1: \documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
2:
3: \nofiles
4:
5: \def\subtitle{
6: \vspace*{-12mm}
7: \noindent
8: { \scriptsize Proceedings of the Symposium:
9: {\it ``Japan-Germany Workshop on AGN
10: and the X-ray Background'' \\
11: held in Tokyo, Japan, November 1-3, 1999,
12: eds.\ T.\ Takahashi and H.\ Inoue, ISAS Report}
13: }
14: }
15:
16: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.4}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \lefthead{TANIGUCHI, MURAYAMA, \& MOURI}
21: \righthead{DUSTY TORI OF SEYFERT NUCLEI}
22:
23: \title{DUSTY TORI OF SEYFERT NUCLEI}
24: \author{Yoshiaki Taniguchi\altaffilmark{1},
25: Takashi Murayama\altaffilmark{1}, and
26: Hideaki Mouri\altaffilmark{2}}
27:
28: \submitted{Proceedings of the Symposium: ``Japan-Germany Workshop on AGN
29: and the X-ray Background'' held in Tokyo, Japan, November 1-3,
30: 1999, eds. T.\ Takahashi and H.\ Inoue, ISAS Report}
31:
32: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomical Institute, Graduate School of Science,
33: Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
34:
35: \altaffiltext{2}{Meteorological Research Institute,
36: 1-1 Nagamine, Tsukuba 305-0052, Japan}
37:
38:
39: \section{INTRODUCTION}
40: Dusty tori around active galactic nuclei (AGNs) play an important role
41: in the classification of Seyfert galaxies.
42: (Antonucci \& Miller 1985; see also Antonucci 1993 for a review).
43: Seyfert galaxies observed from a face-on view of the torus are
44: recognized as type 1 Seyferts (S1s) while those observed from an edge-on
45: view are recognized as type 2 Seyferts (S2s).
46: Therefore, physical properties of dusty tori are of great interest.
47: We briefly introduce three statistical studies investigating
48: properties of dusty tori;
49: 1) physical sizes of dusty tori based on water-vapor maser emission
50: (Taniguchi \& Murayama 1998),
51: 2) ionization condition of the inner wall of tori based on
52: high-ionization emission lines
53: (Murayama \& Taniguchi 1998a,b),
54: and
55: 3) viewing angle toward dusty tori based on mid-infrared color
56: (Murayama, Mouri, \& Taniguchi 2000).
57: Please see references for detailed discussion.
58:
59: \section{Dusty Tori of Seyfert Nuclei Posed by
60: the Water Vapor Maser Emission}
61:
62: \subsection{Water Vapor Maser Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei}
63: The recent VLBI/VLBA measurements of the H$_2$O maser emission
64: of the nearby AGNs, NGC 1068
65: (Gallimore et al. 1996; Greenhill et al. 1996; Greenhill \& Gwinn 1997),
66: NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et al. 1995; Greenhill et al. 1995a, 1995b),
67: and NGC 4945 (Greenhill, Moran, \& Herrnstein 1997),
68: have shown that the masing clouds
69: are located at distances of $\sim$ 0.1 -- 1 pc from the nuclei.
70: These distances are almost comparable to those of molecular/dusty tori
71: which are the most important ingredient to explain the observed
72: diversity of AGN (Antonucci \& Miller 1985; Antonucci 1993).
73: It is therefore suggested that the masing clouds reside
74: in the tori themselves (e.g., Greenhill et al. 1996).
75: Therefore, the H$_2$O maser emission provides a useful tool to study
76: physical properties of dusty tori which are presumed to be the fueling agent
77: onto the supermassive black hole (cf. Krolik \& Begelman 1988;
78: Murayama \& Taniguchi 1997).
79:
80: \subsection{A Statistical Size of the Dusty Tori Inferred
81: from the Frequency of Occurrence of H$_2$O Masers}
82:
83: The recent comprehensive survey of the H$_2$O maser emission for
84: $\sim$ 350 AGNs by Braatz et al. (1997; hereafter BWH97) has shown
85: that the H$_2$O maser emission has not yet been observed in S1s and
86: that the S2s with the H$_2$O maser emission have the higher \ion{H}{1}
87: column densities toward the central engine.
88: It is hence suggested strongly that the maser emission
89: can be detected only when the dusty torus is viewed from almost
90: edge-on views.
91: This is advocated by the ubiquitous presence of so-called the
92: main maser component whose velocity is close to the systemic
93: one whenever the maser emission is observed because this component arises from
94: dense molecular gas clouds along the line of sight between
95: the background amplifier (the central engine) and us
96: (see, e.g., Miyoshi et al. 1995; Greenhill et al. 1995b).
97:
98: Since the high \ion{H}{1} column density is achieved only
99: when we see the torus within the aspect angle,
100: $\phi =\tan^{-1} (h/2b)$ (see Figure 1),
101: we are able to estimate $b$ because the detection rate of
102: H$_2$O maser, $P_{\rm maser}$, emission can be related to
103: the aspect angle as,
104: $P_{\rm maser} = N_{\rm maser}/(N_{\rm maser} + N_{\rm non-maser})
105: = \cos (90\arcdeg - \phi)$ where
106: $N_{\rm maser}$ and $N_{\rm non-maser}$ are the numbers of AGN with
107: the H$_2$O maser emission and without the H$_2$O maser emission, respectively.
108: This relation gives the outer radius,
109: $b = h~ [2 \tan (90\arcdeg - \cos^{-1} P_{\rm maser})]^{-1}$.
110: Table 1 shows that a typical detection rate is $P_{\rm maser} \simeq$ 0.05.
111: However, this value should be regarded as a lower limit because
112: some special properties of may be necessary to cause the maser emission
113: (Wilson 1998). If we take account of new detections of H$_2$O maser emission
114: from NGC 5793 (Hagiwara et al. 1997) and NGC 3735 (Greenhill et al. 1997b)
115: which were discovered by two other maser surveys independent from BWH97,
116: the detection rate may be as high as $\simeq$ 0.1 (Wilson 1998).
117: Therefore, we estimate $b$ values for the two cases; 1) $P_{\rm maser}$ = 0.05,
118: and $P_{\rm maser}$ = 0.1. These two rates correspond to the aspect angles,
119: $\phi \simeq 2\fdg{}9$ and $\phi \simeq 5\fdg{}7$, respectively.
120: In Table 2, we give the estimates of $b$ for three cases,
121: $a$ = 0.1, 0.5, and 1 pc.
122: If $a >$ 1 pc, the \ion{H}{1} column density becomes lower than
123: $10^{23}$ cm$^{-1}$ given $M_{\rm gas} = 10^5 M_\odot$.
124: Therefore, it is suggested that the inner radius may be in a range
125: between 0.1 pc and 0.5 pc for typical Seyfert nuclei.
126: The inner radii of the H$_2$O masing regions in NGC 1068, NGC 4258, and NGC
127: 4945 are indeed in this range (Greenhill et al. 1996; Miyoshi et al. 1997;
128: Greenhill et al. 1997a).
129: We thus obtain possible sizes of the dusty tori;
130: ($a, b, h$) = (0.1 -- 0.5 pc, 1.67 -- 8.35 pc, 0.33 -- 1.67 pc)
131: for $\phi \simeq 5\fdg{}7$, and
132: ($a, b, h$) = (0.1 -- 0.5 pc, 3.29 -- 16.5 pc, 0.33 -- 1.67 pc)
133: for $\phi \simeq 2\fdg{}9$.
134: All the cases can achieve $N_{\rm HI} > 10^{23}$ cm$^{-1}$,
135: being consistent with the observations (BWH97).
136:
137: \begin{figure*}
138: \figurenum{1}
139: \epsscale{1.4}
140: \plotone{maser1.ps}
141: \caption{The geometry of the dusty torus.
142: The torus is a cylinder of dust with a uniform density,
143: characterized by the inner radius ($a$), the outer radius ($b$),
144: and the full height ($h$). A half-opening angle of the
145: torus is thus given as $\phi =\tan^{-1} (h/2b)$.
146: }
147: \end{figure*}
148:
149:
150: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
151: \tablenum{1}
152: \tablecaption{A summary of the detection rates of
153: the H$_2$O maser in active galactic nuclei
154: studied by Braatz, Wilson, \& Henkel (1997) for the various samples}
155: \tablehead{
156: \colhead{Sample} &
157: \colhead{$N_{\rm maser}$} &
158: \colhead{$N_{\rm total}$} &
159: \colhead{$P_{\rm maser}$ (\%)} \nl
160: }
161: \startdata
162: Distance-limited & & & \nl
163: \hline
164: All (S1+S2+L) & 15 & 278 & 5.4 \nl
165: Seyfert (S1+S2) & 10 & 198 & 5.1 \nl
166: S2 & 10 & 141 & 7.1 \nl
167: \hline
168: Magnitude-limited & & & \nl
169: \hline
170: All (S1+S2+L) & 13 & 241 & 5.4 \nl
171: Seyfert (S1+S2) & 8 & 166 & 4.8 \nl
172: S2 & 8 & 112 & 7.1 \nl
173: \enddata
174: \end{deluxetable}
175:
176: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
177: \tablenum{2}
178: \tablecaption{Geometrical properties of the dusty tori inferred
179: from the statistics of the H$_2$O maser emission}
180: \tablehead{
181: & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$P_{\rm maser}=0.05$} &
182: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$P_{\rm maser}=0.1$} \nl
183: & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\phi=2\fdg{}9$} &
184: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\phi=5\fdg{}7$} \nl
185: $a$ (pc) & $h$ (pc) & $r_{\rm hot}$\tablenotemark{a} (pc) &
186: $b$ (pc) & $N_{\rm HI}$ (cm$^{-2}$) & $b$ (pc) & $N_{\rm HI}$ (cm$^{-2}$)
187: }
188: \startdata
189: 0.1 & 0.33 & 0.43 & 3.29 & $3.3 \times 10^{24}$ &1.67 & $6.5\times 10^{24}$ \nl
190: 0.5 & 1.67 & 2.17 & 16.5 & $1.3\times 10^{23}$ & 8.35 & $2.6\times 10^{23}$ \nl
191: 1 & 3.30 & 4.30 & 32.9 & $3.3\times 10^{22}$ & 16.7 & $6.5\times 10^{22}$ \nl
192: \enddata
193: \tablenotetext{a}{The radius of the hot part in the torus;
194: $r_{\rm hot} = a + h$.}
195: \end{deluxetable}
196:
197: \section{High-Ionization Nuclear Emission-Line Regions
198: on the Inner Surface of Dusty Tori}
199:
200: \subsection{High-Ionization Emission Lines in Seyfert Galaxies}
201: Optical spectra of active galactic nuclei (AGN) show often
202: very high ionization emission lines such as [\ion{Fe}{7}], [\ion{Fe}{10}],
203: and [\ion{Fe}{14}] (the so-called coronal lines).
204: According to the current unified models
205: (Antonucci \& Miller 1985; Antonucci 1993),
206: it is generally believed that
207: a dusty torus surrounds both the central engine and the BLR.
208: Since the inner wall of the torus is exposed to intense radiation
209: from the central engine, it is naturally expected that the wall
210: can be one of the important sites for the HINER (Pier \& Voit 1995).
211: If the inner wall is an important site of HINER,
212: it should be expected that the S1s would tend to have
213: more intense HINER emission because the inner wall would be
214: obscured by the torus itself in S2s.
215:
216: In order to examine whether or not the S1s tend to have the excess HINER
217: emission, we study the frequency distributions of the
218: [\ion{Fe}{7}] $\lambda$6087/[\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda$5007 intensity
219: ratio between S1s and S2s.
220: The data were compiled from the literature (Osterbrock 1977, 1985; Koski 1978;
221: Osterbrock \& Pogge 1985; Shuder \& Osterbrock 1981)
222: and our own optical spectroscopic data
223: of one S1 (NGC 4051) and four S2s (NGC 591, NGC 5695, NGC 5929,
224: and NGC 5033).
225: In total, our sample contains 18 S1s and 17 S2s.
226: The result is shown in Figure 2.
227: It is shown that the S1s are strong [\ion{Fe}{7}] emitters than the S2s.
228: In order to verify that this difference is really due to the excess
229: [\ion{Fe}{7}]
230: emission, we compare the [\ion{O}{3}] luminosity between the S1s and S2s and
231: find that the [\ion{O}{3}] luminosity distribution is nearly the same between
232: the S1s and the S2s (Figure 3).
233: Therefore, we conclude that the higher [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}]
234: intensity ratio in the S1s is indeed due to the
235: excess [\ion{Fe}{7}] emission rather than the weaker
236: [\ion{O}{3}] emission in the S1s.
237: The presence of an excess [\ion{Fe}{7}] emission in
238: S1s can only be explained if
239: there is a fraction of the inner HINER that cannot be seen in the S2s.
240: The height of the inner wall is of order 1 pc (Gallimore et al. 1997;
241: Pier \& Krolik 1992, 1993).
242: Therefore, given that the torus obscures this HINER from our line of sight,
243: the effective height of the torus should be significantly higher than 1 pc.
244:
245: \begin{figure*}
246: \epsscale{1.0}
247: \figurenum{2}
248: \plotone{hi1.ps}
249: \caption{Frequency distributions of the
250: [\ion{Fe}{7}]$\lambda$6087/[\ion{O}{3}]$\lambda$5007
251: intensity ratio between the S1s and the S2s.
252: }
253: \end{figure*}
254:
255: \begin{figure*}
256: \figurenum{3}
257: \plotone{hi2.ps}
258: \caption{Frequency distributions of the [\ion{O}{3}]
259: $\lambda$5007 luminosity
260: between the S1s and the S2s.
261: $H_0=75$ km Mpc$^{-1}$ is assumed.
262: }
263: \end{figure*}
264:
265: \subsection{Three-Component HINER}
266: Although our new finding suggests strongly that part of
267: the HINER emission arises from the inner walls of dusty tori,
268: it is remembered that a number of S2s have the HINER.
269: In fact, the fraction of Seyfert nuclei with the HINER
270: is nearly the same between the S1s and the S2s (Osterbrock 1977; Koski 1978).
271: If the HINER was mostly concentrated in the inner 1 pc region,
272: we would observe the HINER only in the S1s.
273: Therefore the presence of HINER in the S2s implies that there is
274: another HINER component which has no viewing-angle dependence.
275: A typical dimension of such a component is of order 100 pc like
276: that of the NLR. In addition, it is also known that some Seyfert
277: nuclei have an extended HINER whose size amounts up to $\sim$ 1
278: kpc (Golev et al. 1994; Murayama, Taniguchi, \& Iwasawa 1998).
279: The presence of such extended HINERs is usually explained
280: as the result of very low-density conditions in the interstellar medium
281: ($n_{\rm H} \sim 1$ cm$^{-3}$)
282: makes it possible to achieve higher ionization conditions
283: (Korista \& Ferland 1989).
284:
285: The arguments described here suggest strongly that
286: there are three kinds of HINER; 1) the torus HINER ($r < 1$ pc),
287: 2) the HINER associated with the NLR ($10 < r < 100$ pc), and
288: 3) the very extended HINER ($r \sim$ 1 kpc).
289: A schematic illustration of the HINER is shown in Figure 4.
290: \begin{figure*}
291: \epsscale{1.2}
292: \figurenum{4}
293: \plotone{hi3.ps}
294: \caption{A schematic illustration of the three-component model for the HIENR.
295: Note that the torus HINER consists of many small ionized gas clumps
296: like the clumpy HINER in the NLR.
297: }
298: \end{figure*}
299:
300: \subsection{Dual-Component Photoionization Calculations for HINER}
301: Any single-component photoionization models underpredict
302: higher ionization emission lines (see Murayama \& Taniguchi 1998b
303: and references therein).
304: We therefore proceed to construct dual-component models
305: in which the inner surface of a torus is introduced as
306: a new ionized-gas component in addition to the traditional
307: NLR component with the photoionization code CLOUDY (Ferland 1996).
308: The single-cloud model suggests that the ionization parameter lies in
309: the range of $\log U \simeq -1.5$ -- $-2$.
310: As for the electron density, it is often considered that the inner
311: edges of tori have higher electron densities, e.g.,
312: $n_{\rm e} \sim 10^{7\mbox{--}8}$ cm$^{-3}$ (Pier \& Voit 1995).
313: Because the largest [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}]
314: ratio of the observed data is $\sim 0.5$, [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}]
315: of the torus component must be greater than 0.5.
316: However, we find that ionization-bounded models
317: cannot explain the observed large [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}] values
318: by simply increasing electron densities up to $10^{9}$ cm$^{-3}$.
319: Further, such very high-density models yield unusually strong [\ion{O}{1}]
320: emission with respect to [\ion{O}{3}].
321: We therefore assume ``truncated'' clouds with both large
322: [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}]
323: ratios and little low-ionization lines for the HINER torus.
324: The calculations were stopped at a hydrogen column density
325: when [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}] $=1$.
326: We performed photoionization calculations described above and
327: we finally adopted the model with
328: $n_{\rm H} = 10^{7.5}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\log U = -2.0$
329: representative model for the HINER torus
330: with taking [\ion{Fe}{10}]/[\ion{Fe}{7}] ratios predicted by the
331: calculations into account.
332:
333: Now we can construct dual-component models combining this torus
334: component model with the NLR models.
335: In Figure 5, we present the results of the
336: dual-component models. Here the lowest dashed line shows the results of the
337: NLR component models with $\alpha=-1$, $\log U=-2$, as a
338: function of $n_{\rm H}$ from
339: 1 cm$^{-3}$ to $10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$. If we allow the contribution
340: from the torus component to reach up to $\sim 50$ \% in the Seyferts
341: with very high [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}] ratios,
342: we can explain all the data points without invoking the unusual iron
343: overabundance.
344: Note that the majority of objects can be explained by simply
345: introducing a $\sim 10$ \%
346: contribution from the HINER torus.
347: \begin{figure*}
348: \figurenum{5}
349: \epsscale{1.2}
350: \plotone{hi4.ps}
351: \caption{Dual-component photoionization models are shown in the
352: diagram of [\ion{Fe}{7}]/[\ion{O}{3}] vs.\ [\ion{O}{1}]/[\ion{O}{3}].
353: The circles are S1s, the triangles are S1.5s, and the squares are S2s.
354: The filled symbols denote the objects with [\ion{Fe}{10}] emission,
355: while the open symbols denote the objects without [\ion{Fe}{10}].
356: The numbers labeling the lowest dashed line represent $\log n_{\rm H}$.
357: The percentages represent contribution of the HINER [\ion{O}{3}] flux
358: to the total [\ion{O}{3}] flux.
359: }
360: \end{figure*}
361:
362: \section{
363: New Mid-Infrared Diagnostic of the Dusty Torus Model
364: for Seyfert Nuclei
365: }
366:
367: \subsection{The New MIR Diagnostic}
368: The current unified model of active galactic nuclei (AGNs)
369: has introduced the dusty torus
370: around the central engine (Antonucci 1993).
371: Therefore, it is urgent to study the basic properties of
372: dusty tori (e.g., Pier \& Krolik 1992).
373: Utilizing the anisotropic property of dusty torus emission,
374: we propose a new MIR diagnostic
375: to estimate a critical viewing angle of the dusty torus
376: between type 1 and 2 AGNs.
377:
378: Because of the anisotropic properties of
379: the dusty torus emission,
380: the emission at $\lambda <$ 10 $\mu$m is systematically stronger
381: in type 1 AGNs than in type 2s while that at $\lambda >$ 20 $\mu$m
382: is not significantly different between type 1 and type 2 AGNs.
383: Therefore the luminosity ratio between 3.5 $\mu$m and 25 $\mu$m is
384: expected to be highly useful to distinguish between type 1 and 2 AGNs
385: (Figure 6).
386: Here we define the above ratio as
387: \[
388: R = \log
389: \nu_{\rm 3.5 \mu m}~f_{\rm \nu_{3.5 \mu m}}/\nu_{\rm 25 \mu m}~f_{\nu_{\rm 25 \mu m}}.
390: \]
391:
392:
393: \subsection{Results \& Discussion}
394:
395:
396: \begin{figure*}
397: \figurenum{6}
398: \epsscale{1.8}
399: \plotone{mid1.ps}
400: \caption{
401: Basic concept of our MIR diagnostic. The upper panel shows
402: typical spectra of the torus emission for S1s (upper) and for S2s (lower).
403: The lower panel shows how the 3.5 \micron{} to 25 \micron{} flux ratio
404: yields the viewing angle toward the torus.
405: }
406: \end{figure*}
407:
408: \begin{figure*}[p]
409: \figurenum{7}
410: \epsscale{1.0}
411: \plotone{mid2a.ps}
412: \plotone{mid2b.ps}\\
413: \plotone{mid2c.ps}
414: \plotone{mid2d.ps}
415: \caption{
416: Histogram of $R(L,25)$ for the CfA Seyferts ($a$),
417: the sample of Ward et al.\ (1987) ($b$),
418: the sample of Roche et al.\ (1991) ($c$),
419: and the total sample ($d$). Galaxies shown by white bars are
420: likely to suffer from contamination and are not used in our analysis.
421: }
422: \end{figure*}
423:
424:
425: We adopt three samples chosen by different selection criteria
426: and compiled photometric data in $L$, $N$, and {\it IRAS} 25 \micron{} bands:
427:
428: \begin{enumerate}
429: \item 18 S1s and 6 S2s from the CfA Seyfert galaxies (Huchra \& Burg 1992)
430: \item 20 S1s and 4 S2s from the sample of Ward et al.\ (1987), which is
431: limited by the hard X-ray flux from 2 to 10 keV
432: \item 11 S1s and 11 S2s from the sample of Roche et al.\ (1991), which is
433: composed of $N$-band bright objects
434: \end{enumerate}
435: Since some objects are included in more than one sample,
436: there are 31 S1s and 14 S2s in total.
437:
438: The type 1 Seyferts are clearly distinguished from the type 2s
439: with a critical value $R\simeq -0.6$; $R > -0.6$ for type 1s while
440: $R < -0.6$ for type 2s (Figures 7a-d).
441: If we apply the Kolmogrov-Smirnov (KS) test, the probability that
442: the observed distributions of S1s and S2s originate in the same
443: underlying population
444: turns out to be 0.275 \%.
445:
446:
447:
448: The upper panel of Figure 8 shows the theoretical models
449: of Pier \& Krolik (1992, 1993), which are characterized
450: by $a$ (the inner radius of the torus), $h$ (the full height
451: of the torus), $\tau_{\rm r}$ (the radial Thomson optical depth),
452: $\tau_{\rm z}$ (the vertical Thomson optical depth),
453: and $T$ (the effective temperature of the torus) [see Figure 9].
454: The intersection of each model locus with $R=-0.6$ gives
455: a critical viewing angle.
456: The critical viewing angle is expected to be
457: nearly the same as the typical semi-opening angle of the
458: ionization cones observed in Seyfert nuclei, $\simeq$ 30\arcdeg -- 40\arcdeg
459: (cf. Lawrence 1991 and references therein).
460: Figure 9 shows
461: that only two models give reasonable critical viewing angles,
462: $\simeq 46$\arcdeg -- 50\arcdeg though these values are slightly larger than
463: the semi-opening angle of the cone.
464: The model with $a/h$ = 0.3 may be suitable for tori in Seyfert nuclei
465: because this inner aspect ratio gives a semi-opening angle of the torus,
466: $\simeq 30$\arcdeg, being consistent with those of the observed ionized cones.
467: Although there are some
468: contaminations from the host galaxies, circumnuclear starbursts, and
469: dust emission in the narrow-line regions,
470: the new diagnostic provides a powerful tool to
471: study the critical viewing angle.
472:
473:
474:
475:
476: %%\clearpage
477: \begin{figure*}
478: \figurenum{8}
479: \plotone{mid3.ps}
480: \caption{
481: Upper panel: relationships between $R(L,25)$ and the viewing
482: angle for six dusty torus models given in Table 4. Lower panel:
483: distributions of the observed $R(L,25)$ values.
484: Galaxies shown by open triangles are likely to
485: suffer from contamination and are not used in our
486: analysis.
487: }
488: \end{figure*}
489:
490: \begin{figure*}
491: %\epsscale{0.7}
492: \figurenum{9}
493: \plotone{mid4.ps}
494: \caption{
495: Schematic illustration of the geometrical configuration of the
496: dusty torus model.
497: }
498: \end{figure*}
499:
500:
501:
502:
503: \begin{references}
504: \reference{} Antonucci, R.\ 1993, \araa, 31, 473
505: \reference{} Antonucci, R.\ R.\ J., Miller, J.\ S.\ 1985, \apj, 297, 621
506: \reference{} Braatz, J.\ A., Wilson, A.\ S., \& Henkel, C.\ 1997, \apjs,
507: 110, 321 (BWH97)
508: \reference{} Ferland, G.\ J., 1996, University of Kentucky
509: Department of Physics and Astronomy Internal Report
510: \reference{} Gallimore, J.\ F., Baum, S.\ A., O'Dea, C.\ P., Brinks, E.,
511: Pedlar, A.\ 1996, \apj, 462, 74
512: \reference{} Gallimore, J.\ F., Baum, S.\ A., \& O'Dea, C.\ P.\ 1997,
513: \nat, 388, 852
514: \reference{} Golev, V., Yankulova, I., Bonev, T., \& Jockers, K.\ 1994,
515: Astrophys.\ Lett.\ \& Comm. 29, 239
516: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., \& Gwinn, C.\ R. 1997, \apss, 248, 261
517: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., Gwinn, C.\ R., Antonucci, R, \&
518: Barvanis, R.\ 1996, \apj, 472, L21
519: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., Herrnstein, J.\ R., Moran, J.\ M.,
520: Menten, K.\ M., \& Velusamy, T.\ 1997b, \apj, 486, L15
521: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., Jiang, D.\ R., Moran, J.\ M.,
522: Reid, M.\ J., Lo, K. Y., \& Claussen, M.\ J.\ 1995a,
523: \apj, 440, 619
524: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., Henkel, C., Becker, R., Wilson, T.\ L., \&
525: Wouterloot, J.\ G.\ A.\ 1995b, \aap, 304, 21
526: \reference{} Greenhill, L.\ J., Moran, J.\ M., \& Herrnstein,
527: J.\ R.\ 1997a, \apj, 481, L23
528: \reference{} Hagiwara, Y., Kohno, K., Kawabe, R., \&
529: Nakai, N.\ 1997, \pasj, 49, 171
530: \reference{} Huchra, J., \& Burg, R.\ 1992, \apj, 393, 90
531: \reference{} Korista, K.\ T., \& Ferland, G.\ J.\ 1989, \apj, 343, 678
532: \reference{} Koski, A.\ T.\ 1978, \apj, 223, 56
533: \reference{} Krolik, J. H., \& Begelman, M. C. 1988, \apj, 329, 702
534: \reference{} Lawrence, A.\ 1991, \mnras, 252, 586
535: \reference{} Miyoshi, M., Moran, J., Herrnstein, J., Greenhill, L.,
536: Nakai, N., Diamond, P., \& Inoue, M.\ 1995, \nat, 373, 127
537: \reference{} Murayama, T., Mouri, H., \& Taniguchi Y.\ 2000, \apj, 528, 179
538: \reference{} Murayama, T., \& Taniguchi, Y.\ 1997, \pasj, 49, L13
539: \reference{} Murayama, T., \& Taniguchi Y.\ 1998a, \apj, 497, L9
540: \reference{} Murayama, T., \& Taniguchi Y.\ 1998b, \apj, 503, L115
541: \reference{} Murayama, T., Taniguchi, Y., Iwasawa, K.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 460
542: \reference{} Osterbrock, D.\ E.\ 1977, \apj, 215, 733
543: \reference{} Osterbrock, D.\ E.\ 1985, \pasp, 97, 25
544: \reference{} Osterbrock, D.\ E., \& Pogge, R.\ W.\ 1985, \apj, 297, 166
545: \reference{} Pier, E.\ A., \& Krolik, J.\ H.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 99
546: \reference{} Pier, E.\ A., \& Krolik, J.\ H.\ 1993, \apj, 418, 673
547: \reference{} Pier, E.\ A., \& Voit, G.\ M.\ 1995, \apj, 450, 628
548: \reference{} Roche, P.\ F., Aitken, D.\ K., \& Smith, C.\ H.\ 1991,
549: \mnras, 252, 282
550: \reference{} Shuder, J.\ M.\ \& Osterbrock, D.\ E.\ 1981, \apj, 250, 55
551: \reference{} Taniguchi, Y., \& Murayama, T.\ 1998, \apj, 501, L25
552: \reference{} Ward, M.\ J., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., Carleton, N.\ P.,
553: Willner, S.\ P., \& Lawrence, A.\ 1987, \apj, 315, 74
554: \reference{} Wilson, A.\ S.\ 1998,
555: in Accretion Processes in Astrophysical Systems:
556: Some Like it Hot! Eighth Astrophysics Conference,
557: College Park, MD,
558: October 1997,\ ed.\ S.\ S.\ Holt and T.\ R.\ Kallman,
559: AIP Conference Proceedings 431, 235
560: \end{references}
561:
562: \end{document}
563: