#1
|
|||
|
|||
Type II or NELG?
I can't seem to find a definitive distinction between a galaxy with a
type-II narrow-line AGN core and a so-called NELG ("narrow emission-line galaxy"). NELGs seem to have gone out of fashion without anybody publishing them in recent years. Type-IIs have a chequered history in that different researchers defined them in different ways for a long time, although nowadays they are universally regarded as narrow-line equivalents of AGN. So in my quasar publications I make a distinction between broad-line QSOSs and AGNs in that the latter are seen inside galaxies and the former are not (never mind the transitional ones for now), but the narrow-line type-II objects are not so divided. However, both kinds are seen. To be consistent I should divide them as well. It's naturally tempting to designate NELGs as type-II emitters within galaxies -- it would make use of a well-known classification which has sort of dropped out of use. Does anyone know a good reason why this would be a bad idea, whether different forbidden lines or whatever? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Type II or NELG?
In article ,
Eric Flesch writes: I can't seem to find a definitive distinction between a galaxy with a type-II narrow-line AGN core and a so-called NELG ("narrow emission-line galaxy"). NELGs seem to have gone out of fashion without anybody publishing them in recent years. This represents a change in terminology over time. Most authors nowadays distinguish between broad-line objects (which generally have narrow lines as well) and narrow-line-only objects by using Type 1 and Type 2, respectively. Type-IIs have a chequered history in that different researchers defined them in different ways for a long time, although nowadays they are universally regarded as narrow-line equivalents of AGN. I might put it that "Type 2" is only _applied_ to AGN. Galaxies with high star formation rates exhibit narrow lines, so I suppose technically qualify as "Type 2" in some sense, but the line ratios differ from AGN line ratios. In practice, I've not seen anyone apply the term "Type 2" to anything other than an AGN, meaning any AGN that lacks broad emission lines. However, nobody writes "Type 2 galaxy." It's always "Type 2 AGN" or "Type 2 QSO" or "Type 2 Seyfert" or something like that. So in my quasar publications I make a distinction between broad-line QSOSs and AGNs in that the latter are seen inside galaxies and the former are not (never mind the transitional ones for now), This is mostly a luminosity distinction. AGN is the general term, encompassing all luminosities. QSO means no host galaxy is seen in typical imaging observations. However, host galaxies can generally be detected, at least for relatively nearby QSOs, with deep observations and either careful image processing or use of a coronagraph. When an AGN has its host galaxy easily visible, the system is termed a "Seyfert galaxy." This is not a sharp distinction; when it's important, authors will specify a dividing line in terms of some appropriate luminosity (usually bolometric, X-ray, or in the [O III] emission line). It's naturally tempting to designate NELGs as type-II emitters within galaxies If someone used the term NELG to me, I'd take it as including both star-forming galaxies and Seyfert galaxies that don't show broad lines. I'm not sure that's a very useful category, but maybe it is. (It could include galaxies that have emission lines but eith line ratios not known well enough to classify the emission source.) When writing, it's important to define any terminology that might be ambiguous. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Type II or NELG?
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017, Steve Willner wrote:
If someone used the term NELG to me, I'd take it as including both star-forming galaxies and Seyfert galaxies that don't show broad lines. I'm not sure that's a very useful category, but maybe it is. That's the take away for me, especially as the ~40K type-IIs that I've got are already known to be contaminated with LINERs. I include the type-IIs for completeness, in case a user is looking up a certain set of them (from one paper, say) and some of them are type-II. Also, if someone is vetting candidates to see which ones are already classified, it's better to show the type-IIs than nothing. So I'll proceed with my plan to integrate the NELGs with the same caveat that they include starforming and LINER contamination. They and the type-IIs aren't included in the count of QSOs & AGNs. I know that deeper imaging turns up more galaxy disks, Steve, but the QSO/AGN distinction primarily relates to the luminosity of the core compared with the disk; the visibility of the disk is a practical consequence of that. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Type II or NELG?
In article ,
Eric Flesch writes: I know that deeper imaging turns up more galaxy disks, Steve, but the QSO/AGN distinction primarily relates to the luminosity of the core compared with the disk; the visibility of the disk is a practical consequence of that. I agree with that except I'd write "host galaxy" in place of "disk." Many host galaxies are ellipticals, not disks. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Difference between 'Optical Spectral Type' and 'IR Spectral Type'? | eric948470 | Astronomy Misc | 4 | March 8th 11 10:34 PM |
New type of star | GSWeb8 | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | December 12th 09 04:40 AM |
no can type | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 12 | January 4th 09 06:51 PM |
17mm Type 4 or 16mm Type 5? | Gregory | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | June 8th 05 04:14 AM |
Nagler 11m type 6 | Francesco Verardi | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 8th 04 11:18 PM |