Paper detail

The AGN properties of the starburst galaxy NGC 7582

NGC 7582 was identified as a Starburst galaxy in the optical \cite[(Veron et al. 1981)]{Veron et al.(1981)} but its X-Ray emission is typical of a Seyfert 1 galaxy \cite[(Ward et al. 1978)]{Ward et al.(1978)}. We analyzed a datacube of this object obtained with the GMOS-IFU on the Gemini-South telescope. After a subtraction of the stellar component using the {\sc starlight} code \cite[(Cid Fernandes et al. 2005)]{Cid Fernandes et al. (2005)}, we looked for optical signatures of the AGN. We detected a broad $Hα$ component (figure \ref{fig1}) in the source where \cite[Bianchi et al.(2007)]{Bianchi et al.(2007)} identified the AGN in an HST optical image. We also found a broad $Hβ$ feature (figure \ref{fig2}), but its emission reveals a extended source. We suggest that it is the light of the AGN scattered in the ionization cone. We propose that NGC 7582 is a Seyfert 1 galaxy. A number of other "hot-spots" and Wolf-Rayet features were also identified.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.