ASCA Observations of NLS1s BH Mass from X-ray Variability and X-ray Spectrum K. Hayashida, K. Mori (Osaka University)

Narrow Line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) Seyfert Type 1 whose Broad Emission Line Width is Narrow. (???)

Statistical Properties Pole On Edge On Small BH Models Narrow Hb Width Steep Soft X-ray Spectrum Rapid / Large Ampl. X-ray Variability

BH Mass Estimation of NLS1 X-ray Variability Application of the Method developed in Hayashida et al., 1998,ApJ500,p.642. Black Body Fit to Soft Component Classical Method in (X-ray) Astronomy Preliminary Results were appeared in Hayashida, 1998(IAU Sympo 188), and Hayashida, 1999 (Adv. in Space Res.).

Mass Estimation from Variability Log(f * P(f)) NPSD * Frequency Log Frequency (Hz) Power per Log Frequency Time Ix(t)/<I> 1.0 0.0 Light Curve AGNs SBHC(CygX-1) Assumptions X-ray Variability of BHs (from SBHC to AGNs) is Similar to Each Other. Variability Time Scale is Proportional to System Size, i.e., BH Mass. Cyg X-1 BH = 10 Mo Use Normalized Power Spectrum Density (NPSD)

NLS1 ASCA Sample 14NLS1 9BLS1 s for Comparison Zw1, Ton S180, PHL1092, PKS0558-504, 1H0707-495, RE1034+39, NGC4051, PG1211+143, Mrk766, PG1244+226, IRAS13224-3809, PG1404+226, Mrk478, Ark564. 9BLS1 s for Comparison MCG-6-30-15, NGC5548, Mrk841, Mkn509, 3C120, NGC3227) from ASCA MCG-6-30-15, NGC4151,NGC5506,ESO-G103,NGC5548 from Ginga

ASCA Light Curves of NLS1

NPSDs of NLS1s

f P(f) Plot : NLS1 (ASCA)

Lx vs Mvar (NLS1)

Hb FWHM vs Mvar BLS1: 107-108Mo NLS1: 105-107Mo

Calibration : Mass from BL width vs Mvar Mrev and Mph from Wandel, A. et al., 1999 (astro-ph/9905224) *)Mrev for NGC4051 is preliminary (ct=6.5days). 2019/5/12

Summary-1 We estimated BH masses of NLS1s from X-ray Variabiliy. BH Masses in NLS1s from X-ray variability distribute from 105 to 107 Mo, while those in BLS1 range 107-108Mo. Calibration to Mrev were Shown.

2nd Method X-ray Spectrum of NLS1s

kTBB vs Soft Excess Ratio

BB Fit ->Area->BH Size

1st vs 2nd MBBfit vs Mvar

MBBfit(0.5Rs) vs Mvar

Can we reconcile the Contradiction ? For MBBfit < Mvar Inclination Effect cos Factor … MBBfit gives under-estimate Tc > Te Effect MBBfit gives under-estimate, too. 2019/5/12

Extreme NLS1 Class/State ? Time f * P(f) NPSD * Frequency Frequency (Hz) Ix(t)/<I> 1.0 0.0 Light Curve Extreme NLS1 Class/State ? (IRAS13, H0707, etc) Cyg X-1 For MBBfit >Mvar X-ray Variability of Extremely Enhanced Soft Components => Variability Amplitude is Also Enhanced ? Mvar underestimation

0.5Rs <-> Kerr BH <-> Slim Disk Solution ADAF (Slim Disk) Standard Disk ADAF From Mineshige et al., 1999 see also Abramowicz 1995. 2019/5/12

Summary-2 Soft Component of NLS1s was fitted with a BB model with kT of 0.1-0.2keV. BH mass estimated about 105Mo (r=3Rs) or 105-106Mo (r=0.5Rs) . Lbb exceeds LEdd for r=3Rs, but not for r=0.5Rs. MBBfit was compared with Mvar; Contradiction of 2 order of magnitudes was found. Possible reconciliation was discussed.

NLS1s : Personal View NLS1s have smaller BH of 105-107 Mo. In some of NLS1s, high mass flow rate makes near or super Eddington accretion. In the extreme high accretion rate Variability Amplitude is enhanced. Hard X-ray emission is suppressed. Mass flow rate changes with time scales of years, reflecting the smallness of system. NLS1=Evolving Stage of Seyferts to BLS1.