lo} = 1.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and

1482: $N_{\rm H,hi} = 2.4^{+2.0}_{-1.2} \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

1483: Other AGN have been reported to host multiple

1484: warm absorber components with different

1485: ionization parameters but similar hydrogen column densities

1486: (see e.g., Blustin \et\ 2005).

1487: The blueshift relative to systemic of the high-ionization absorber was significantly constrained, yielding

1488: an outflow velocity relative to systemic of --(2060$^{+240}_{-170}$) km s$^{-1}$.

1489: The best-fit blueshift relative to systemic for the low-ionization absorber corresponded to

1490: an outflow velocity relative to systemic of --(420$^{+430}_{-190}$) km s$^{-1}$;

1491: however, as this is primarily constrained by only two (possibly blended) absorption features,

1492: models with blueshifts ranging from zero to identical to that for

1493: the high-ionization absorber were not clearly rejected.

1494: It is therefore not clear if the two zones are physically and kinematically distinct or

1495: if there exists a single ionized absorber spanning a broad 

1496: range of ionization levels, a possibility to consider if

1497: the ionized X-ray absorbing gas is spatially extended.

1498: For instance, Gon\c{c}alves \et\ (2006) model the warm absorbing layers in NGC 3783

1499: as a single constant-density gas component in pressure equilibrium.

1500: 

1501: 

1502: To estimate the distance $r$ between the central black hole

1503: and the outflowing gas in NGC 3227, we can use $\xi = L_{\rm ion}/(nr^2)$,

1504: where $n$ is the number density, and $L_{\rm ion}$ is the 1--1000 Ryd 

1505: illuminating continuum luminosity. We estimate the maximum possible

1506: distance to the material by assuming that the thickness

1507: $\Delta$$r$ must be less than the distance $r_{\rm max}$.

1508: The column density $N_{\rm H}$ = $n$$\Delta$$r$,

1509: yielding the upper limit $r_{\rm max}$ $<$ $L_{\rm ion}$/($N_{\rm H}$$\xi$).

1510: We estimate the unabsorbed 1--1000 Ryd flux to be

1511: $\sim 3 \times 10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which  

1512: corresponds to $L_{\rm ion} \sim 1.5 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$

1513: (using a distance of 20.3 Mpc, and assuming

1514: $H_{\rm o}$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $\Lambda_{\rm o}$ = 0.73).

1515: Assuming two physically distinct warm absorbers, 

1516: for the high-ionization X-ray absorber, this yields

1517: $r_{\rm max}$ = 3.6 pc. For the low-ionization X-ray absorber, 

1518: the constraints are even weaker: $r_{\rm max}$ = 150 pc. 

1519: These constraints are much poorer compared to that derived by Gondoin \et\

1520: (2003) for a one-zone absorber, $r_{\rm max} = 0.45$ pc, as those authors found a higher value

1521: for the column density and a lower value for the ionizing flux.

1522: 

1523: However, we can also derive a minimum radial distance from the black hole $r_{\rm min}$ for the winds

1524: via the requirement for the outflow velocity $v$ to be 

1525: greater than the escape velocity: For the high-ionization X-ray absorber, $r_{\rm min} = (c^2/v^2)R_{\rm g} = 

1526: 17000 R_{\rm g} = 40$ light-days, placing it outside

1527: both the BLR and the inner radius of the dust as

1528: reverberation-mapped by Suganuma \et\ (2006).

1529: 

1530: 

1531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1532: 

1533: Under the assumption that the gas is in equilibrium and that

1534: the outflow velocity is a constant, the mass outflow rate 

1535: \.{M}$_{\rm out}$ of the X-ray absorbers can be derived via 

1536: conservation of mass:

1537: \.{M}$_{\rm out}$ = $\Omega$$n$$r^2$$v$$m_{\rm p}$,

1538: where $v$ is the outflow velocity, $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass,

1539: and $\Omega$ is the covering fraction.

1540: We then substitute $n$$r^2$ = $L_{\rm ion}$/$\xi$.

1541: Assuming $\Omega$ = 0.3 (arbitrary), we find, for the high-ionization absorber,

1542: \.{M}$_{\rm out}$ $\sim 2 \times 10^{24}$ gm s$^{-1}$ $\sim$ 0.03 $\Msun$ yr$^{-1}$. 

1543: For the low-ionization absorber, assuming $v = 420$ km s$^{-1}$,

1544: \.{M}$_{\rm out}$ $\sim 2 \times 10^{25}$ gm s$^{-1}$ $\sim$ 0.3 $\Msun$ yr$^{-1}$.

1545: We note that the actual outflow rate should be lower if there is an 

1546: extreme degree of collimation along the line of sight.

1547: We can compare the outflow rate

1548: to the inflow accretion rate \.{M}$_{\rm acc}$ using

1549: $L_{\rm bol}$ = $\eta$\.{M}$_{\rm acc}$$c^2$,

1550: where $\eta$ is the accretion efficiency parameter, typically 0.1.

1551: Woo \& Urry (2002) estimate $L_{\rm bol}$ for NGC 3227

1552: to be $7.2 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which means an accretion rate

1553: relative to Eddington, $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, of 1.4$\%$.

1554: For $\eta=0.1$, \.{M}$_{\rm acc} =  0.01 \Msun$ yr$^{-1}$.

1555: The kinetic power associated with the outflow component,

1556: estimated as \.{M}$_{\rm out}$$v^2$, is thus in the approximate range

1557: $10^{40-41}$ erg s$^{-1}$.

1558: 

1559: 

1560: The outflow mass rate and kinetic energy are rough estimates only,

1561: but it does appear likely that the outflows represent at least a large fraction

1562: of the AGN's accretion rate. If the X-ray ionized outflows

1563: are long-lived, then a sustained feeding of the black hole would be difficult.

1564: 

1565: 

1566: 

1567: 

1568: 

1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1570: 

1571: \subsubsection{Helium-like emission line diagnostics}

1572: 

1573: It is not obvious whether the emission lines detected in the

1574: RGS spectrum are due to collisional ionization or

1575: photo-ionization. We do not detect a strong \ion{Fe}{17} L 

1576: 3d--2p $^1$P$_1$ line at 826 eV, an indicator of collisional ionization.

1577: However, RRC lines, indicators of photo-excitation, are not obvious, either.

1578: 

1579: 

1580: We can attempt to

1581: use diagnostics associated with the helium-like O and N emission triplets.

1582: In a collisionally- (photo-) ionized plasma, the resonance (forbidden) 

1583: line dominates. However, in NGC 3227, there is not

1584: significant dominance of one of these lines in either emission triplet.

1585: The presence of helium-like absorption lines may be a factor: 

1586: the emission and absorption lines are  

1587: not completely separated in energy given the modeled blueshift of

1588: the absorption lines, the RGS resolution and the signal/noise ratio

1589: of the RGS data. This fact also complicates our use of the density

1590: indicator $R \equiv f/i$ and the temperature indicator $G \equiv (f+i)/r$

1591: (e.g., Porquet \& Dubau 2000)

1592: where $f$, $i$ and $r$ are the intensities of the

1593: forbidden, intercombination, and resonance lines, respectively

1594: ($i$ is the summed intensity of both intercombination lines).

1595: As $G$ depends on $r$, it can indicate whether photo-ionization

1596: dominates or whether a photo-/collisional-ionization hybrid is

1597: applicable (Porquet \& Dubau 2000).

1598: Porter \& Ferland (2007) warn that although $G$ indicates temperature in

1599: a collisionally-ionized plasma, it should not be used as a temperature

1600: indicator in a photo-ionized plasma (in addition, see Porter \& Ferland 2007 for

1601: warnings regarding usage of $R$ as density indicator  in photo-ionized plasmas).

1602: 

1603: 

1604: For the \ion{O}{7} emission triplet in NGC 3227, we measure 

1605: $G = 4.7^{+9.3}_{-4.0}$; $G < 2.0$ for the \ion{N}{6} triplet.

1606: Uncertainties here are statistical only and do not include

1607: systematic effects associated with the presence of absorption lines.

1608: These values thus do not yield any useful constraints on whether

1609: collisional- or photo-ionization dominates. 

1610: For the \ion{O}{7} emission triplet, $R = 1.4^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$.

1611: Assuming the plasma is either purely ionized or

1612: a hybrid of collisionally- and photo-ionized material,

1613: and assuming a temperature near $10^6$ K, electron densities 

1614: of roughly $10^{10.5-11.5}$ cm$^{-3}$ are implied

1615: (Porquet \& Dubau 2000). For either collisional or photo-ionization, 

1616: densities above $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ are ruled out by the presence of the

1617: strong \ion{O}{7} $(f)$ line.

1618: 

1619: 

1620: 

1621: 

1622: 

1623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1624: 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: \subsubsection{Long-term variability in the cold and ionized absorbers}

1628: 

1629: Variations in the column density of neutral absorbing gas along the line of sight 

1630: has been reported to occur on a wide range of time scales (days to years)

1631: in both Seyfert 1 AGN (e.g., I Zw 1, Gallo et al.\ 2007; NGC 4151, Puccetti et al.\ 2007;

1632: NGC 3516, Turner \et\ 2008, Markowitz \et\ 2008)

1633: and Seyfert 2 AGN (Risaliti et al.\ 2002, 2005).

1634: NGC 3227 is no exception, given the 2000-1 obscuring event by a lowly-ionized

1635: (log $\xi \sim 0$) dense cloud of column density $2.6 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$

1636: and inferred to be located in the BLR (Lamer \et\ 2003).

1637: That cloud is likely physically distinct from the local cold

1638: gas and the ionized X-ray absorbers, as

1639: $N_{\rm H,local}$, $N_{\rm H,WA1}$ and $N_{\rm H,WA2}$

1640: modeled from the 2006 {\it XMM-Newton} observation

1641: are much lower than that for the 2000-1 obscuring cloud.

1642: Nonetheless, there does seem to be evidence for variations in

1643: $N_{\rm H,local}$ on time scales of years in NGC 3227: 

1644: George \et\ (1998b) noted $N_{\rm H,local}$

1645: to increase from $\sim 3 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ in 1993 to $\sim 3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ by 1995.

1646: Gondoin \et\ (2003)  reported $N_{\rm H,local} = 7 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ from the 2000 {\it XMM-Newton} 

1647: observation; that value is the same as the column here in the 2006 EPIC-pn spectrum.

1648: Assuming that discrepancies in values of $N_{\rm H,local}$ inferred from different missions

1649: are intrinsic to the source and not due to cross-instrumental calibration uncertainties,

1650: the range in measured $N_{\rm H,local}$ values would suggest the

1651: presence of cold gas along the line of sight at $<<$pc radii from the black hole.

1652:  

1653: 

1654: %%%%% The evidence is mounting that the level of observed absorption may not modeled 

1655: %%%%% using a simple torus of gas; the absorbing gas is implied to be 

1656: %%%%% inhomogeneous in either Seyfert type, and exist over a wide range in length scales. 

1657: 

1658: 

1659:  

1660: George \et\ (1998b) noted an increase in the ionized absorber column density, from 

1661: $\sim 3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ in 1993 to $\sim 3 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ 1995,

1662: ruling out a location outside the NLR. The value of $N_{\rm H,WA}$ obtained by 

1663: Gondoin \et\ (2003) using {\sc xstar} modeling is $2.7 \pm 0.7 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. 

1664: Variability in $N_{\rm H,WA}$ between 2000 and 2006 is thus implied to be significant only 

1665: at the 2.3$\sigma$ confidence level. Furthermore, Gondoin \et\ (2003) did not include a component

1666: to model a soft X-ray excess; if the soft excess was intrinsically present during the 2000

1667: observation, then their estimate of $N_{\rm H,WA}$ would be too high.

1668: Assuming the variations in $N_{\rm H,WA}$

1669: since 1993 to be real, then at least some fraction of the ionized X-ray absorbing gas is likely present

1670: at $<<$pc radii.

1671: 

1672: 

1673: 

1674: 

1675: \subsubsection{Possible connections between the X-ray and UV ionized absorbers}

1676: 

1677: The extended dusty lukewarm absorber (hereafter DLWA) studied by Crenshaw \et\ (2001) 

1678: may be a physically and/or kinematically distinct component from the ionized X-ray absorbers. 

1679: Crenshaw \et\ (2001) report the ionization parameter $U$ of the DLWA

1680: to be 0.13 (see George \et\ 1998a for definitions of the optical/UV ionization parameter

1681: $U$ and the X-ray ionization parameter $U_{\rm x}$). 

1682: Assuming an optical-to-X-ray spectral index $\alpha_{\rm ox}$ (estimated from

1683: photometric measurements taken from NED), and using the conversions from

1684: Figure 1 of George \et\ (1998a), $U/U_{\rm x} \sim 250$ and 

1685: $\xi/U_{\rm x} \sim 5000$, we can translate our best-fit ionization parameters

1686: for the low- and high-ionization X-ray absorbers,

1687: log$\xi$=1.21 and log$\xi$=2.90, respectively, 

1688: into corresponding values of $U = 1.0$ and 40. 

1689: The values of the ionization parameters for the DLWA and the low-ionization X-ray absorber

1690: are not too dissimilar, tentatively suggesting a possible physical connection.

1691: However, it is not possible to definitively link the DLWA and the 

1692: low-ionization X-ray absorber in velocity space, as,

1693: other than the Fe UTA and \ion{O}{7} edge, there are no strong X-ray absorption features $>$0.35 keV

1694: endemic to only the low-ionization, and not the high-ionization,

1695: X-ray absorber at the best-fit ionization parameter values.

1696: 

1697: %%%% The DLWA could not generate H- or He-like absorpion lines seen in the X-ray spectra

1698: %%%% but could contain Fe species associated with the Fe UTA near 0.7 keV.  CONFIRM THIS

1699: 

1700: 

1701: 

1702: %%%%%% U -- Ux -- xi -- logXi

1703: %%%% logXi=0.9===Xi=8     Ux = 0.002   U = 0.5

1704: %%%% logXi=2.3===Xi=200   Ux = 0.04    U = 13 

1705: %%%%  G98:  Ux = 0.01       (xi=50; logXi = 1.7;  U = )

1706: 

1707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Lukewarm  NH        U=0.13 NH=2e21   

1708: 

1709: Crenshaw \et\ (2001) note that the column density of the DLWA is $2 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$,

1710: very similar to that measured for both 

1711: X-ray absorbers here. The outflow velocities relative to systemic

1712: of DLWA lines (tens of km s$^{-1}$) are much lower than that of at

1713: least the high-ionization X-ray absorber ($\sim 1500-2000$ km s$^{-1}$).  

1714: Furthermore, it is likely that the DLWA has a high covering fraction (Crenshaw \et\ 2001).

1715: We cannot rule out the possibility that the low-ionization X-ray absorber may be the inner

1716: edge of the extended DLWA.

1717: Moreover, it is conceivable that the outflowing, ionized X-ray absorbers

1718: may supply the extended, 100-pc scale DLWA gas (at least along the line of sight), 

1719: with the velocity

1720: slowing and ionization parameter decreasing as the distance from the black hole increases.  

1721: If the X-ray ionized absorbing gas is continuously feeding 

1722: the UV absorber, we might expect the existence of an ``intermediate'' 

1723: zone of absorbing material with outflow velocity  

1724: between those of the observed X-ray and UV ionized absorbers. 

1725: Confirmation of such a zone would strengthen the physical connection

1726: between the X-ray and UV ionized absorbers. 

1727: However, clarification of whether or not the X-ray absorbing outflow is

1728: sustained or intermittent would be needed to determine the

1729: exact physical and kinematic connection between the UV and X-ray absorbers.

1730: 

1731: 

1732: The properties we have derived for the ionized X-ray absorbers are

1733: consistent with the notion that dust may be swept up by an outflowing wind at radii 

1734: $\gtrsim$ a few light-days (outside the BLR, where dust cannot survive). 

1735: However, the current data cannot distinguish between a dusty and a dust-free

1736: X-ray ionized absorber; as discussed in $\S$5, the upper limit on the neutral Fe L3

1737: dust edge in the RGS spectrum corresponds to a 

1738: hydrogren column density consistent with that 

1739: implied by optical line absorption.

1740: %%%% {\it Chandra} HETGS spectra of MCG--6-30-15 (Lee \et\ 2001) 

1741: %%%% and Cyg X-1 (Schulz \et\ 2002)

1742: %%%% reveal the presence of dust via Fe L3 edges at 707 eV; in each case

1743: %%%% the drop in continuum across the edge is $\sim2$ ($\tau \sim 0.7$), 

1744: %%%% an order of magnitude larger than the upper limits inferred from the RGS spectrum of NGC 3227.

1745: 

1746: 

1747: 

1748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ----------------------   Section 9.2   

1750: 

1751: \subsection{The variable soft excess in NGC 3227} 

1752:     

1753: The origin of the soft excess emission in NGC 3227 is not immediately obvious.

1754: The soft excess does not undergo the same obscuration by cold material as that 

1755: suffered by the hard X-ray continuum.

1756: However, the large discrepancy between $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$

1757: argues against both partial covering scenarios and against the 

1758: soft X-rays being nuclear power-law emission scattered in an extended region.

1759: We have modeled the soft excess in NGC 3227 using a blackbody component to represent

1760: direct thermal emission from accretion disk, but such a model seems to be unphysical

1761: given the apparent consistency of blackbody parameters across a wide range of Seyfert 

1762: properties, including black hole mass (e.g., Gierli\'{n}ski \& Done 2004).

1763: We have also modeled the soft excess as inverse Comptonization of seed photons, likely

1764: thermal optical and UV photons from the accretion disk, by thermal electrons 

1765: (Sunyaev \& Titarchuk 1980). Such a mechanism could conceivably operate in

1766: the hot, ionized surface of the accretion disk (Hubeny \et\ 2001; Janiuk, 

1767: Czerny \& Madejski 2001).  

1768: 

1769: 

1770: 

1771: 

1772: %%%%%%%%%%%% Var.

1773: %%%% {\bf In blazars, a rapidly variable soft excess has been observed in PKS 1510--089

1774: %%%% (Gambill \et\ 2003), a candidate target for the bulk-Compton emission. Is there

1775: %%%% any reason to discuss that mechanism here?}

1776: 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: In Seyferts, soft excesses have been seen to vary on time scales of weeks, e.g., 

1780: as seen in the narrow line Seyfert 1s Ark 564 and Ton S180 (Edelson \et\ 2002).

1781: The soft excess in the quasar 3C~273 has also been known to vary on

1782: time scales of $\sim$ a week (Kim 2001 and references therein).

1783: Vaughan \et\ (2002) found the soft excess of the NLSy1 Ton S180

1784: to vary rapidly, though in concert with the hard X-ray power law

1785: component, leading to measurents of $F_{\rm var}$ roughly 

1786: independent of energy band across the EPIC bandpass.

1787: However, most other Seyferts' $F_{\rm var}$ spectra peak near 1--2 keV (e.g., Ar\'{e}valo \et\ 2008; 

1788: Vaughan \& Fabian 2004). This is commonly explained with a variable

1789: power-law component superimposed over a constant or relatively less variable hard component 

1790: above $\sim$5 keV (likely the Compton reflection hump) and a constant or less variable

1791: soft component below $\sim$1 keV (the soft excess). In NGC 3227, however, $F_{\rm var}$ increases

1792: with decreasing energy below 1 keV (Figure 14) due to a soft excess that is strongly

1793: variable in normalization.

1794: 

1795: 

1796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1797: 

1798: The simultaneous increases in UV and soft X-ray continuum flux are not statistically significantly

1799: correlated, so a direct UV--soft X-ray connection is tenuous at best.

1800: However, if such a connection were real, and if both the UV and soft X-ray originate in the same 

1801: location on the disk, a rapid change in illumination of the accretion disk could explain 

1802: the simultaneous increases. 

1803: 

1804: 

1805: We can investigate if the observed UV trend can be attributed to

1806: thermal reprocessing of the increasing soft X-ray flux trend

1807: by the accretion disk.

1808: Given the black hole mass, accretion rate, and assuming a standard thin

1809: disk with an inner radius of 6 $R_{\rm g}$, 

1810: 90\% (50\%, 10\%) of the 260 nm continuum 

1811: emission originates from within 60 (25, 10) $R_{\rm g}$.

1812: The light crossing time across the diameter of the disk at

1813: a 60 $R_{\rm g}$ radius is roughly 20 ks. 

1814: In a thermal reprocessing scenario, the UV flux should track

1815: the soft X-ray flux and be smeared on a time scale

1816: $<$ 20 ks, assuming that the soft X-ray continuum emitting region is

1817: located near the central disk plane.  

1818: If the soft X-ray emitting region is located well off the plane,

1819: the light travel time to the UV-emitting part of the disk

1820: is increased (e.g., 30 ks travel time for a height of 100 $R_{\rm g}$.) 

1821: The light curves displayed in Figure 1 are consistent

1822: with this scenario, as any soft X-ray to UV lag is less than

1823: several tens of ks.

1824: 

1825: Another possibility is that the soft X-ray continuum flux originates

1826: in inverse Comptonization of UV seed photons from the disk; e.g., 

1827: the scenario associated with the COMPST model.

1828: However, the fact that the observed increase in the soft X-ray flux (40$\%$) 

1829: is stronger than the observed increase in the UV flux (10$\%$)

1830: would argue against all of the soft X-ray photons being passively-reprocessed

1831: UV photons, unless only the soft X-ray photons were anisotropically beamed

1832: along the line of sight, or unless the soft X-ray flux is responding to

1833: a comparative increase in the UV continuum flux that

1834: occurred less than a few tens of ks before the start of the 

1835: {\it XMM-Newton} observation.  

1836: 

1837: In the inverse Comptonization scenario, and in the absence of thermal reprocessing,

1838: the UV variability would have 

1839: to be intrinsic to the disk. We can consider inwardly-propagating 

1840: variations in the local mass accretion rate (e.g., Lyubarski 1997, 

1841: Ar\'{e}valo \& Uttley 2006), specifically,

1842: the case where the fluctuations travel on the viscous time scale.

1843: To produce the 10$\%$ observed variation, such 

1844: a propagating fluctuation would have to modify

1845: 20\% of the flux contained within a radius of 25 $R_{\rm g}$,

1846: or 100\% of the flux contained within a radius of 10 $R_{\rm g}$.

1847: Let us consider the former case: a 

1848: fluctuation that propagates with an inward velocity that takes it from

1849: a radius of 25 $R_{\rm g}$ to the innermost stable disk radius of

1850: 6 $R_{\rm g}$ over 100 ks, while modulating 

1851: 20\% of the flux within 25 $R_{\rm g}$, could

1852: produce the observed UV variability. However, the required velocity,

1853: $\sim$1/5 of the orbital velocity, is very high for a standard disk

1854: (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973): 

1855: to be the viscous velocity for a standard disk, one would need

1856: $(H/R)^2\alpha = 0.2$ ($H$, $R$, and $\alpha$ are the height, radius

1857: and viscosity parameters, respectively), i.e., a very 

1858: thick disk with a large viscosity parameter, which is probably 

1859: not adequate for the optical-emitting portion of the disk.  

1860: The UV variability is thus likely not associated with

1861: accretion rate fluctuations traveling on viscous time scales.

1862: The sound speed near 25 $R_{\rm g}$ (assuming $\alpha = 0.1$) is 

1863: roughly two orders of magnitude slower than the orbital speed,

1864: and sound waves are thus likely

1865: inadequate to produce the required flux modification in 100 ks.

1866: 

1867: %%%%% $F_{2-10}$ rapidly varies by 50$\%$ (maximum to minimum flux ratio) 

1868: %%%%% during the {\it XMM-Newton} observation, but it is not clear what variability ``trend'' 

1869: %%%%% simultaneously observed in the hard X-ray band during the {\it XMM-Newton} observation 

1870: %%%%% is driving the increasing trend on tens of ks in the soft excess. It is thus difficult

1871: %%%%% to attribute the soft excess to inverse Comptonization of disk seed photons

1872: %%%%% in the accretion disk skin unless some

1873: %%%%% disk skin property directly related to soft X-ray emission,

1874: %%%%% and not directly related to the hard X-ray coronal emission, were changing,

1875: %%%%% or unless the light travel time delay between the hard X-ray emission origin and

1876: %%%%% the soft X-ray emission origin was significant. 

1877: %%%%% Perhaps the soft excess during  the {\it XMM-Newton} observation is responding to 

1878: %%%%% strong variations in $F_{2-10}$ which occurred before the start of the observation, 

1879: %%%%% with a light travel time delay of at least tens of ks.

1880: 

1881: %%%%%%%%%%%

1882: 

1883: 

1884: The rapidly variable soft excess is qualitatively similar to that

1885: observed in 3C 120 with {\it Suzaku} by Kataoka \et\ (2006), who model

1886: the variable soft excess in that object as the high-energy part of a 

1887: synchrotron jet component. The rapid variability observed

1888: in the soft X-ray and UV bands in NGC 3227, and the fact that the

1889: soft excess undergoes less absorption by cold material 

1890: compared to the hard X-ray continuum, may also be

1891: consistent with existence of such a jet component,

1892: in addition to and independent of the accretion disk corona 

1893: (hard X-ray) emission. 

1894: Unlike 3C 120, NGC 3227 is of course a radio-quiet AGN.

1895: A $\sim$40 pc scale jet was detected in NGC 3227 by the VLA in 

1896: a 1991 observation (Kukula \et\ 1995), though 10-100 pc scale jets are  

1897: common in Seyferts (e.g., Gallimore \et\ 2006). 

1898: Broad band spectral energy distribution (SED) modeling

1899: of an accretion disk + jet is beyond the scope of this paper;

1900: constraining such an SED component would be complicated by the presence of absorbing dust in 

1901: the poorly-studied EUV band. However, such a component is plausible

1902: if its peak in $\nu$$L_{\nu}$ space were near $10^{14-16}$ Hz 

1903: (explained if the jet were young, e.g.,

1904: $10^{\sim4-5}$ yrs), and the total observed synchrotron power were 

1905: no more than $10^{41-42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. In this scenario, the observed  

1906: UV continuum emission would be a mixture of slowly-varying "big blue bump"

1907: emission from the accretion disk plus rapidly variable synchrotron emission

1908: (which would contribute less than $\sim$50$\%$ to the total observed UV

1909: continuum flux).

1910: 

1911: 

1912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% section 9.3  the high-energy continuum

1913: 

1914: \subsection{The high energy emission components}

1915: 

1916: The photon index of the power-law component used to model the

1917: hard X-ray continuum emission in both the

1918: {\it XMM-Newton} and {\it RXTE} data 

1919: is rather low ($\Gamma_{\rm HX} \sim 1.5-1.6$) compared to 

1920: traditional or "canonical" values of $\sim 1.8-1.9$ for most broad-line

1921: Seyfert 1 AGN.  However, similarly low values of 

1922: $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ have been reported previously for this object (e.g.,

1923: George et al.\ 1998b). The presence of a cutoff near 100 keV, as implied by both

1924: the {\it Swift}-BAT and the {\it RXTE}-HEXTE data,  

1925: would suggest thermal Comptonization, but better

1926: data in the 50--200 keV band and above are needed to confirm the 

1927: cutoff and better constrain its energy.

1928: The low-energy rollover to the hard X-ray continuum component was modeled above

1929: as being due to cold absorption, but could also potentially be a signature of 

1930: Comptonization, as it is possible for

1931: Comptonized continuua to have a low-energy rollover e.g., below 1 keV

1932: depending on parameters such as the distribution of input photon field

1933: (e.g., Titarchuk 1994).

1934: 

1935: 

1936: The 7.1 keV edge is likely due to reflection, as the absorbing

1937: components modeled here predict an edge depth much too small 

1938: to detect here. However, the strength of the Compton

1939: reflection component $R$ is measured to be low ($\lesssim 0.5$),

1940: suggesting that Compton-thick material exists in only a small

1941: fraction of the sky as seen from the continuum source.

1942: For example, the putative Compton-thick 

1943: molecular torus invoked in standard

1944: Seyfert 1/2 unification schemes (Urry \& Padovani 1995) could be

1945: weak or small. Another possibility is that the 

1946: optically-thick accretion disk could be truncated,

1947: or the inner accretion disk could transition into

1948: an optically-thin, radiatively inefficient flow, e.g.,

1949: an ADAF or RIAF (Narayan \& Yi 1994, 1995; Blandford \& Begelman 1999; Narayan \et\ 2000).  

1950: Such flows are frequently 

1951: invoked when describing low accretion rate accreting black 

1952: hole systems (e.g., low luminosity AGN). 

1953: In addition, Liu \et\ (2007) forward a model for 

1954: low accretion rate flows in which optically-thin coronal 

1955: matter condenses into a cool, optically-thick inner disk, 

1956: for $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd} = 0.1-2\%$ (assuming 

1957: values for the viscosity parameter $\alpha \sim 0.1 - 0.4$).

1958: Condensation radii of a few tens of $R_{\rm g}$ are plausible.

1959: 

1960: Wu \& Gu (2008) noted that for both black hole X-ray binary systems and AGN 

1961: accreting above a critical "transition" value 

1962: of $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ correlates

1963: with $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. Below this transition,

1964: $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ and $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ anti-correlate.

1965: Wu \& Gu (2008) suggest that the transition between

1966: a thin disk and an ADAF-type flow occurs near

1967: $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd} = 1\%$ for black hole X-ray binary

1968: systems and near 0.3$\%$ for AGN.

1969: The corresponding value of $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$

1970: at this transition point is 1.5, similar to that observed

1971: in NGC 3227 ($L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd} = 1\%$). This suggests that the accretion flow in

1972: NGC 3227 may be consistent with either a thin disk, a ADAF-type flow,

1973: or a transition to both.

1974: 

1975: %%%% ADAF flows are also suspected of generating continuum emission via thermal bremmstrahlung.

1976: %%% The soft excess in the EPIC-pn spectrum of NGC 3227

1977: %%% is also well modeled with such an emission component, with $\chi^2$/$dof$ = 1890.3/1724 and

1978: %%% residuals virtually identical to those in the BB and COMPST models for an electron

1979: %%% temperature $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm e} = 0.18^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ keV. 

1980: %%% However, ADAFs are generally expected to be associated with higher electron temperatures, e.g., a few keV

1981: 

1982: 

1983: 

1984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------- 8.4 FE K line emission features

1985: 

1986: \subsection{The Narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line at 6.4 keV}

1987: 

1988: 

1989: The measured energy of the Fe K$\alpha$ emission line is consistent

1990: with an origin in neutral material. The line is resolved in the pn spectrum;

1991: the measured width $\sigma$ of

1992: 65$\pm$14 eV translates into a FWHM velocity $v_{\rm FWHM}$

1993: of 7000$\pm$1500 km s$^{-1}$.

1994: This velocity width is similar to that for the 

1995: H$\beta$ line, 5500$\pm$500 km s$^{-1}$ (Wandel \et\ 1999), suggesting

1996: an origin for the Fe K line in material commensurate with the BLR.

1997: 

1998: Assuming Keplerian motion, and assuming the velocity dispersion

1999: is related to the FWHM velocity as $<$$v^2$$> = \frac{3}{4} v_{\rm FWHM}^2$

2000: (Netzer \et\ 1990), assuming a black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$ of

2001: $4.22 \pm 2.14 \times 10^7 \Msun$ (Peterson \et\ 2004), we can use

2002: $GM_{\rm BH} = r$$<$$v^2$$>$ to estimate the radius $r$ of the line-emitting

2003: material. We find $r = 7.2^{+12.7}_{-4.9}$ light-days, equivalent to

2004: $3000^{+5300}_{-2100}$ $R_{\rm g}$.

2005: This value is consistent with the radius of $<$ 700 light-days

2006: inferred from the very crude reverberation mapping discussed in $\S$6.2. 

2007: It is also consistent with the BLR (H$\beta$) region radius of

2008: $9^{+6}_{-8}$ light-days (Peterson \et\ 2004),

2009: as well as with the $\sim$5--20 light-day

2010: inner radius of the dust as reverberation-mapped by Suganuma \et\ (2006).

2011: 

2012: The Fe line-emitting material may be spatially extended in NGC 3227;

2013: only the innermost regions have had time to respond to

2014: continuum variations, which may get smoothed out by

2015: the outer regions anyway. Alternatively, we note in Figure 16 that extrapolation of the 

2016: $F_{2-10}$--$I_{\rm FeK\alpha}$ relation to zero continuum flux results in a non-zero offset.

2017: That is, there may exist Fe-line emitting material which does not respond to the

2018: continuum flux, and only some fraction of the total observed

2019: Fe line flux responds to the continuum variations on $<$ 700 light-days.

2020: Either of these two ideas may explain why

2021: $F_{\rm var}$ for the 2--10 keV continuum flux is 

2022: larger than that for the Fe line. 

2023: 

2024: 

2025: The observed line $EW$ is 91$\pm$10 eV.  

2026: The column density of the gas required to produce such an emission

2027: line must be greater than $10^{\sim 22}$ cm$^{-2}$, 

2028: otherwise the optical depth would be insufficient to produce

2029: such a prominent line. However, the lack of an obvious 

2030: Compton shoulder (the emission near 6.0 keV

2031: was not identified as such) would argue against the bulk of the line

2032: photons originating in Compton-thick material.

2033: 

2034: Let us first assume an origin in optically-thin gas that completely surrounds

2035: a single, isotropically-emitting continuum source (covering fraction 

2036: $f_{\rm c}$ = 1)

2037: and is uniform in column density. 

2038: We can relate $EW$ to $N_{\rm H}$ using the following equation,

2039: taken from e.g., Markowitz \et\ (2007):

2040: \begin{equation}

2041: EW_{\rm calc} = f_{\rm c} \omega f_{\rm K\alpha} A \frac{\int^{\infty}_{E_{\rm K

2042:  edge}}P(E) \sigma_{\rm ph}(E) N_{\rm H} dE}{P(E_{\rm line})}

2043: \end{equation}

2044: $\omega$ is the fluorescent yield: the value for Fe, 0.34, was taken from 

2045: Kallman \et\ (2004). $f_{\rm K\alpha}$ is the fraction of 

2046: photons that go into the K$\alpha$ line

2047: as opposed to the K$\beta$ line; this is 0.89 for \ion{Fe}{1}.

2048: $A$ is the number abundance relative to hydrogen;

2049: solar abundances, using Lodders (2003), were used.

2050: $P(E)$ is the spectrum of the illuminating continuum at energy $E$;

2051: $E_{\rm line}$ is the K$\alpha$ emission line energy.

2052: $\sigma_{\rm ph}(E)$ is the photo-ionization cross section 

2053: assuming absorption by K-shell electrons only; all cross sections were taken

2054: from Veigele (1973\footnote{http://www.pa.uky.edu/$\sim$verner/photo.html}).

2055: The observed Fe K$\alpha$ $EW$ can thus be produced from material with

2056: $N_{\rm H} = 1.4 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.

2057: Similarly, the observed Ni K$\alpha$ line $EW$ of 13$^{+13}_{-10}$ eV

2058: indicates $N_{\rm H} = 3.9^{+3.9}_{-2.9} \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.

2059: 

2060: If the absorbers are instead clumpy and lie out of the line of sight, we

2061: can use Eqn.\ 1 of Wozniak \et\ (1998), which gives the expected Fe K$\alpha$

2062: line intensity for a cloud with a column $\gtrsim 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ 

2063: lying off the line of sight and subtending a fraction $\Omega/4\pi$ 

2064: of the sky as seen from a single, isotropically-emitting continuum

2065: source. Assuming solar abundances and given the observed 

2066: Fe K$\alpha$ line intensity, for values of $\Omega/4\pi$ =

2067: 0.1 (0.3), a column density of $1.5 \times 10^{23}$ 

2068: ($5 \times 10^{22}$) cm$^{-2}$. 

2069: 

2070: 

2071: In either case, the derived column density is higher than

2072: that of the hard X-ray absorbing material in the SXPL

2073: and COMPST model fits to the {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC data. 

2074: It is, however, closer to the column density

2075: of the obscuring cloud during the 2000-1 obscuring event (Lamer \et\ 2003).

2076: Based on the duration of the obscuring event and the implied

2077: number density, that cloud was inferred to be located in the BLR.

2078: The similarities in column density and inferred location

2079: suggest a connection between the Fe line-emitting material

2080: and the obscuring cloud of 2000-1.

2081: 

2082: 

2083: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2084: 

2085: %%%%% 9.3.2- 

2086: \subsection{Emission at 6.0 keV}

2087: 

2088: The Fe K emission profiles in both the pn and MOS 1+2 spectra 

2089: suggest emission redward of the Fe K$\alpha$ core. However, the present

2090: data cannot distinguish between a model wherein the emission

2091: near 6.0 keV is due to a narrow emission line or is instead the

2092: red wing of a relativistically broadened Fe K$\alpha$ line with

2093: an $EW$ near 80 eV. 

2094: 

2095: \subsubsection{A narrow emission feature?}

2096: 

2097: We first discuss the emission in the context of modeling it as a narrow

2098: feature. In the pn spectrum, the line width $\sigma$ was $<$200 eV; the 

2099: $EW$ was $21^{+19}_{-9}$ eV. High-resolution spectroscopy has yielded

2100: evidence for similar narrow emission features in

2101: roughly 16 Seyferts to date (see Vaughan \& Uttley 2008 for a review).

2102: These features are commonly interpreted as red- or blue-shifted Fe K features

2103: associated with "hot-spots," localized areas of the accretion disk

2104: illuminated by a localized flare just above the disc (possibly due 

2105: to magnetic reconnection), rather than a central 

2106: illuminator or an extended corona (e.g., Dov\u{c}iak et al.\ 2004, 

2107: Goosmann et al.\ 2007).

2108: 

2109: Vaughan \& Uttley (2008) point out that these narrow emission

2110: features are rarely reported at more than 3.0$\sigma$ confidence.

2111: Consideration of selection bias and publication bias 

2112: brings skepticism to the validity of these features and

2113: raises the possibility that a non-trivial fraction of 

2114: these published lines may be consistent with being due to photon noise.

2115: In the case of the pn spectrum of NGC 3227,

2116: the Monte Carlo simulations we performed suggested that

2117: the line was detected at $>$99.9$\%$ confidence (i.e., $<$0.1$\%$

2118: likelihood that it is due to photon noise). However,

2119: we caution that the Monte Carlo procedure yields an estimate of the 

2120: detection significance independently of the existence of

2121: other high-resolution spectra of NGC 3227 and other Seyferts.  

2122: On the other hand, the marginal detection of the emission feature near 6.1 keV

2123: in the MOS 1+2 spectrum, simultaneously to the pn data, reduces the

2124: likelihood that the feature is due to photon noise. In addition,

2125: the value of $\vert\Delta\chi^2\vert$ associated with modeling the

2126: line in the pn spectrum is among the largest reported for 

2127: narrow emission lines (See Table 1 of Vaughan \& Uttley 2008).

2128: 

2129: 

2130: 

2131: 

2132: If the feature near 6.0 keV is indeed emission from

2133: a "hot spot" on the accretion disk, we can estimate its radial distance from the black hole.

2134: For instance, we can assume that the observed redshifting is due solely 

2135: to Doppler shifting associated with Keplerian motion of the receding side 

2136: of the disk. We use the 3$\sigma$ energy range of 5.8 to 6.3 keV, 

2137: corresponding to radial velocities along the line of sight 

2138: $v_{\rm r}$ of 0.02--0.09$c$ (assuming an origin in neutral Fe).

2139: Assuming the disk is inclined by $i$ = 30$\degr$ (45$\degr$) with respect to

2140: the plane of the sky, using $M_{\rm BH} = 4.2 \times 10^7 \Msun$ 

2141: (Peterson \et\ 2004), and ignoring gravitational redshifting, this 

2142: corresponds to Keplerian motion at radii of roughly 

2143: 12--430 (25--800) $R_{\rm Sch}$.

2144: 

2145: If the flare is co-rotating with the disk, then a minimum radius 

2146: independent of $i$ is defined by the fact that the line energy is

2147: consistent with being constant and redward of 6.4 keV for the 100 ks

2148: duration of the observation. Any orbital period $<$100 ks is excluded;

2149: otherwise the number of photons $>$6.4 keV would be greater than 

2150: the number of photons $<$6.4 keV. Radii $<$ 9 $R_{\rm Sch}$ are 

2151: thus excluded. 

2152: 

2153: 

2154: An alternate possibility is that the line-emitting material is

2155: in free-fall, with no velocity component transverse to 

2156: our line of sight. Yet another possibility is that the observed redshifting

2157: is purely due to energy losses of photons escaping from 

2158: the vicinity of the black hole; 

2159: assuming for simplicity emission from neutral Fe originating in gas lying

2160: along the line of sight to the black hole, with all

2161: velocity transverse to line of sight, radii of 

2162: $\sim 6-30 R_{\rm Sch}$ are plausible.

2163: 

2164: Another speculative possibility is that the line-emitting material could be

2165: associated with the base of the jet, forming above the accretion disk,

2166: as opposed to being a part of the accretion disk.

2167: Close to the rotation axis in AGN,

2168: magnetic fields are likely twisted by the differential 

2169: rotation of the disk, serving to launch and collimate jets 

2170: (e.g., Blandford \& Payne 1982).

2171: For instance, Marscher \et\ (2008) presented observational evidence for

2172: the jet in the radio-loud AGN BL Lac to follow a spiral flow as it is 

2173: accelerated through a zone containing a helical magnetic

2174: field. The 6.0 keV line in NGC 3227 may be emission from Fe in a blob

2175: of material, with a column density $N_{\rm H}$ of 10$^{\sim 21-22}$ cm$^{-2}$,

2176: which has been caught up in the launching and formation

2177: of the weak jet. If the material is close to the axis, 

2178: above the disk, and moving with a velocity with a large azimuthal 

2179: component, then an observed redshift is possible unless the 

2180: rotation axis lies very close to the line of sight.

2181: However, the weakness of Seyferts' jets may possibly be attributed to

2182: weaker acceleration and/or collimation mechanisms compared to

2183: those in blazars, reducing the likelihood that 

2184: such azimuthal velocities can exist in Seyferts.

2185: 

2186: 

2187: \subsubsection{A relativistically broadened diskline component?}

2188: 

2189: Evidence for relativistically broadened Fe line 

2190: "diskline" profiles in a significant fraction of Seyferts

2191: has been accumulating since the days of {\it ASCA}

2192: (Tanaka \et\ 1995, Fabian \et\ 2000).

2193: In recent years, {\it XMM-Newton} and {\it Chandra}-HETGS

2194: observations have demonstrated that a narrow core at 6.4 keV 

2195: is ubiquitous; accurately modeling that component, as well as

2196: absorption due to ionized gas in the line of sight, is critical

2197: for accurate measurement of the flux and profile of 

2198: any broad Fe line present. 

2199: 

2200: In NGC 3227, our best-fit "DL"

2201: model incorporates a narrow Fe K$\alpha$ core,

2202: and suggests a relatively weak broad line, with an $EW$ of

2203: 81$^{+42}_{-30}$ eV.  We constrained the inner radius to be $< 22 R_{\rm g}$ and the inclination to be

2204: $<$25$\degr$ (though these values were derived with the radial

2205: emissivity parameter fixed at --3).

2206: 

2207: Assuming solar abundances, the abundances of Lodders (2003),

2208: and given the measured strength of the Compton reflection component 

2209: $R = 0.40 \pm 0.07$, the predicted Fe line $EW$ 

2210: (George \& Fabian 1991)\footnote{George \& Fabian 

2211: 1991 predict $R$ = $EW$/150 eV, using

2212: the abundances of Morrison \& McCammon (1983), which assumed

2213: $3.3 \times 10^{-5}$ Fe atoms per H atom. Lodders (2003) sets

2214: the Fe abundance to $2.95 \times 10^{-5}$ Fe atoms per H atom.} 

2215: is 54$\pm$9 eV, consistent with the modeled $EW$ of the observed 

2216: broad Fe line.  The low value of the broad line $EW$ may also suggest

2217: that the optically-thick disk is not spatially 

2218: extended, again consistent with the notion that

2219: the nucleus of NGC 3227 could harbor an ADAF or RIAF,

2220: and the upper limit on the inner radius of 22 $R_{\rm g}$ is 

2221: potentially consistent with the model of Liu \et\ (2007) containing

2222: a small, optically-thin disk.

2223: 

2224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2225: 

2226: \section{Conclusions}

2227: 

2228: We have observed the nucleus of the Seyfert 1.5 AGN NGC 3227

2229: with {\it XMM-Newton} in December 2006 for almost 100 ks.

2230: We have used EPIC and RGS spectra to study the Fe K bandpass,

2231: ionized absorbers, and 0.2--10 keV continuum in detail. We also present

2232: X-ray continuum light curves and a UV continuum light curve obtained with the 

2233: Optical Monitor. We have combined these data with archival {\it RXTE}-PCA and HEXTE

2234: monitoring, plus {\it Swift}-BAT monitoring data, to constrain the level

2235: Compton reflection, study the high energy continuum up to 200 keV,

2236: and track the flux behavior of the Fe K line on time scales of weeks to years.

2237: Our main results are summarized as follows:

2238: 

2239: The EPIC pn spectrum shows the prominent narrow Fe K$\alpha$ emission line

2240: to be consistent with an origin in neutral Fe (Gaussian energy centroid

2241: 6.403 $\pm$ 0.009 keV). Its intensity and 

2242: $EW$ are $3.5 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 91$\pm$10 eV,

2243: respectively, consistent with an origin in material with a column density

2244: $10^{\sim22.5-23}$ cm$^{-2}$. The line is resolved in the pn spectrum, with

2245: a FWHM velocity 7000$\pm$1500 km s$^{-1}$. Assuming purely Keplerian motion,

2246: we estimate the radius of the line-emitting material to be 

2247: $7.2^{+12.7}_{-4.9}$ light-days.

2248: The FWHM velocity and estimated radius are consistent with the

2249: BLR (as mapped by H$\beta$ emission)

2250: as well as with the $\sim$5--20 light-day

2251: inner radius of the dust as reverberation-mapped by Suganuma \et\ (2006).

2252: 

2253: 

2254: Time-resolved spectral fitting to the 1999--2005 {\it RXTE}-PCA monitoring

2255: data reveal tentative evidence for a significant fraction of the

2256: Fe K line photons to track variations seen in the continuum, with a 

2257: light travel time delay which is not tightly constrained, but is

2258: $<$ 700 days. We thus rule out the 

2259: possibility that the bulk of the (variable) Fe line photons

2260: originate at distances of 1--2 pc and more, e.g., in a multi-pc-scale molecular torus.

2261: However, more intensive sampling on time scales of days to weeks is required

2262: to beter constrain the lower limit on the continuum--line lag.

2263: 

2264: 

2265: Emission near 6.0 keV is detected in both the pn and MOS 1+2 spectra.

2266: The fact that it is detected in both instruments and the relatively

2267: large associated value of $\Delta\chi^2$ both argue against this feature being

2268: an artifact due to photon noise.

2269: It is inconsistent with being a Compton shoulder to the 6.4 keV

2270: Fe K$\alpha$ line.

2271: We modeled the emission using a narrow Gaussian component, with

2272: energy centroid (in the pn spectrum) 6.04$^{+0.18}_{-0.04}$ keV,

2273: width $\sigma < 200$ eV, intensity 

2274: $9^{+8}_{-4} \times 10^{-6}$ ph cm $^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 

2275: $EW$ of 21$^{+19}_{-9}$ eV. A possible origin is a "hot-spot" in the 

2276: accretion disk, originating at radii of tens to hundreds of

2277: $R_{\rm g}$. The emission feature is modeled equally well as the red wing

2278: to a relativistically broadened "diskline" component, with

2279: inner radius $<$22 $R_{\rm g}$, inclination $<$25$\degr$, 

2280: and $EW$ = 81$^{+42}_{-30}$ eV.

2281: 

2282: 

2283: 

2284: 

2285: Broadband (0.2-10 keV) EPIC spectral modeling reveals a strong soft

2286: excess dominating below 1 keV. In the pn spectrum, the soft excess

2287: is fit well by a steep power law, with $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$ $\gtrsim$ 3.

2288: A blackbody component and a low-temperature Comptonization component  

2289: each fit the data well, though the physical plausibility these latter two

2290: components in Seyferts is not generally accepted.

2291: The normalization of the soft excess increases by about 20$\%$ during the

2292: first $\sim$20 ks of the {\it XMM-Newton} observation, and by 

2293: $\sim$40$\%$ over $\sim50$ ks. The soft X-ray band is more strongly

2294: variable than the hard X-ray band on time scales of tens of ks:

2295: unlike the $F_{\rm var}$ spectra of many other Seyferts,

2296: the $F_{\rm var}$ spectrum of NGC 3227 below 1-2 keV continues to increase as photon

2297: energy decreases. Such relatively rapid variability in the

2298: soft excess, independent of rapid variability in the hard X-ray band

2299: is very rare for Seyferts.

2300: 

2301: 

2302: The OM shows the UV continuum flux (near 260 nm) to

2303: increase by 10$\%$ during the {\it XMM-Newton} observation.

2304: Such $\lesssim$1 day variability is relatively strong compared to

2305: similar-duration UV continuum light curves obtained with the OM

2306: (Smith \& Vaughan 2007).

2307: 

2308: 

2309: We present the highest-quality gratings spectrum obtained for NGC 3227 to date.

2310: In the RGS spectrum, we model the ionized absorption using two zones.

2311: The higher-ionization zone has log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ = $2.90^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$,

2312: and an ouflow velocity relative to systemic of  --(2060$^{+240}_{-170}$) km s$^{-1}$.

2313: This indicates a minimum radial distance from the black hole of 40 light-days, 

2314: placing it outside the BLR radius. 

2315: The lower-ionization zone has log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ = $1.21^{+0.18}_{-0.08}$ 

2316: (corresponding to a factor of roughly 3--10 higher than the 

2317: dusty lukewarm absorber modeled by Kraemer \et\ 2000 and 

2318: Crenshaw \et\ 2001). Its main signature is a Fe M shell UTA near 740--780 eV.

2319: The best estimate for its outflow velocity relative to systemic is

2320: --(420$^{+430}_{-190}$) km s$^{-1}$.

2321: We find no evidence for non-solar abundances.

2322: Both absorbing zones have column densities $N_{\rm H,WA}$

2323: near $ 1-2 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. $N_{\rm H,WA}$

2324: and the column densities of local, cold absorption measured from the EPIC spectra

2325: are too low to be directly associated with the 

2326: obscuring BLR cloud in 2000-1 studied by Lamer \et\ (2003).

2327: However $N_{\rm H,WA}$ is similar to that of the 100-pc scale DLWA,

2328: consistent with the notion that the outflowing X-ray absorbing material

2329: may supply the UV-absorbing DLWA material.

2330: 

2331: In the RGS spectrum, we detect five narrow emission lines detected at the systemic redshift; we

2332: identify these lines as being due to \ion{N}{6}  {\it (r)}, \ion{N}{7} , and

2333: the {\it (f)}, {\it (i)}  and {\it (r)} lines of \ion{O}{8}.  

2334: No emission due to \ion{Fe}{17} L  line (3d--2p) at 826 eV

2335: (a signature of collisionally-ionized plasma) is detected

2336: (upper limit of 1 eV).

2337: No strong RRC features due to H- or He-like ions

2338: (signatures of photo-ionized plasma) are detected

2339: (upper limits range from 5 to 50 eV).

2340: 

2341: We presented the total spectrum derived from 

2342: {\it RXTE}-PCA and HEXTE archival monitoring data taken in 1996 and from 1999--2005,

2343: and combined them with a 4-channel Swift-BAT spectrum

2344: from the 9-month survey data (obtained in 2005).

2345: The HEXTE and BAT spectral data reported here represent the first detailed

2346: spectrum of NGC 3227 above $\sim$ 20 keV and up to almost 200 keV.

2347: The hard X-ray continuum photon index in both the {\it RXTE}+BAT

2348: spectra and {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC spectra is rather flat, $\Gamma_{\rm HX} = 1.5-1.6$.

2349: The strength of the Compton reflection hump is rather low,

2350: $R \lesssim 0.5$, consistent with the $EW$ of the diskline component

2351: modeled in the pn spectrum (assuming solar abundances).

2352: We also find evidence for a high-energy continuum cutoff at 90$\pm$20 keV.

2353: 

2354: The low values of $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$ and $R$, combined with the

2355: low value of $L_{\rm Bol}/L_{\rm Edd} \sim 1\%$, are consistent with the

2356: notion that NGC 3227 may harbor an optically-thin, radiatively-inefficient flow

2357: such as an ADAF, in addition to or instead of

2358: a standard geometrically-thin, radiatively-efficient disk.

2359: 

2360: 

2361: 

2362: 

2363: 

2364: 

2365: %%%% Crenshaw \et\ (2001):

2366: %%% We note that at soft X-ray energies, absorption by \ion{He}{2} is

2367: %%%% dominant/significant The inferred column densities thus depend on the assumed

2368: %%%%% abundance ratio of He to H.

2369: 

2370: 

2371: %%%% Model lukewarm gas in all: 2e21 ????? 

2372: 

2373: 

2374: 

2375: 

2376: \acknowledgements 

2377: A.M.\ thanks M.\ Elvis, A.\ Marscher and D.\ Evans for

2378: helpful suggestions. This work is based on an observation 

2379: obtained with {\it XMM-Newton}, an ESA science mission, and

2380: has made use of HEASARC online services, supported by

2381: NASA/GSFC, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database,

2382: operated by JPL/California Institute of Technology under

2383: contract with NASA, and the NIST Atomic Spectra Database.

2384: 

2385: 

2386: \begin{references}  %%%%%%%% copied from file ``refs3'' on Apr 20

2387: 

2388: \reference{A08} Ar\'{e}valo, P., M$^{\rm c}$Hardy, I.M., Markowitz, A., Papadakis, I.E., Turner, T.J., Miller, L.\ \& Reeves, J.N. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 279

2389: \reference{AU06} Ar\'{e}valo, P.\ \& Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801

2390: \reference{Ar96} Arnaud, K. 1996, in {\it Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems}, Jacoby, G., Barnes, J., eds., ASP Conf.\ Series Vol.\ 101, p.\ 17

2391: \reference{BB67} Bearden, J.A.\ \& Burr, A.F. 1967, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 39, 125

2392: \reference{Be87} Bechtold, J., Czerny, B., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G.\ \& Green, R.F., 1987, ApJ, 314, 699

2393: %%%%\reference{B01} Behar, E., Sako, M.\ \& Kahn, S.M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 497

2394: \reference{B99} Blandford, R.\ \& Begelman, M.C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

2395: \reference{B82} Blandford, R.D.\ \& Payne, D.G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

2396: \reference{Bl05} Blustin, A.J., Page, M.J., Fuerst, S.V., Branduardi-Raymont, G.\ \& Ashton, C.E. 2005, A\&A, 431, 111

2397: \reference{B96} Brandt, W.N., Fabian, A.C., \& Pounds, K.A. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 326

2398: \reference{B07} Braito, V., Reeves, J.N., Dewangen, G.C.\ \et\ 2007, ApJ, 670, 978 

2399: \reference{C83} Cohen, R.D. 1983, ApJ, 273, 489

2400: \reference{C92} Courvoisier, T.J.\ \& Paltani, S. 1992, IUE-Uniform Low Dispersion Archive Access Guide No.\ 4 (ESA-SP 1153A/B) (Noordwijk: ESA)

2401: \reference{C01} Crenshaw, D.M., Kraemer, S.B., Bruhweiler, F.C., Ruiz, J.R. 2001, ApJ, 555, 633

2402: \reference{CK01} Crenshaw, D.M.\ \& Kraemer, S.B. 2001, ApJ, 562, L29

2403: \reference{C95} Crocombette, J.P., Pollak, M., Jollet, F., Thromat, N., \& Gautier-Soyer, M.\  1995, Phys.\ Rev.\ B, 52, 3143

2404: \reference{Cr06} Crummy, J., Fabian, A.C., Gallo, L.C.\ \& Ross, R.R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067

2405: \reference{D91} de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.G., Jr., Buta, R.J., Paturel, G.\ \& Fouqu\'{e}, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York: Springer)

2406: \reference{DL90} Dickey, J.\ \& Lockman, F. 1990, ARAA, 28, 215

2407: \reference{Dv04} Dov\u{c}iak, M., Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., Karas, V.\ \& Matt, G. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 745 

2408: \reference{E88} Edelson, R.\ \& Krolik, J.H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646

2409: \reference{E02} Edelson, R., Turner, T.J., Pounds, K.A., Vaughan, S.A., Markowitz, A., Marshall, H., Dobbie, P.\ \& Warwick, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 610

2410: \reference{E94} Elvis, M.\ et al.\ 1994, ApJS, 95, 1 

2411: \reference{F00} Fabian, A.C., Iwasawa, K., Reynolds, C.S.\ \& Young, A.J. 2000, PASP, 112, 1145

2412: \reference{G06} Gallimore, J., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 546

2413: \reference{G07} Gallo, L.C., Brandt, W.N., Costantini, E., Fabian, A.C., Iwasawa, K.\ \& Papadakis, I.E.\ 2007, MNRAS, 377, 391

2414: \reference{GP87} Gaskell, M.C. \& Peterson, B.M. 1987, ApJS, 65, 1

2415: \reference{GF91} George, I.M.\ \& Fabian, A.C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

2416: \reference{G98a} George, I.M., Turner, T.J., Netzer, H., Nandra, K., Mushotzky, R.F., \& Yaqoob, T. 1998a, ApJS, 114, 73

2417: \reference{G98b} George, I.M., Mushotzky, R.F., Turner, T.J., Yaqoob, T., Ptak, A., Nandra, K., \& Netzer, H. 1998b, ApJ, 509, 146

2418: \reference{G01} George, I.M., Mushotzky, R.F., Yaqoob, T., Turner, T.J., Kraemer, S., Ptak, A.\ \& Nandra, K. 2001, ApJ, 559, 167

2419: \reference{GD04} Gierli\'{n}ski, M., Done, C.\ 2004, MNRAS, 349, L7

2420: \reference{GD06} Gierli\'{n}ski, M., Done, C.\ 2006, MNRAS, 371, L16

2421: \reference{Go06} Gon\c{c}alves, A.C., Collin, S., Dumont, A.-M., Mouchet, M. R\'{o}zanska, A., Chevallier, L., \& Goosmann, R.W. 2006, A\&A,  451, L23

2422: \reference{G03} Gondoin, P., Orr, A., Lumb, D.\ \& Siddiqui, H. 2003, A\&A, 397, 883 

2423: \reference{G97} Gonzalez Delgado, R.M.\ \& Perez, E. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 931

2424: \reference{G07} Goosmann, R.W., Mouchet, M., Czerny, B., Dov\u{c}iak, M., Karas, V., R\'{o}\v{z}a\'{n}ska, A.\ \& Dumont, A.-M. 2007, A\&A, 475, 155

2425: \reference{G06} Gu, M., Holczer, T., Behar, E.\ \& Kahn, S.M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1227

2426: \reference{H01} Hubeny, I., Blaes, O., Krolik, J.\ \& Agol, E. 2001, ApJ, 559, 680

2427: \reference{J01} Janiuk, A., Czerny, B.\ \& Madejski, G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 408

2428: \reference{K04} Kallman, T.R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M.A., Mendoza, C., Krolik, J.H.\ 2004, ApJS, 155, 675

2429: \reference{K07} Kataoka, J., Reeves, J.N., Iwasawa, K.\ \et\  2007, PASJ, 59, 279

2430: \reference{K01} Kim, C. 2001, JApA, 22, 283 

2431: \reference{K91} Kinney, A., Antonucci, R.R.J., Ward, M.J., Wilson, A.S., Whittle, M. 1991, ApJ, 377, 100

2432: \reference{KF97a} Komossa, S.\ \& Fink, H.\ 1997a, A\&A, 322, 719

2433: \reference{KF97b} Komossa, S.\ \& Fink, H.\ 1997b, A\&A, 327, 483

2434: \reference{K01} Komossa, S. 2002, Workshop on X-ray Spectroscopy of AGN with Chandra and XMM-Newton, held at MPE Garching, December 3-6, 2001, MPE Report 279, p.\ 113

2435: \reference{KK00} Kortright, J.B., \& Kim, S.-K. 2000, Phys. Rev. B, 62, 12216

2436: \reference{K00} Kraemer, S.\ \et\ 2000, ApJ, 535, 53

2437: \reference{Kr07} Krongold, Y., Nicastro, F., Elvis, M., Brickhouse, N., Binette, L., Mathur, S.\ \& Jim\'{e}nez-Bail\'{o}n, E. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1022

2438: \reference{K95} Kukula, M.J.\ \et\ 1995, MNRAS, 276, 1262

2439: \reference{L91} Laor, A.\ 1991, ApJ, 376, 90

2440: \reference{La03} Lamer, G., Uttley, P.\ \& M$^{\rm c}$Hardy, I.M. 2003, MNRAS, 342, L41

2441: \reference{L01} Lee, J.C., Ogle, P.M., Canizares, C., Marshall, H.,Schulz, N.S., Morales, R., Fabian, A.C.\ \& Iwasawa, K. 2001,  ApJ, 544, L13 %%%%% Chan MCG-6 DWA,

2442: \reference{L07} Liu, B.F., Taam, R., Meyer-Hofmeister, E.\ \& Meyer, F. 2007, ApJ, 671, 695

2443: \reference{Lo03} Lodders, K.\ 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

2444: \reference{Ly97} Lyubarskii, Y.E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679

2445: \reference{MZ95} Magdziarz, P.\ \& Zdziarski, A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

2446: \reference{M98} Magdziarz, P., Blaes, O., Zdziarski, A.A., Johnson, W.N.\ \& Smith, D.A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 179

2447: \reference{MEV03} Markowitz, A., Edelson, R.\ \& Vaughan, S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 935

2448: \reference{M06} Markowitz, A., Reeves, J.N.\ \& Braito, V.\ 2006, ApJ, 646, 783

2449: \reference{M07} Markowitz, A., Takahashi, T., Watanabe, S.\ \et\ 2007, ApJ, 665, 209 

2450: \reference{M08} Markowitz, A., Reeves, J.N., Miniutti, G., Serlemitsos, P., Kunieda, H., Yaqoob, T., Fabian, A.C., Fukazawa, Y., et al.\ 2008, PASJ, 60S, 277

2451: \reference{Mars08} Marscher, A.\ \et\  2008, Nature, 452, 966

2452: \reference{MM83} Morrison, R.\ \& McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119

2453: \reference{M00} Mould, J.R., Huchra, J.P., Freedman, W.\ \et\ 2000, ApJ, 529, 786

2454: \reference{M95b} Mundell, C., Pedlar, A., Axon, D.J., Meaburn, J.\ \& Unger, S.W. 1995b, MNRAS, 277, 641 

2455: \reference{M95a} Mundell, C., Holloway, A., Pedlar, A., Meaburn, J., Kukula, M.J.\ \& Axon, D.J., 1995a, MNRAS, 275, 67

2456: \reference{M96} Murphy, E.M., Lockman, F.J., Laor, A.\ \& Elvis, M. 1996, ApJS, 105, 369

2457: \reference{N00} Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I.V.\ \& Abramowicz, M.A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 798 

2458: \reference{NY94} Narayan, R.\ \& Yi, I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13

2459: \reference{NY95} Narayan, R.\ \& Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710

2460: \reference{N90} Netzer, H. 1990, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed.\ R.D.\ Blandford, H.\ Netzer, \& L.\ Woltjer (Berlin: Springer), 107

2461: \reference{N96} Netzer, H. 1996, ApJ, 473, 781

2462: \reference{NM90} Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Laor, A.\ \et\ 1990, ApJ, 353, 108

2463: \reference{N94} Netzer, H., Turner, T.J.\ \& George, I.M. 1994, ApJ, 435, 106

2464: \reference{P98} Peterson, B. \et\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 660

2465: \reference{P04} Peterson, B.M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K.M., Kaspi, S., Malkan, M., Maoz, D., Merritt, D., Netzer, H.\ et al.\ 2004, ApJ, 613, 682

2466: \reference{P07} Pollack, A.M.T.\ \et\ 2007, "Status of the RGS Calibration," XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0030

2467: \reference{PD00} Porquet, D.\ \& Dubau, J. 2000, A\&AS, 143, 495

2468: \reference{P04} Porquet, D., Reeves, J.N., Uttley, P., Turner, T.J.\ 2004, A\&A, 427, 101

2469: \reference{P07} Porter, R.\ \& Ferland, G. 2007, ApJ, 664, 586

2470: \reference{P02} Protassov, R., van Dyk, D.A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V.L.\ \& Siemiginowska, A. 2002, ApJ, 571, 545

2471: \reference{P94} Ptak, A., Yaqoob, T., Serlemitsos, P., Mushotzky, R.\ \& Otani, C.  1994, ApJ, 436, L31

2472: \reference{P07} Puccetti, S., Fiore, F., Risaliti, G., Capalbi, M., Elvis, M.\ \& Nicastro, F. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 607

2473: \reference{R97} Reynolds, C.S. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 513

2474: \reference{R05} Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., Baldi, M., Zezas, A.\ 2005, ApJ, 623, L93

2475: \reference{REN02} Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., Nicastro, F.\ 2002, ApJ, 571, 234

2476: \reference{RR05} Ross, R.R., Fabian, A.C.\ 2005, MNRAS, 358, 211

2477: \reference{R98} Rothschild, R.\ \et\ 1998, ApJ, 496, 538

2478: \reference{RF68} Rubin, V.C.\ \& Ford, W.K. 1968, ApJ, 154, 431

2479: \reference{SK96} Schmitt, H.\ \& Kinney, A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 498

2480: \reference{S02} Schulz, N.S., Cui, W., Canizares, C.R., Marshall, H.L., Lee, J.C., Miller, J.M.\ \& Lewin, W.H.G. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1141

2481: \reference{SS73} Shakura, N.I.\ \& Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337

2482: \reference{S85} Shull, J.M.\ \& van Steenburg, M.E. 1985, ApJ, 294, 599

2483: \reference{SV07} Smith, R.\ \& Vaughan, S. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1479

2484: \reference{S95} Snow, T.P.\ \& Witt, A.N. 1996, ApJ, 468, L65

2485: \reference{S01} Str\"{u}der, L.\ \et\ 2001, A\&A, 365, L18

2486: \reference{Suga} Suganuma, M., Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Minezaki, T., Enya, K., Tomita, H., Aoki, T., Koshida, K.\ \& Peterson, B.A. 2006, ApJ, 639, 46

2487: \reference{ST80} Sunyaev, R.\ \& Titarchuk, L. 1980, A\&A, 86, 121

2488: \reference{Sw98} Swank, J.\ 1998, in Nuclear Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.): The Active X-ray Sky: Results From BeppoSAX and Rossi-XTE, Rome, Italy, 1997 October 21-24, eds.\ L.\ Scarsi, H.\ Bradt, P.\ Giommi \& F.\ Fiore, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Suppl.\ Proc.\ (The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.), 69, 12

2489: \reference{T95} Tanaka, Y.\ \et\ 1995, Nature, 375, 659

2490: \reference{Ti94}  Titarchuk, L., 1994, ApJ, 434, 313

2491: \reference{Tm07} Tombesi, F., de Marco, B., Iwasawa, K., Cappi, M., Dadina, M., Ponti, G., Miniutti, G.\ \& Palumbo, G.G.C., 2007, A\&A, 467, 1057  

2492: \reference{T01} Turner, M.J.L.\ \et\ 2001, A\&A, 365, L27

2493: \reference{T08}  Turner, T.J., Reeves, J.N., Kraemer, S.B.\ \& Miller, L. 2008, A\&A, 483, 161

2494: \reference{UP95} Urry, C.M.\ \& Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803 

2495: \reference{U05} Uttley, P.\ \& M$^{\rm c}$Hardy, I.M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 586

2496: \reference{V02} Vaughan, S., Boller, Th., Fabian, A.C., Ballantyne, D.R., Brandt, W.N.\ \& Tr\"{u}mper, J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 247

2497: \reference{V03} Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R.\ \& Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

2498: \reference{VF04} Vaughan, S.\ \& Fabian, A.C. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1415

2499: %%%%%\reference{VFN03} Vaughan, S., Fabian, A.C.\ \& Nandra, K. 2003b, MNRAS, 339, 1237

2500: \reference{V08} Vaughan, S.\ \& Uttley, P. 2008, MNRAS, submitted

2501: \reference{V73} Veigele, W.M.\ 1973, Atomic Data Tables, 5, 51

2502: \reference{WPM} Wandel, A., Peterson, B.M.\ \& Malkan, M.A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 579 

2503: \reference{W99} Welsh, W. 1999, PASP,  111, 1347

2504: \reference{W94} White, R.\ \& Peterson, B.M.\ 1994, PASP, 106, 879

2505: \reference{W95} Winge, C., Peterson, B.M., Horne, K., Pogge, R.W., Pastoriza, M.G.\ \& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1995, ApJ, 445, 680

2506: \reference{W02} Woo, J.-H.\ \& Urry, C.M.\ 2002, ApJ, 579, 530

2507: \reference{W98} Wozniak, P.R., Zdziarski, A.A., Smith, D., Madejski, G.\ \&  Johnson, W.N. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 449

2508: \reference{WG08} Wu, Q.\ \& Gu, M. 2008, ApJ, 682, 212

2509: %%%%%%\reference{Y03} Yaqoob, T., George, I.M., Kallman, T.., Padmanabhan, U., Weaver, K.\ \& Turner, T.J. 2003, ApJ, 596, 85

2510: \end{references}

2511: 

2512: 

2513: %%%%%\reference{DG} DeZotti \& Gaskell '85

2514: %%%%%% \reference{PS96} Poutanen, J.\ \& Svensson, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249 

2515: %%%%%% \reference{Tk08} Takahashi, H., Fukazawa, Y., Mizuno, T.\ \et\ 2008, PASJ, 60S, 69

2516: %%%%%\reference{YP04} Yaqoob, T.\ \& Padmanabhan, U. 2004, ApJ, 604, 63

2517: 

2518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLES

2519: 

2520: \clearpage

2521: 

2522: \begin{deluxetable}{llc}

2523: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2524: \tablewidth{5.0in}

2525: \tablenum{1}

2526: \tablecaption{Fe K bandpass components  

2527: in the time-averaged EPIC pn spectrum\label{tab1}}

2528: \tablehead{

2529: \colhead{Component} & \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value}}

2530: \startdata 

2531:              &  $\chi^2$/$dof$     & 983.2/990  \\

2532: Fe K$\alpha$ emission line &  Energy (keV) &   6.403 $\pm$ 0.009 \\

2533:                   &  Width $\sigma$ (eV)  & 65 $\pm$ 14  \\ 

2534:     & Intensity (ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)&    $3.5 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-5}$ \\

2535:     & $EW$ (eV) &  91 $\pm$ 10  \\

2536: Ni K$\alpha$ emission line &  Energy (keV) &   $7.41^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ \\

2537:     & Intensity (ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) &    $4^{+4}_{-3} \times 10^{-6}$ \\

2538:     & $EW$ (eV)   &  $13^{+13}_{-10}$ \\

2539: 6.04 keV emission line   & Energy (keV) &    $6.04^{+0.20}_{-0.06}$ \\

2540:                 & Width $\sigma$ (eV) &  $<$ 200 \\

2541:     & Intensity (ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) &   $9.1 \pm 2.5 \times 10^{-6}$ \\

2542:     & $EW$ (eV) &  22 $\pm$ 6  \\

2543: Fe K Edge  &   Energy (keV)  & 7.11 (fixed) \\

2544:     &  Optical Depth $\tau$  & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.03  \\

2545: \enddata

2546: \tablecomments{Parameters for the best-fitting 

2547: ``GA'' model (wherein the emission near 6.0 keV is modeled with a narrow Gaussian component),

2548: fit to $>$4 keV data.

2549: The model includes a Fe K$\beta$ line, with energy fixed at 7.056 keV

2550: (rest frame), width $\sigma$ tied to that of the K$\alpha$ 

2551: line, and intensity equal to 0.13 times that of the K$\alpha$ line. 

2552: The width $\sigma$ for the Ni K$\alpha$ line was also

2553: tied to that for the Fe K$\alpha$ line.

2554: Equivalent widths $EW$ were determined relative to a locally-fit continuum. }

2555: \end{deluxetable}

2556: 

2557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2558: 

2559: \begin{deluxetable}{llccc}

2560: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2561: \tablewidth{6.5in}

2562: \tablenum{2}

2563: \tablecaption{Model fits to the 0.2--10 keV time-averaged EPIC pn spectrum\label{tab2}}

2564: \tablehead{

2565: \colhead{Component} & \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{SXPL Model} & \colhead{BB Model} & \colhead{COMPST Model} }

2566: \startdata

2567:       &  $\chi^2$/$dof$  &   1866.9/1724 &   1870.4/1724 &  1863.4/1723 \\

2568: Local cold absorption & $N_{\rm H,local}$  (cm$^{-2}$)      &   $8.7^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \times 10^{20}$ &  $5.1^{+1.2}_{-0.2} \times 10^{20}$ &   $7.7^{+0.7}_{-0.3} \times 10^{20}$ \\

2569: Hard X-ray power-law  & $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$  &  1.57 $\pm$ 0.02     &        1.61$^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$  &     1.65$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ \\

2570:                       & Norm.\ (1 keV)  &    $6.7^{+0.3}_{-0.2} \times 10^{-3}$ &  $7.4 \pm 0.1 \times 10^{-3}$  & $8.1^{+0.2}_{-0.5} \times 10^{-3}$  \\

2571: Hard X-ray Absorption &  $N_{\rm H,HX}$ (cm$^{-2}$) &     $2.9^{+0.3}_{-0.8} \times 10^{21}$  &            $< 6.1 \times 10^{20}$  &  $4.2^{+0.3}_{-1.1} \times 10^{21}$ \\

2572: Low-ioniz.\ X-ray Warm Abs.\ & $N_{\rm H,lo}$ (cm$^{-2}$) &     $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.1} \times 10^{21}$  &   $7.9^{+2.7}_{-0.7} \times 10^{20}$ &    $9.3^{+2.1}_{-1.9} \times 10^{20}$ \\

2573:                            & log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ (erg cm s$^{-1}$)   &  $1.45^{+0.16}_{-0.07}$  &   1.38 $\pm$ 0.19  &        $1.43^{+0.20}_{-0.43}$ \\

2574: High-ioniz.\ X-ray Warm Abs.\ &  $N_{\rm H,hi}$ (cm$^{-2}$) &     $1.8^{+1.2}_{-0.6} \times 10^{21}$ &   $1.8^{+1.3}_{-0.4}\times 10^{21}$ &  $1.5^{+1.3}_{-0.6} \times 10^{21}$ \\

2575:                            & log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ (erg cm s$^{-1}$)   &  $2.93^{+0.15}_{-0.09}$ & 2.91$^{+0.15}_{-0.07}$  &  $2.89^{+0.14}_{-0.20}$ \\ 

2576: %%%%%%%%%Fe K edge      &    optical depth $\tau$ &     0.06$\pm$0.02  &   $<$0.06  &     $<$0.04 \\

2577: Soft X-ray power-law    &  $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$  &  $3.35^{+0.27}_{-0.10}$ &    &     \\

2578:                         &  Norm.\ (1 keV)  & $4.0^{+0.2}_{-0.7} \times 10^{-3}$  &  & \\ 

2579: Blackbody              & Temperature $k_{\rm B}T$ (eV)     &      & $83^{+1}_{-4}$ &    \\

2580:                        & Norm.\                             &    &   $1.72^{+0.37}_{-0.11} \times 10^{-4}$  &  \\

2581: Comptonized component   &  Temperature $k_{\rm B}T$ (keV)   &     &         &   $0.35^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ \\

2582:                         & Optical Depth $\tau$              &     &         &  24$^{+2}_{-4}$ \\

2583:                                     & Norm.\                            &     &         &  $4.41^{+0.22}_{-0.33} \times 10^{-3}$ \\    

2584: \ion{O}{7} emission line   &  Energy (keV)      & $0.58 \pm 0.01$      & $0.58^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$      & $0.58 \pm 0.01$         \\

2585:                             & Intensity (ph cm$^{-2}$s $^{-1}$) &   $2.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4} \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.2^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \times 10^{-4}$  &   $2.1 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-4}$ \\

2586: \enddata

2587: \tablecomments{SXPL, 

2588: BB and COMPST refer to the models wherein the soft excess is modeled with

2589: a steep power-law component, a blackbody component, and a Comptonized component

2590: ({\sc CompST}), respectively. The units of normalization of the power-law

2591: components are  ph keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 1 keV.

2592: The blackbody normalization is $L_{39}D_{10}^{-2}$, where $L_{39}$ is the source luminosity in 

2593: units of 10$^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $D_{10}$ is the distance to 

2594: the source in units of 10 kpc. 

2595: See the {\sc xspec} user manual for units of the {\sc CompST} component normalization.

2596: The reader is reminded that the BB and COMPST models

2597: are not generally accepted as physically plausible descriptions 

2598: of soft excesses in Seyferts.

2599: The uncertainties listed on the intensity of the \ion{O}{7} emission line

2600: are statistical only and do not

2601: include likely systematic uncertainties due

2602: to blending with narrow absorption lines.

2603: The width $\sigma$ of the \ion{O}{7} emission line was kept fixed at 0.5 eV.}

2604: \end{deluxetable}

2605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2606: 

2607: 

2608: %%%%\clearpage

2609: 

2610: 

2611: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

2612: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2613: \tablewidth{5.0in}

2614: \tablenum{3}

2615: \tablecaption{Emission lines fit to the RGS spectrum\label{tab3}}

2616: \tablehead{

2617: \colhead{Line}           & \colhead{Energy} & \colhead{Intensity}               & \colhead{}              &  \colhead{$F$-test} \\

2618: \colhead{Identification} & \colhead{(eV)}   & \colhead{(ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{$\Delta\chi^2$} &  \colhead{Probability} }

2619: \startdata

2620: \ion{N}{6}    {\it (r)}        &  431 $\pm$ 1        &   $9.9^{+6.7}_{-5.0} \times 10^{-5}$      &    --12.0  & 0.042 \\

2621: \ion{N}{7}                   &    $499^{+1}_{-2}$    &   $8.2^{+6.0}_{-5.2} \times 10^{-5}$      &   --10.4  & 0.064  \\

2622: \ion{O}{7}  {\it (f)}        &    $561^{+1}_{-2}$    &   $1.33^{+0.13}_{-0.75} \times 10^{-4}$      & --25.2  & $1.4 \times 10^{-3}$  \\

2623: \ion{O}{7}  {\it (i)}        &    567 $\pm$ 1       &   $9.5^{+3.2}_{-3.5} \times 10^{-5}$      & --18.5  & $7.8 \times 10^{-3}$    \\

2624: \ion{O}{7}  {\it (r)}        &   $572^{+1}_{-2}$    &   $4.9^{+12.3}_{-2.9} \times 10^{-5}$      & --7.9 & 0.12      \\

2625: \enddata

2626: \tablecomments{Best-fit line emission parameters using Gaussian components.

2627: All line widths $\sigma$ were kept fixed at 0.5 eV.

2628: The uncertainties listed on the intensities (Col.\ [3])

2629: are statistical only and do not include likely systematic uncertainties due

2630: to blending with narrow absorption lines.

2631: The $F$-test probability values $P$ (Col.\ [5]) denote the

2632: changes that the null hypothesis (line not included in model) is valid;

2633: the line detection significance is 1 -- $P$.}

2634: \end{deluxetable}

2635: 

2636: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Table 4  Best-fit model parameters for the RGS spectrum

2637: 

2638: 

2639: 

2640: \begin{deluxetable}{llc}

2641: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2642: \tablewidth{5.0in}

2643: \tablenum{4}

2644: \tablecaption{Best-fit model parameters for the RGS spectrum\label{tab4}}

2645: \tablehead{

2646: \colhead{Component} & \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value}}

2647: \startdata 

2648:              &  $\chi^2$/$dof$     & 785.7/417   \\

2649: Local cold absorption & $N_{\rm H,local}$  (cm$^{-2}$)      &   $10.5^{+1.2}_{-1.9} \times 10^{20}$ \\ 

2650: Soft X-ray power-law    &  $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$  &    3.00$\pm$0.25 \\

2651:                          &   Norm.\ (1 keV)  &   $6.2^{+0.3}_{-0.7} \times 10^{-3}$ \\    

2652: Low-ioniz.\ X-ray Warm Abs.\ & $N_{\rm H,lo}$ (cm$^{-2}$) &     $1.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2} \times 10^{21}$ \\

2653:                              & log$\xi_{\rm lo}$ (erg cm s$^{-1}$)   & $1.21^{+0.18}_{-0.08}$  \\

2654:                              & $z_{\rm lo}$ (absolute)          &  $+0.00246^{+0.00144}_{-0.00064}$   \\

2655:                              &  $z_{\rm lo}$ (rel.\ to systemic) &  $-0.00140^{+0.00144}_{-0.00064}$   \\

2656: High-ioniz.\ X-ray Warm Abs.\ & $N_{\rm H,hi}$ (cm$^{-2}$) &     $2.4^{+2.0}_{-1.2} \times 10^{21}$ \\

2657:                              & log$\xi_{\rm hi}$ (erg cm s$^{-1}$)   & $2.90^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$ \\

2658:                              & $z_{\rm hi}$ (absolute)          &  $-0.00302^{+0.00057}_{-0.00080}$   \\

2659:                              &  $z_{\rm hi}$ (rel.\ to systemic) &  $-0.00688^{+0.00057}_{-0.00080}$   \\

2660: \enddata

2661: \tablecomments{Results are shown for the best-fit soft X-ray power-law model, including

2662: five emission lines due to He-like O and H- and He-like N; see Table~3

2663: for emission line parameters. The units of normalization of the power-law

2664: components are  ph keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 1 keV.

2665: See text for details regarding uncertainty range in $z$.

2666: The model also included a hard X-ray power-law component 

2667: absorbed by a column $N_{\rm H,HX} \sim 8 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and

2668: emerging only above $\sim$ 1.5 keV.}

2669: \end{deluxetable}

2670: 

2671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES

2672: 

2673: 

2674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 1 = light curves

2675: \begin{figure}

2676: \epsscale{0.60}

2677: \plotone{f1.eps}

2678: \caption{The top three panels show the EPIC-pn count rate light curves

2679: for the 0.2--10, 0.2--1, and 3--10 keV bandpasses, binned to 600 s. The bottom

2680: panel shows the OM UVW1 light curve, binned to 1400 s.}

2681: \end{figure}

2682: 

2683: 

2684: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 2 = Data/model residuals   PN  FeK bandpass 

2685: \begin{figure}

2686: \epsscale{0.75}

2687: \plotone{f2.eps}

2688: \caption{Data/model residuals to spectral fits to the Fe K bandpass 

2689: of the EPIC-pn spectrum. Data are rebinned by a factor of 12. Vertical dashed lines

2690: denote energies of 6.04, 6.40, 7.06, and 7.37 keV. 

2691: Panel {\it a)} shows residuals to a simple power-law model.

2692: In panel {\it b)}, the Fe K$\alpha$ and Fe K$\beta$ emission lines have been

2693: modeled. The 7.11 keV edge and Ni K$\alpha$ line

2694: have been modeled in panels {\it c)} and {\it d)}, respectively.

2695: In panel {\it e)}, a Gaussian with an energy centroid of 6.24 keV has 

2696: been added. However, as shown in panel {\it f)}, the best-fit ``GA'' model,

2697: with a Gaussian with an 

2698: energy centroid at 6.04 keV, does a superior job in modeling the remaining

2699: $\sim$6 keV residuals. The small dip near 6.8 keV is not

2700: significant and is likely an artifact of fitting. 

2701: In panel {\it g)}, the best-fit ``DL'' model,

2702: the 6.04 keV line has been

2703: removed and replaced with relativistically broadened Fe K$\alpha$ and

2704: Fe K$\beta$ diskline profiles; the narrow Gaussian at 6.04 keV

2705: (panel {\it f)}) seems to model the residuals better. }

2706: \end{figure}

2707: 

2708: %%%%%%% Fig 3 = results of sliding gaussian for Fe K bandpass. (pn)

2709: 

2710: \begin{figure}

2711: \epsscale{0.50}

2712: \plotone{f3.eps}

2713: \caption{Contour plots showing the results of applying a

2714: ``sliding Gaussian'' (with width $\sigma$ fixed at 10 eV)

2715: to a model to the EPIC-pn data

2716: consisting of a power-law plus a narrow Gaussian 

2717: at 6.40 keV to model Fe K$\alpha$ emission.

2718: 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-$\sigma$

2719: confidence levels for two interesting parameters are denoted by solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines,

2720: respectively.

2721: Residuals near 6.0 keV are clear; additional residuals

2722: at 7.0 and 7.4 keV (above the Fe K edge at 7.11 keV)

2723: are investigated further in $\S$3.}

2724: \end{figure}

2725: 

2726: %%%% Fig 4 = contour plot of 6.04 keV intensity versus energy  (pn)

2727: \begin{figure}

2728: \epsscale{0.50}

2729: \plotone{f4.eps}

2730: \caption{Contour plot of intensity versus line centroid energy

2731: for the Gaussian used to model the narrow 6.0 keV emission feature in the pn spectrum.

2732: The width $\sigma$ was left as a free parameter. 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-$\sigma$

2733: confidence levels for two interesting parameters are denoted by solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines,

2734: respectively.}

2735: \end{figure}

2736: 

2737: 

2738: 

2739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 5 MOS data/model residuals

2740: \begin{figure}

2741: \epsscale{0.75}

2742: \plotone{f5.eps}

2743: \caption{Data/model residuals to various model fits to the MOS 1+2 spectrum.

2744: Data are rebinned by a factor of 8. 

2745: Panel {\it a)} shows residuals to a simple power-law model.

2746: In panel {\it b)}, the Fe K$\alpha$ and Fe K$\beta$ emission lines have been

2747: modeled. In panels {\it c)} and {\it d)}, respectively, the 6.11 keV emission

2748: line and the Fe K edge have been added.}

2749: \end{figure}

2750: 

2751: 

2752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 6 MOS sliding Gaussian

2753: \begin{figure}

2754: \epsscale{0.60}

2755: \plotone{f6.eps}

2756: \caption{Same as Figure 3, but for the MOS 1+2 spectral fitting.}

2757: \end{figure}

2758: 

2759: 

2760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 7: MOS 6.11 keV line: Contour of Intensity vs Energy

2761: \begin{figure}

2762: \epsscale{0.60}

2763: \plotone{f7.eps}

2764: \caption{Contour plot of intensity versus line centroid energy

2765: for the Gaussian used to model the narrow 6.1 keV emission feature in the MOS 1+2 spectrum.

2766: The width $\sigma$ was left as a free parameter. 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-$\sigma$

2767: confidence levels for two interesting parameters are denoted by solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines,

2768: respectively.}

2769: \end{figure}

2770: 

2771: 

2772: %%%%% Figure 8:    PN  Broadband residuals %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2773: \begin{figure}

2774: \epsscale{0.65}

2775: \plotone{f8.eps}

2776: \caption{Data/model residuals to spectral fits to the 0.2--10 keV

2777: EPIC-pn spectrum. All models include narrow Gaussian components 

2778: to model the Fe K$\alpha$, Fe K$\beta$, Ni K$\alpha$ and 6.04 keV

2779: emission lines, an Fe K edge at 7.11 keV, and a column of neutral gas to model 

2780: Galactic absorption.

2781: Panel {\it a)} shows the results when a simple hard X-ray 

2782: power-law component (HXPL) is used. In Panel {\it b)}, a 

2783: neutral absorbing column has 

2784: been added to the HXPL, and a steep, soft X-ray power-law

2785: component (SXPL) has been added.

2786: In panels {\it c)} and {\it d)}, the low- and hi-ionization

2787: warm absorbers, respectively, have been been included.

2788: In panel {\it e)}, a narrow Gaussian to model \ion{O}{7} emission

2789: has been included; this is the best-fitting ``SXPL'' model.

2790: In panel {\it f)}, the soft power-law has been replaced with a 

2791: blackbody component; this is the best-fitting ``BB'' model.

2792: Panel {\it g)} shows the results from modeling the soft excess 

2793: as blurred reflection from an ionized disk. 

2794: (The small dip near 6.8 keV is not

2795: significant and is likely an artifact of fitting.)}

2796: \end{figure}

2797: 

2798: \clearpage

2799: 

2800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 9 = Plot euf for EPIC models, + hi/lo

2801: \begin{figure}

2802: \epsscale{0.75}

2803: \plotone{f9.eps}

2804: \caption{Unfolded spectra for the best-fitting SXPL, BB and COMPST models.

2805: Panel {\it d)} shows the spectra for three selected time-resolved

2806: segments, further illustrating the increase in soft X-ray flux

2807: between segments 1, 2 and 6.}

2808: \end{figure}

2809: 

2810:  

2811: 

2812: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 10 = RGS plot with Fe M UTA inset

2813: 

2814: \begin{figure}

2815: \epsscale{0.75}

2816: \plotone{f10.eps}

2817: \caption{The RGS spectrum for NGC 3227.

2818: The solid line shows the best-fitting unfolded model,

2819: described in $\S$5. Data have been rebinned by a factor of 2, and are plotted

2820: in the rest frame. Black and red data points denote RGS 1 and 2, respectively.

2821: The vertical lines, which indicate identified lines and edges, denote

2822: rest-frame (systemic) energies.

2823: %%%%

2824: %%%%368 eV = C 6 Ly $\alpha$;       

2825: %%%%420 eV = N VI (f);

2826: %426 eV = N VI (i);

2827: %431 eV = N VI (r);

2828: %436 eV = C VI Ly$\beta$;

2829: %500 eV = N VII Ly$\alpha$;

2830: %561 eV = O VII (f);

2831: %568 eV = O VII (i);

2832: %574 eV = O VII (r);

2833: %653 eV = O VIII Ly$\alpha$;

2834: %666 eV = O VII He$\beta$;

2835: %698 eV = O VII He$\gamma$ (?) ;

2836: %774 eV = O VIII Ly$\beta$;

2837: %812 eV = Fe L XVII 3d--2p;

2838: %905 eV = Ne IX (f);

2839: %915 eV = Ne IX (i);

2840: %922 eV = Ne IX (r);

2841: %1022 eV = Ne X Ly$\alpha$;

2842: %1053 eV = Fe L XXII;

2843: %1331 eV = Mg XI (f);

2844: %1352 eV = Mg XI (r).

2845: %Orange vertical dashed lines denote the

2846: %rest-frame (systemic) energies of these

2847: %expected absorption edges, none of which are detected in excess of

2848: %the best-fit continuum model:

2849: %543 eV = O I edge (for oxiding O);

2850: %703 eV = Fe${\rm X}$O$_{\rm Y}$ edge;

2851: %707 eV = Fe I L3 edge;            

2852: %720 eV = Fe I L2 edge;           

2853: %739 eV = O VII edge;          

2854: %845 eV = Fe I L1 edge;

2855: %871 eV = O VIII edge.

2856: The residuals near 687 and 850 eV are 

2857: instrumental artifacts.}

2858: \end{figure}

2859: 

2860: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 11 = PCA + HEXTE + BAT

2861: \begin{figure}

2862: \epsscale{0.60}

2863: \plotone{f11.eps}

2864: \caption{The upper panel shows the {\it RXTE}-PCA (black),

2865: {\it RXTE}-HEXTE cluster A (red) and B (purple), and

2866: {\it Swift}-BAT data (blue). The middle and lower panels show 

2867: $\chi$ residuals to the best-fit models with and without a 

2868: high-energy cutoff in the power-law component, respectively. 

2869: In each case, the model

2870: contains a Compton reflection component and Fe K$\alpha$ emission.}

2871: \end{figure}

2872: 

2873: 

2874: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 12   RECUT  for RXTE+BAT spectrum.

2875: \begin{figure}

2876: \epsscale{0.40}

2877: \plotone{f12.eps}

2878: \caption{Contour plots showing the strength of the Compton reflection

2879: component, $R$ (measured via a {\sc pexrav} component; top panel) 

2880: and cutoff energy (bottom) versus hard X-ray photon index from spectral

2881: fits to {\it RXTE} PCA and HEXTE and {\it Swift}-BAT data.

2882: 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-$\sigma$

2883: confidence levels for two interesting parameters

2884: are denoted by solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines,

2885: respectively.}

2886: \end{figure}

2887: 

2888: 

2889: 

2890: 

2891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 13 = Results of TR-fitting with SXPL

2892: \begin{figure}

2893: \epsscale{0.50}

2894: \plotone{f13.eps}

2895: \caption{The results of fitting the SXPL model to the ten time-resolved spectral segments.

2896: From top to bottom: Normalization of the soft X-ray power-law component,

2897: $\Gamma_{\rm SX}$, normalization of the hard X-ray power-law component, and

2898: $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$.}

2899: \end{figure}

2900: 

2901: 

2902: 

2903: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 14 = RMS spectra

2904: \begin{figure}

2905: \epsscale{0.50}

2906: \plotone{f14.eps}

2907: \caption{$F_{\rm var}$ spectra derived from EPIC-pn data

2908: for the entire duration (black), the first 20 ks (red) and the

2909: final 80 ks (blue).}

2910: \end{figure}

2911: 

2912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 15 = XTE medium- and long-term light curves

2913: \begin{figure}

2914: \epsscale{0.75}

2915: \plotone{f15.eps}

2916: \caption{The results of time-resolved spectral fits to the medium-term (top) and long-term

2917: (bottom) {\it RXTE} data, showing 2--10 keV continuum flux in units of 10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, 

2918: Fe K line intensity $I_{\rm Fe K\alpha}$ in units of 10$^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, and

2919: $\Gamma_{\rm HX}$.}

2920: \end{figure}

2921: 

2922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 16 = RXTE zero-lag correlation diagrams

2923: \begin{figure}

2924: \epsscale{0.40}

2925: \plotone{f16.eps}

2926: \caption{Zero-lag correlation diagrams in which Fe line intensity $I_{\rm Fe K\alpha}$,

2927: in units of 10$^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, is plotted against 

2928: 2--10 keV continuum flux in units of 10$^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. 

2929: Dashed lines indicate the best-fitting linear model.}

2930: \end{figure}

2931: 

2932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig 17 = CCF plot from Rebecca

2933: 

2934: \begin{figure}

2935: \epsscale{0.40}

2936: \plotone{f17.eps}

2937: \caption{ICF (red dashed line) and DCF (solid black line)

2938: functions for the 0.2--1 keV soft X-ray light curve

2939: versus the OM UV continuum light curve (positive lag indicates soft X-ray leading 

2940: the UV.)}

2941: \end{figure}

2942: 

2943: 

2944: 

2945: \end{document}

2946: 

2947: 

2948: 

2949: 

2950: