1. AGN FEEDBACK IN TWO INTERESTING GROUPS F. Gastaldello (IASF-MI, UCI) D. Buote (UCI), P. Humphrey (UCI), W. Mathews (UCSC), F. Brighenti (U. Bologna), P. Temi (AMES), S. Molendi (IASF-MI), S. Ettori (INAF-Bologna)

2. OUTLINE AWM 4: corona in a relaxed object NGC 5044: cavities, filaments and cold fronts in the Perseus of groups

3. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK Gastaldello+08, see also O’Sullivan+05, Giacintucci+08

4. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK Gastaldello+09 It’s also a fossil system (Zibetti+08)

5. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK Inspired by Donahue+05

6. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK

7. Bauer+05 CC NCC CC NCC De Grandi & Molendi 01

8. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK Gastaldello+08 Sun+09

9. AWM4 AND AGN FEEDBACK Cavagnolo+08

10. NGC 5044 Gastaldello+09 (using J. Sanders’ binning code) See also results from longer Chandra observation (David+09)

11. NGC 5044 Gastaldello+09

12. NGC 5044 CAON ET AL. 2000 Gastaldello+09

13. DUST IN NGC 5044 TEMI, BRIGHENTI & MATHEWS 2007 8-4.5 µm PAH

14. NGC 5044 Gastaldello+09 BLACK : X-ray FILAMENT box #2 RED: X-ray FILAMENT box #7

15. NGC 5044 Gastaldello+09

16. SUMMARY Corona in a central BCG of a relaxed object: what are the implications for the AGN feedback loop ? Why is it so different from other objects able to preserve the temperature gradient ? Are there others ? Cavities close to the nucleus but not filled by 1.4 GHz emission in some groups (also NGC 4325): is that strange ? Sloshing seems to be a rather common feature, we are starting to see that also in groups (NGC 5098, aka RGH 80, Randall+09). What are the implications (see Markevitch’s talk) ? What if dust just aids to cool X-ray emitting gas to form warm Hα emitting gas ?

17. THE MOST INTERESTING CLUSTER: PERSEUS THE MOST INTERESTING CLUSTER: PERSEUS Spectral evidence for non-thermal emission from the long Chandra observations of Perseus (Sanders+05,07) Spectral evidence for non-thermal emission from the long Chandra observations of Perseus (Sanders+05,07)

18. IC IN PERSEUS If interpreted as IC emission important implications for magnetic field estimates and presence of non-thermal pressure If interpreted as IC emission important implications for magnetic field estimates and presence of non-thermal pressure

19. Setting the stage Setting the stage Molendi & Gastaldello 09 with a 120ks XMM observations questioned the detection: Molendi & Gastaldello 09 with a 120ks XMM observations questioned the detection: systematics dominate the error budget systematics dominate the error budget using the spread of values from diff. instr. and diff. models a loose range for NT flux of 0-5x10 -16 erg cm -2 s -1 arcsec -2 using the spread of values from diff. instr. and diff. models a loose range for NT flux of 0-5x10 -16 erg cm -2 s -1 arcsec -2 Likely explanation cross-cal problem Likely explanation cross-cal problem Hard X-ray detectors find flux in agreement w/ (variable) nuclear source: Hard X-ray detectors find flux in agreement w/ (variable) nuclear source: Nevalainenen+04, Aiello+09, Eckart+09, recent Fermi observation (0904.1904) Nevalainenen+04, Aiello+09, Eckart+09, recent Fermi observation (0904.1904)

20. Setting the stage Setting the stage M&G09 pn M1 M2

21. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn We compare Chandra ACIS S3 with EPIC pn We compare Chandra ACIS S3 with EPIC pn About 3×10 6 events for each spectrum extracted from annulus with bounding radii of 1' and 2 ‘ About 3×10 6 events for each spectrum extracted from annulus with bounding radii of 1' and 2 ‘ Used old and new Chandra calibrations (CALDB 4.1.1 with hrmaD1996-12-20axeffaN0008.fits) Used old and new Chandra calibrations (CALDB 4.1.1 with hrmaD1996-12-20axeffaN0008.fits) Multi T spectral model (Molendi & Gastaldello 09) Multi T spectral model (Molendi & Gastaldello 09)

22. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn We start from the EPIC pn spectrum We start from the EPIC pn spectrum

23. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn We start from the EPIC pn spectrum We start from the EPIC pn spectrum Perform fit with multi T model Perform fit with multi T model

24. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn We start from the EPIC pn spectrum We start from the EPIC pn spectrum Perform fit with multi T model Perform fit with multi T model Fold best fitting model with ACIS response and compare it with ACIS spectrum Fold best fitting model with ACIS response and compare it with ACIS spectrum

25. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn Plot residuals in the form of ratio data/model Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV pn ACIS S3

26. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn Plot residuals in the form of ratio data/model Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV pn ACIS S3

27. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn Similar result when using a different region Annulus with bounding radii of 2' and 3 ‘ Showing only plot with new ACIS calibrations pn ACIS S3

28. ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn ACIS S3 vs EPIC pn Residuals in the form of ratio data/model Renorm applied to match spectra at 1.5 keV pn ACIS S3

29. ACIS S3 vs EPIC MOS ACIS S3 vs EPIC MOS MOS2 appears to be more similar to ACIS in the 0.7-1 keV band. MOS1 appears to be somewhere btwn. MOS2 and pn. MOS2 ACIS S3

30. Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Both figures have renorm factors: 5% for the first; 15% for the second: let’s take them out.Both figures have renorm factors: 5% for the first; 15% for the second: let’s take them out.

31. Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Both figures have renorm factors: 5% for the first; 15% for the second: let’s take them out.Both figures have renorm factors: 5% for the first; 15% for the second: let’s take them out.

32. Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Flux cross-cal pn vs ACIS Exactly what you would expect given the change in effective areaExactly what you would expect given the change in effective area

33. Perseus results w/ new cal Perseus results w/ new cal With the new HRMA calibration the NT flux is reduced to a factor of 56% of what previously obtained and it is consistent (5x10 -16 erg cm -2 s -1 arcsec -2 ) with the (upper) range of values obtained by XMMWith the new HRMA calibration the NT flux is reduced to a factor of 56% of what previously obtained and it is consistent (5x10 -16 erg cm -2 s -1 arcsec -2 ) with the (upper) range of values obtained by XMM Our analysis indicates that the flux cross calibration EPIC/ACIS below ~ 2 keV will be shifted by about 10%.Our analysis indicates that the flux cross calibration EPIC/ACIS below ~ 2 keV will be shifted by about 10%.

34. Summary Summary The new HRMA effective area reduces ACIS S3 vs pn residual calibration errors to less than 5%The new HRMA effective area reduces ACIS S3 vs pn residual calibration errors to less than 5% this is no small achievement! Major remaining discrepancy in 0.7-1 keV band Major remaining discrepancy in 0.7-1 keV band The new spectral calibration modifies by about 10% Chandra fluxes below 2 keV, ACIS vs EPIC flux cross calibration will be affected The new spectral calibration modifies by about 10% Chandra fluxes below 2 keV, ACIS vs EPIC flux cross calibration will be affected