2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11575.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bubbles as tracers of heat input to cooling flows

Abstract: We examine the distribution of injected energy in three-dimensional, adaptive-grid simulations of the heating of cooling flows. We show that less than 10 percent of the injected energy goes into bubbles. Consequently, the energy input from the nucleus is underestimated by a factor of order 6 when it is taken to be given by PVgamma/(gamma-1), where P and V are the pressure and volume of the bubble, and gamma the ratio of principal specific heats.Comment: Accepted for publication in MNRAS; 5 page

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(34 reference statements)
2
25
1
Order By: Relevance
“…They include only the energy associated with inflating the bubbles, while significant energy can also be dissipated through sound waves, viscosity and weak shocks (McNamara et al 2005; Nulsen et al 2005a,b; Fabian et al 2006; Forman et al 2007). Binney, Bibi & Omma (2007) analysed 3D adaptive grid simulations of heating of cooling flows, and found that the bubbles reflected only ∼10 per cent of the total injected energy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They include only the energy associated with inflating the bubbles, while significant energy can also be dissipated through sound waves, viscosity and weak shocks (McNamara et al 2005; Nulsen et al 2005a,b; Fabian et al 2006; Forman et al 2007). Binney, Bibi & Omma (2007) analysed 3D adaptive grid simulations of heating of cooling flows, and found that the bubbles reflected only ∼10 per cent of the total injected energy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The energy output is probably underestimated for adiabatic losses, cavity disruption, undetected cavities, and the omission of shock energy (e.g. Nusser et al 2006;Binney et al 2007). All these factors provide an uncertainty in the jet power of at least a factor of a few.…”
Section: The Jet Kinetic Powermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, pV is likely to be an underestimate of the energy needed to inflate a cavity: the enthalpy of the cavity is for the relativistic plasma in the radio lobes, suggesting that f ∼ 4 may be appropriate. Some authors have even argued for mechanical energies in excess of 10 pV (Nusser, Silk & Babul 2006; Binney, Bibi & Omma 2007) due to additional heating directly from the jets. For f = 4, gives …”
Section: The Mechanical Luminosity Of a Radio Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%