1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3: \usepackage{timesfonts}
4:
5: \def\epm{\hbox{e}^\pm}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9:
10: \title{Iron K$\alpha$ Emission from X-ray Reflection: Predictions for
11: Gamma-Ray Burst Models}
12:
13: \author{David R. Ballantyne and Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz}
14: \affil{Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge,
15: Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, England}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: Recent observations of several $\gamma$-ray burst (GRB)
20: afterglows have shown evidence for a large amount of X-ray line emitting
21: material, possibly arising from ionized iron.
22: A significant detection of an X-ray
23: spectral feature, such as that found in the {\it Chandra} observation
24: of GRB~991216, may provide important constraints on the immediate
25: environment of the burst and hence on progenitor models. The large
26: Fe~K$\alpha$ equivalent widths inferred from the X-ray observations
27: favor models in which the line is produced when the primary X-ray
28: emission from the source strikes Thomson-thick material and Compton
29: scatters into our line of sight. We present such reflection spectra
30: here, computed in a fully self-consistent manner, and discuss the
31: range of ionization parameters that may be relevant to different
32: models of GRBs. We argue that the presence of a strong hydrogen-like
33: K$\alpha$ line is unlikely, because Fe~{\sc xxvi} photons would
34: be trapped resonantly and removed from the line core by Compton
35: scattering. In contrast, a strong narrow emission line from He-like
36: Fe~{\sc xxv} is prominent in the model spectra. We briefly discuss how
37: these constraints may affect the line energy determination in
38: GRB~991216.
39: \end{abstract}
40: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts --- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal ---
41: line: formation}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: The detection of spectral signatures associated with the environment
45: of a $\gamma$-ray burst (GRB) would provide important clues about the
46: triggering mechanism and the progenitor (M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1998;
47: Lazzati, Campana \& Ghisellini 1999; B\"ottcher 2000). Observations
48: with {\it Chandra}, {\it ASCA} and {\it Beppo}SAX have provided
49: tentative evidence for Fe K$\alpha$ line and edge features in at
50: least five bursts; GRB~970508 (Piro et al. 1999), GRB~970828 (Yoshida
51: et al. 1999), GRB~991216 (Piro et al. 2000) and GRB~000214
52: (Antonelli et al. 2000) all show an emission feature during the X-ray
53: afterglow a few hours to a day after the burst event; while
54: GRB~990705 (Amati et al. 2000) displays a prominent X-ray absorption
55: feature during the burst itself. Although most of the line detections
56: are only marginally significant and fail to distinguish between the
57: various line excitation mechanisms\footnote{The energy of the Fe
58: emission line shifts up in energy from 6.4 through 6.7 to 6.97 keV as
59: Fe is ionized, but Doppler shifts may confuse precise estimates of the
60: observed energy.}, GRB~991216 shows a 3.49$\pm$0.06~keV line at a
61: moderate confidence level ($\sim 4 \sigma$). This is consistent with emission
62: from H-like Fe (Fe~{\sc xxvi}) at the redshift of the most distant
63: absorption system along the line of sight at $z$=1.02 (Vreeswijk et
64: al. 2000). A similar observation, but with higher signal-to-noise,
65: may be able to distinguish between the various line emission
66: mechanisms and lead to the correct determination of the line energy.
67:
68: The large equivalent widths ($\sim$ a few keV) inferred from the X-ray
69: features favor models in which the line is produced by reflection
70: (Vietri et al. 2000; Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 2000), rather than
71: transmission. Any detection of emission features in the afterglow
72: spectra some hours after the burst (such as in GRB~991216) therefore
73: imposes strong constraints on the location and geometry of the
74: optically thick reflecting material. Observing an X-ray line at a time
75: $t_{\rm obs}$ after the burst implies that the emitting material must
76: be located within a distance $\sim ct_{\rm obs}/(1+z)$ from the
77: explosion site, thus strongly limiting the size of the
78: remnant. However, this gas cannot be optically thick along the line of
79: sight because this would smear out the short-time variability of the
80: burst radiation. These conditions point towards a strongly anisotropic
81: environment from which a GRB is seen only if we happen to observe
82: the system through a line of sight with low optical depth (B\"ottcher
83: 2000; Vietri et al. 2000; Lazzati et al. 2001).
84:
85: Two types of reflection models have been developed to explain the
86: origin of the X-ray emission features. The first invokes the
87: interaction of the primary X-ray emission from the afterglow with an
88: Fe-enriched, Thomson-thick, asymmetric remnant, which Compton scatters
89: X-rays into our line of sight (Vietri et al. 2000; B\"ottcher \& Fryer
90: 2000). This scenario requires a mass $\gtrsim0.06 M_{\odot}$ of Fe at
91: a distance about 1.5 light days, possibly due to a remnant of an
92: explosive event or a supernova that occurred days or weeks prior to
93: the GRB (see Vietri \& Stella 1998; in contrast with MacFadyen \&
94: Woosley 1999 which favors a simultaneous supernova explosion). The
95: other type of model involves a long-lived ($\gtrsim 1 {\rm \;day}$)
96: magnetar or accreting black hole with a continuing but decaying
97: outflow that interacts with the stellar envelope at distances less
98: than a light-hour (Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 2000; M\'esz\'aros \& Rees
99: 2001). In this case only a small mass of Fe is required, and can be
100: readily produced by the star itself.
101:
102: Under both interpretations, it is likely that reflection takes place
103: in highly ionized surfaces. This can lead to strong Comptonization of
104: the emergent Fe line, and other absorption and emission features. In
105: this paper, we present and discuss detailed, self-consistent
106: computations of the temperature and ionization structure of a uniform
107: slab of gas ionized by the incident radiation of a GRB and of the
108: resulting reflection spectra. Our analysis applies to an optically
109: thick, homogeneous medium, significantly extending previous analysis in
110: the optically thin regime (e.g. Weth et al. 2000; B\"ottcher 2000),
111: which is hard-pressed to explain the observed Fe-line feature in
112: GRB 991216 (Vietri et al. 2000). We estimate the strength of the
113: Fe~K$\alpha$ line that each model produces. Finally, we
114: discuss the implications of these results for current and
115: future X-ray observations.
116:
117: \section{X-ray illuminated slabs}
118: We employ the reflection code developed by Ross, Weaver \& McCray
119: (1978) and updated by Ross \& Fabian (1993). We consider the
120: illumination of the first 12 Thomson depths of a infinite, uniform
121: slab of gas by radiation with a power-law spectrum of photon index
122: $\Gamma$ incident at an angle $\vartheta$ to the normal (Ross, Fabian
123: \& Young 1999). The incident radiation is treated analytically in a
124: `one-stream' approximation, while the diffuse radiation that results
125: from both the Compton scattering of the incident radiation and
126: emission from the gas itself, is treated using the
127: Fokker--Planck/diffusion method of Ross et al. (1978). Once thermal
128: and ionization equilibrium in the slab is found, the reflection
129: spectrum is computed. We assume that hydrogen and helium are
130: completely ionized, but include the partially ionized species C~{\sc
131: v--vii}, O~{\sc v--ix}, Mg~{\sc ix--xiii}, Si~{\sc xi--xv}, and
132: Fe~{\sc xvi--xxvii}.
133:
134: For a given $\Gamma$, the temperature and ionization state of the
135: surface of the slab is expected to depend mainly on the value of the
136: ionization parameter,
137: %
138: \begin{equation}
139: \xi={4\pi F \over n_H},
140: \end{equation}
141: %
142: where $F$ is the total illuminating flux (from 0.01-100~keV) and
143: $n_H$ is the hydrogen number density (Ross et al. 1999).
144:
145:
146: \section{Application to Gamma-Ray Bursts}
147: If the GRB explodes within a young supernova (SN) remnant, the
148: X-rays from the afterglow will illuminate Fe-rich ($\sim$ ten
149: times solar Fe abundance) material, leading to recombination line
150: emission by reflection (Vietri et al. 2000). Reasonable
151: values of $\xi$ expected in this scenario are
152: %
153: \begin{equation}
154: \xi_{SN} \approx 10^{6} L_{48}d_{16}^{-2}n_{H,10}^{-1},
155: \end{equation}
156: %
157: where $L$ is the source luminosity in units of erg s$^{-1}$, $n_H$ is
158: the hydrogen density in units of cm$^{-3}$, $d$ is the distance from
159: the burst explosion to the material in units of cm. We adopt the
160: convention $Q = 10^x\,Q_x$ for expressing the physical parameters. The
161: time delay of a few days observed in GRB~991216 yields an incident
162: angle for the radiation of $\vartheta \sim 45^{\circ}$ (Vietri et
163: al. 2000).
164:
165: Alternatively, line emission can be
166: produced when a post-burst outflow, possibly magnetically dominated,
167: impacts on the walls of a funnel excavated in the stellar envelope (SE)
168: at distances less than a light-hour (Rees \& M\'esz\'aros
169: 2000). Luminosities as high as $L \sim 10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are
170: expected 1 day after the burst, if they are due either to the spinning
171: down millisecond pulsar or to a highly magnetized torus around a
172: black-hole (Rees \& M\'esz\'aros
173: 2000). The ionization parameter in the stellar envelope case is
174: %
175: \begin{equation}
176: \xi_{SE} \approx \beta 10^{4} L_{47}d_{13}^{-2}n_{H,17}^{-1},
177: \end{equation}
178: %
179: where $\beta <1$ is the ratio of ionizing to MHD luminosity (Rees \&
180: M\'esz\'aros 2000). The incident flux would be deflected along the
181: funnel walls with different incident angles before escaping the
182: funnel: for simplicity we assume $\vartheta \sim 45^{\circ}$.
183:
184: For these uniform-density slabs we vary $\xi$ by changing the total
185: illuminating flux while keeping the hydrogen number density $n_H$, the
186: distance from the burst $d$ and the incident angle $\vartheta$
187: fixed. Fig. 1 shows the results for illumination by a $\Gamma$=2
188: spectrum for both of the scenarios described above. The illuminating
189: and reflected spectra are displayed as $E F_{E}$, where $F_{E}$ is the
190: spectral energy flux and $E$ is the photon energy. The models with the
191: highest ionization parameter ($\xi > 10^{4.5}$) are excellent
192: reflectors, and show almost no Fe spectral features. This is because
193: the surface layer is almost fully ionized, and Fe~{\sc xxvi} does not
194: become dominant until $\tau_T > 8$. The temperature at the surface of
195: the slab is $\sim$ 1.9 $\times 10^{7}$~K, the Compton temperature for
196: the incident spectrum. The spectrum drops at $\sim$ 50~keV because we
197: included a sharp energy cut-off in the incident spectrum at 100
198: keV\footnote{For a constant density slab and the values of $\Gamma$
199: considered here, extending the illuminating spectrum to higher
200: energies ($< 511$~keV) would have little effect on the iron ionization
201: and spectral features (e.g., Ross et al. 1999).}. Compton reflection
202: produces a slight steeping in the reflected spectrum, which mimics a
203: power law with $\Gamma > 2$ in the 3-30 keV band. For example, we find
204: $\Gamma$=2.3 in the $L_{48}$ SN case and $\Gamma$=2.14 in the $L_{48}$
205: SE case.
206:
207: When the illuminating flux is reduced so that $10^{3.5} < \xi <
208: 10^{4}$, Fe K$\alpha$ emission and Fe K-shell absorption features
209: begin to appear. Most of the K$\alpha$ photons originate at $\tau_T
210: \gg 1$ and emerge as broad Comptonized lines with weak cores. The
211: H-like K$\alpha$ photons at 6.97~keV are generated close to the
212: surface, but are resonantly trapped and removed from the narrow line
213: core by Compton scattering. The He-like inter-combination line at
214: 6.7~keV is not subject to resonant trapping, but is generated at such
215: high $\tau_T$ (see panel (b) in Fig. 2) that it is multiply Compton
216: scattered on leaving the slab. The broad Comptonized emission
217: features blended into the Compton smeared K-shell absorption edge, are
218: an important signature of ionized reflection. The effect of increasing
219: the iron abundance at a fixed ionization parameter is illustrated by
220: the dotted line in Fig. 1. The Comptonized line and the absorption
221: feature are increasingly significant for an Fe-rich medium.
222:
223: With $\xi \sim 10^{3}$, Fe~{\sc xxv} becomes dominant at $\tau_T
224: \approx 1$ (see panel (a) in Fig. 2). Narrow emission line resulting
225: from Fe~{\sc xxv} can now be seen superimposed on the
226: Compton-broadened emission bump. The tiny emission feature just above
227: 8.8 keV results from radiative recombination directly to the ground
228: level of Fe~{\sc xxv} (see the $L_{46}$ SE case in Fig 2). In the
229: model with $\xi_{SE}=10^{2}$ the Fe emission is suppressed because
230: Fe~{\sc xvii-xxii} dominates close to the surface, but their K$\alpha$
231: photons are destroyed by the Auger effect during resonance trapping
232: (Ross, Fabian \& Brandt 1996). Finally, for $\xi_{SE}=10$ the
233: reflection spectrum is similar to that of a cold, neutral slab, and so
234: the narrow emission line at 6.4 keV is dominant.
235:
236: The effect of increasing the incident angle $\vartheta$, which is a
237: key ingredient in the pre-ejection models because it is responsible
238: for the observed time-delay, is also illustrated in Fig. 1 by the
239: dot-dashed line. Radiation that illuminates the atmosphere more
240: directly ionizes more deeply into the slab than radiation at grazing
241: incidence. At high flux levels the emergent line features are little
242: changed, however, the K-shell absorption features become more
243: prominent for radiation that impacts closer to the normal of
244: the slab.
245:
246: The ionization structure in the outer layers of the illuminated slab
247: also depends on the incident radiation spectrum. Fig. 3 shows the Fe
248: K$\alpha$ equivalent width (EW) as a function of incident luminosity
249: for a series of reflection spectra with $\Gamma=$1.6, 2.0 \& 2.4,
250: assuming $\vartheta=45^{\circ}$. The EWs were calculated with respect
251: to the reflection spectrum, and the integration was carried out
252: between 5.7 and 7.1~keV. As seen in Fig. 1, the EW of the Fe K$\alpha$
253: line decreases with $L$ in both GRB scenarios. This behavior continues
254: until $L$ is sufficiently low for the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ emission
255: line to be suppressed by the Auger effect. The EWs are generally
256: larger when the illuminating spectrum is steeper (i.e., $\Gamma$ is
257: greater). The weaker ionizing power of steep spectra allow line
258: emission to persist at the highest luminosities, although the EWs
259: still end up quite low when $L=L_{48}$. In a GRB, softer spectra may
260: be important if both the line emission arises from the impact of the
261: continuous energy output with the compact remnant and much of the
262: observed continuum emission (with a flatter $\Gamma$) comes from the
263: afterglow emission directly.
264:
265: \section{Discussion}
266:
267: The emission feature observed $\sim$ 1.5 days after the GRB~991216
268: burst (Piro et al. 2000) had a line luminosity of $L_{\rm line} =4
269: \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and an equivalent width (EW) of $\sim$
270: 0.5 keV. The continuum flux from GRB~991216, measured to have
271: $\Gamma=2.2 \pm 0.2$, in the 1--10 keV band was 50--100 times stronger
272: than the flux in the line. As is clear from the above discussion, the
273: emission feature can be explained by reflection if identified with the
274: recombination K$\alpha$ line from He-like iron at 6.7 keV.
275:
276: Taking $\Gamma \approx 2$ in the SE scenario, a continuous ionizing
277: luminosity of $\sim 10^{45}-10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (or a continuous
278: wind luminosity of $10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ with $\beta \sim 0.01-0.1$;
279: see Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 2000) would be sufficient to produce the
280: observed line\footnote{Under this interpretation, the observed line
281: width can easily be reproduced by Comptonization for an expansion
282: velocity below the limit of 0.1$c$ inferred by Piro et
283: al. (2000).}. However, it is possible that the reflected and incident
284: spectra are observed together. With the above parameters, the line
285: luminosity and EW calculated for the total spectrum (reflected +
286: incident) are $L_{\rm line} \sim 2 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and EW
287: $\sim$ 0.25--0.7 keV. If the illuminating spectrum is a steeper
288: power-law ($\Gamma >$ 2), then a smaller fraction of illuminating
289: photons lie in the 9--20 keV range which dominates the ionization of
290: Fe, and thus an increase in either $L$, $\beta$ or the Fe abundance is
291: required in order to reproduce the same line strength (Fig. 3).
292:
293: Alternatively, an X-ray afterglow with $\Gamma \approx 2$ illuminating
294: the walls of a supernova remnant with a luminosity of $\sim
295: 10^{45.5}-10^{46}$ would produce a line signal with $L_{\rm line}
296: \sim 2 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and EW $\sim$ 0.2--0.8
297: keV. However, an essential assumption contained in this model is that
298: the material responsible for emission-line features is
299: illuminated by the early afterglow radiation (or the GRB itself) with
300: $L \ge L_{48}$. Such high luminosities would cause the spectral
301: features resulting from iron to disappear or, at best, to be extremely
302: weak (even for larger values of $\Gamma$, see Fig. 3). Moreover, this
303: early incident radiation can be harder than a $\Gamma \sim 2$
304: spectrum with a significant fraction of the energy above the
305: $\gamma\gamma \to \epm$ formation energy threshold, and a
306: high compactness parameter. This will cause new pairs to be
307: formed in the originally optically thick scattering medium, an effect
308: which amplifies the density of scattering charges and increases the
309: temperature of the illuminating material. When pairs are produced in
310: sufficient numbers, the iron K$\alpha$ emission is suppressed due to
311: the decrease in the number of recombinations. These effects will be
312: investigated elsewhere (Lazzati, Ramirez-Ruiz \& Rees 2001, in
313: preparation). These problems may be overcome in
314: particular source geometries for which lower luminosities and softer
315: spectra are expected at the edges of the relativistic outflow.
316:
317: The results presented in Fig.~1 show that if the observed Fe K$\alpha$
318: line from GRB~991216 is identified solely with the H-like line at 6.97
319: keV, as suggested by Piro et al. (2000), then this is inconsistent
320: with emission from a photoionized optically thick
321: slab. Their detailed analysis of the {\it Chandra} ACIS-S spectrum
322: shows marginal evidence (at the $2.1\sigma$ level) of an emission feature at
323: 4.4 $\pm$ 0.5 keV. Identifying this feature with the Fe recombination
324: edge with rest energy of 9.28 keV gives $z$= 1.1 $\pm$ 0.1, consistent
325: with the redshift of a H-like Fe K$\alpha$ line. Nonetheless,
326: it is important to emphasize that the observations presented by Piro
327: et al. (2000) do not rule out the presence of a He-like Fe feature
328: (or a blend between H and He-like features as shown in Fig. 1).
329: Some ambiguity also remains in the rest energy of the emission since
330: Doppler blue-shifts of order $0.1c$ are expected in both reflection
331: scenarios (Vietri et al. 2000; Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 200; M\'esz\'aros
332: \& Rees 2001) and may confuse precise measurements of the line
333: energy. Indeed, for an expansion velocity of $0.1c$, the
334: emission feature at 4.4 $\pm$ 0.5 keV could be attributed to the
335: Fe~{\sc xxv} radiative recombination emission just above 8.8 keV
336: rather than to the Fe recombination edge at 9.28 keV.
337:
338: Finally, Co produces both a He and H-like emission line: at
339: 7.242 keV and just above 7.526 keV, respectively. The exact strength of
340: these features, which we do not include in our calculations, could be
341: important in both of the scenarios discussed here and may confuse the
342: identification of low signal-to-noise spectral features.
343:
344: We have presented calculations of X-ray reflection from Thomson-thick
345: slabs for conditions which may arise in the immediate environment of a
346: GRB. Comparisons between putative Fe K$\alpha$ lines detected in
347: X-ray afterglows and those predicted by the computations will be
348: useful in distinguishing between the various line emission
349: mechanisms. We expect that more sensitive data on X-ray afterglow
350: spectral features will impose strong constraints on the nature of GRB
351: progenitors and their environments.
352:
353:
354:
355:
356:
357:
358:
359:
360:
361:
362:
363:
364:
365:
366: \begin{acknowledgements}
367: We thank M. J. Rees, P. M\'esz\'aros, D. Lazzati, A. Blain and the
368: referee for useful comments and suggestions. We are particularly grateful to
369: A. C. Fabian and R. R. Ross for very helpful insights regarding the
370: calculations. ERR acknowledges support from CONACYT, SEP and the ORS
371: foundation. DRB thanks the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship
372: Plan and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for
373: support.
374: \end{acknowledgements}
375:
376: \begin{references}
377:
378:
379:
380: \reference{} Amati, L., et al., 2000, Science, 290, 953
381: \reference{} Antonelli, A., et al., 2000, ApJ, 545, L39
382: \reference{} B\"ottcher, M., 2000, ApJ, 539, 102
383: \reference{} B\"ottcher, M. \& Fryer C. L., 2001, ApJ, 547, 338
384: \reference{} Lazzati, D., Campana, S. \& Ghisellini, G., 1999, MNRAS, 304, L31
385: \reference{} Lazzati, D., Ghisellini, G., Amati, L., Frontera, F.,
386: Vietri, M. \& Stella, L., 2001, ApJ, 556, 471
387: \reference{} MacFadyen, A.\,I. \& Woosley, S.\,E., 1999, ApJ, 524, 262
388: \reference{} M\'esz\'aros, P. \& Rees, M. J., 1998, MNRAS, 299, L10
389: \reference{} M\'esz\'aros, P. \& Rees, M. J., 2001, ApJ, 556, L37
390: \reference{} Piro, L., et al., 1999, ApJ, 514, L73
391: \reference{} Piro, L., et al., 2000, Science, 290, 955
392: \reference{} Rees, M. J. \& Meszaros, P., 2000, ApJ, 545, L73
393: \reference{} Ross, R. R., 1979, ApJ, 233, 334
394: \reference{} Ross, R.~R. \& Weaver, R., McCray, R., 1978, ApJ, 219, 292
395: \reference{} Ross, R.~R. \& Fabian, A.C., 1993, MNRAS, 261, 74
396: \reference{} Ross, R.~R., Fabian, A.C. \& Brandt, W.N., 1996, MNRAS, 278, 1082
397: \reference{} Ross, R.~R., Fabian, A.C. \& Young, A.J., 1999, MNRAS, 306, 461
398: \reference{} Vietri, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., Fiore, F. \&
399: Stella, L., 2000, ApJ, 550, L43.
400: \reference{} Vietri, M. \& Stella, L., 1998, ApJ, 507, L45.
401: \reference{} Weth, C., Meszaros, P., Kallman, T. \& Rees, M. J., 2000,
402: ApJ, 534, 581
403: \reference{} Yoshida, A., et al., 1999, A\&AS, 138, 433.
404: \end{references}
405:
406:
407: \clearpage
408:
409:
410: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1a.eps,width=0.45
411: \textwidth}\psfig{file=f1b.eps,width=0.45 \textwidth}}
412: \figcaption{{X-ray reflection spectra for illumination with a
413: $\Gamma$=2 power law. In both panels the vertical lines are at (from left to right) 6.4, 6.7 and 6.97~keV for the three different Fe K$\alpha$ line energies, and 9.28~keV which is the energy of the iron recombination edge. \textbf{Left panel:} illumination of a uniform supernova
414: remnant with ten times solar Fe abundance, various values of the
415: afterglow luminosity, and $\vartheta=45^{\circ}$. The ionization
416: parameter is given by $\xi_{SN}= {10^{6}} L_{48}$, assuming
417: $d_{16}$=1, $n_{H,10}$=1 (see Eq. 2). From top to bottom the
418: equivalent widths and the luminosities (integrated between 5.7 and
419: 7.1~keV) inferred from the X-ray line features are: 3~eV, 37~eV,
420: 94~eV, 268~eV, 943~eV; 2.5$L_{46}$, 2.7$L_{45}$, 9.6$L_{44}$,
421: 3.6$L_{44}$, 1.4$L_{44}$. The dot-dashed line illustrates the effect
422: of increasing the incident angle from $\vartheta=45^{\circ}$ to
423: $\vartheta=75^{\circ}$ at a constant luminosity. \textbf{Right
424: panel:} illumination of a funnel excavated in the stellar envelope with
425: solar Fe abundance and various values of the decaying X-ray luminosity
426: from the GRB central engine. In this case $\xi_{SE}= {10^{5}} L_{48}$,
427: assuming $d_{13}$=1, $n_{H,17}$=1, $\beta$=1 (see Eq. 3) with
428: $\vartheta=45^{\circ}$. From top to bottom the equivalent widths and
429: the luminosities inferred from the X-ray line features are: 3~eV,
430: 62~eV, 1.1~keV, 122~eV, 1.6~keV; 2.6$L_{46}$, 2.7$L_{45}$,
431: 2.7$L_{44}$, 5$L_{42}$, 5.2$L_{41}$. The dotted line shows the
432: reflected spectra for illumination with the same luminosity but into a
433: stellar envelope that is ten times more abundant in iron. The line
434: luminosity and equivalent width for this model are: 243~eV and
435: 3.7$L_{45}$.}
436: \label{fig1a}}
437:
438:
439: \clearpage
440:
441: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2.eps,angle=-90,width=0.6 \textwidth}}
442: \figcaption{{Fe ion fractions as a function of Thomson depth produced
443: by the illumination of a uniform slab with $\Gamma$=2. The same line
444: type denotes the same species of Fe in both plots. Panel (a):
445: illumination of a funnel excavated in the stellar envelope with solar
446: Fe abundance and $\xi_{SE}=10^{3}$. (b):
447: illumination of a uniform supernova remnant with ten times solar Fe
448: abundance and $\xi_{SN}={10^{4}}$.}
449: \label{fig2}}
450:
451: \clearpage
452:
453: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3.eps,width=0.6 \textwidth}}
454: \figcaption{{Fe K$\alpha$ equivalent widths (EW) as a function of both
455: the incident luminosity and $\Gamma$ for the SE \& SN
456: scenarios. $\vartheta$ was taken to be 45$^{\circ}$ for these
457: models. The EWs were computed from the calculated reflection spectra
458: (integrated between 5.7 and 7.1~keV). If one uses the total spectrum
459: (incident + reflected) then smaller EWs are obtained. For example, the
460: EWs for $\Gamma$=1.6, 2.0 and 2.4 when $L=L_{46}$ (in both cases) are
461: 370~eV, 430~eV \& 131~eV (SE) and 43~eV, 145~eV \& 805~eV (SN).}
462: \label{fig3}}
463:
464: \end{document}
465: