All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=7cm,clip]{1621f1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Confidence contours for the simultaneous determination of the photon index $\langle\Gamma_{\rm 2-12}\rangle$ and the intrinsic dispersion $\sigma (\Gamma _{\rm 2-12})$ together with the best-fit values found.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{1621f2a.eps}\includegraphi... ...m,clip]{1621f2c.eps}\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{1621f2d.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: The ratios (data/model) resulting from fitting a power law to the 2-12 keV EPIC data ( pn data in black, MOS in red) and extrapolating to lower energies in the case of the QSO ( from top left) a) 1307+085 (z = 0.155): the soft excess emission in this source proves to be best fitted with a blackbody (i.e. model A; see Table 10); b) 1226+023 ( z = 0.158): note that the excess is broader than in 1307+085 (the two QSOs have a similar z) which requires two blackbodies (i.e. model E; see Table 10) to be parametrized; c) 1352+183 (z = 0.158) for which model C (i.e. bremsstrahlung + power law) gives the best fit. Bottom right: d) the ratio resulted fitting with model A the EPIC data of 1440+356 (z = 0.079). Note the large residuals at high energies. This QSO is best fitted with a double power law model (i.e. model D; see Table 10).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=6cm,clip]{1621f3a.ps}\include... ...p]{1621f3c.ps}\includegraphics[angle=90,width=6cm,clip]{1621f3d.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Mean value and intrinsic dispersion of the relevant parameters of soft excess in models A ( $\langle kT_{\rm BB}\rangle$ ), B ( $\langle kT_{\rm MB}\rangle$ ), C ( $\langle kT_{\rm BS}\rangle$ ) and D ( $\langle\Gamma_{\rm soft}\rangle$ ) together with 68%, 90% and 99% confidence contours derived with the maximum likelihood method.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\epsfig{figure=1621f4a.ps,width=4.3cm,angle=90}\epsfig{... ...e=90}\epsfig{figure=1621f4e.ps,width=4.3cm,angle=90}\hspace*{3cm}}\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Mean value and intrinsic dispersion of the relevant parameters for tested models applied to the Laor et al. (1997) quasars together with 68%, 90% and 99% confidence contours derived with the maximum likelihood method.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1621f5a.eps}\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1621f5b.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: The ratios between the EPIC data ( pn data in black, MOS in red) and a fit with single warm absorber model for 1114+445 ( left) and 2214+139 ( right): the large residuals below 1 keV strongly suggest the presence of a complex "multi-component'' warm absorber. Note also the residuals around 5-6 keV which indicate Fe K $\alpha$ fluorescence emission (e.g. Paper II).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\epsfig{figure=1621f6a.ps,height=6.8cm,width=6.0cm,angl... ...re=1621f6e.ps,height=6.8cm,width=6.0cm,angle=90}\hspace*{4.5cm}} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Significant (i.e. at >99% confidence level) correlations found among X-ray observables and QSO physical properties (See Table 13 and text for details). From top-left to bottom: a) FWHM(H $_\beta$ ) versus $L_{2-10\; \rm keV}$ ; b) $M_{\rm BH}$ versus $L_{\rm 2-10\;\rm keV}$ ; c) FWHM(H $_\beta$ ) versus $\Gamma _{\rm 2-12}$ ; d) $\Gamma _{\rm 2-12}$ versus $M_{\rm BH}$ ; e) $R_{\rm S/P}^{\rm0.5-10}$ versus $R_{\rm L}$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=7cm,clip]{1621f1.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Confidence contours for the simultaneous determination of the photon index $\langle\Gamma_{\rm 2-12}\rangle$ and the intrinsic dispersion $\sigma (\Gamma _{\rm 2-12})$ together with the best-fit values found.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=6cm,clip]{1621f3a.ps}\include... ...p]{1621f3c.ps}\includegraphics[angle=90,width=6cm,clip]{1621f3d.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Mean value and intrinsic dispersion of the relevant parameters of soft excess in models A ( $\langle kT_{\rm BB}\rangle$ ), B ( $\langle kT_{\rm MB}\rangle$ ), C ( $\langle kT_{\rm BS}\rangle$ ) and D ( $\langle\Gamma_{\rm soft}\rangle$ ) together with 68%, 90% and 99% confidence contours derived with the maximum likelihood method.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\epsfig{figure=1621f4a.ps,width=4.3cm,angle=90}\epsfig{... ...e=90}\epsfig{figure=1621f4e.ps,width=4.3cm,angle=90}\hspace*{3cm}}\end{figure}$	Figure 4: Mean value and intrinsic dispersion of the relevant parameters for tested models applied to the Laor et al. (1997) quasars together with 68%, 90% and 99% confidence contours derived with the maximum likelihood method.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1621f5a.eps}\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1621f5b.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: The ratios between the EPIC data ( pn data in black, MOS in red) and a fit with single warm absorber model for 1114+445 ( left) and 2214+139 ( right): the large residuals below 1 keV strongly suggest the presence of a complex "multi-component'' warm absorber. Note also the residuals around 5-6 keV which indicate Fe K $\alpha$ fluorescence emission (e.g. Paper II).
Open with DEXTER