\section{Introduction}
BL Lac objects are an extreme and rare type of AGN emitting highly
variable non-thermal radiation over a very wide energy range
encompassing almost 20 orders of magnitude, from radio to TeV energies.
Synchrotron emission followed by Inverse Compton scattering is generally
thought to be the mechanism
responsible for the production of radiation over such a wide energy range
(e.g., Bregman 1994). Relativistic beaming is necessary to explain
some of the extreme properties of these objects such as rapid variability,
high gamma-ray luminosities and superluminal motion (Urry \& Padovani 1995).
Over a dozen BL Lacs have now been detected at GeV energies (Mukherjee
et~al.  1997), but only a few nearby BL Lacs have been so far detected at TeV
energies: MKN 421, MKN 501, 1ES 2344+514 (Catanese et~al.  1997,1998),
and PKS2155-304 (Chadwick et~al.  1999).

The unique capabilities of the {\it BeppoSAX}  satellite (Boella et~al.  1997a)
to perform broad-band X-ray (0.1-200keV) studies are particularly well suited
for the detailed study of the X-ray energy spectrum of 1ES 2344+514 and its
evolution in time.
In this paper we present 6 {\it BeppoSAX}  observations of 1ES 2344+514,
five of which were carried out over a period of about one week in December
1996 when a sizable flare accompanied by large spectral variations occurred.

\section{Observations}

The {\it BeppoSAX}  payload (Boella et~al.  1997a) comprises four co-aligned X-ray
experiments called NFI (Narrow Field Instruments) and two Wide-Field-Cameras
(WFC) each pointing 90 degrees away from the NFI pointing direction.
The NFI include four X-ray telescopes with one Low Energy Concentrator
Spectrometer (LECS, Parmar et~al.  1997) sensitive in the 0.1-10 keV band, and
three identical Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometers (MECS, Boella et~al.
1997b) covering the 1.5-10. keV band. At higher energy the NFI also include
two collimated experiments (PDS and HPGSPC) extending the {\it BeppoSAX}  sensitivity
range to approximately 200 keV.
The PDS instrument (Frontera et~al.  1997) is made up of four units, and is
normally operated in collimator rocking mode, that is with a pair of
units pointings to the source and the other pair pointing at the background,
the two pairs switching on and off source every 96 seconds.
The net source spectra are obtained by subtracting the `off' from the
`on' counts.
The HPGSPC (Manzo et~al.  1997) instrument is sensitive to the $5-100$ keV energy
band and provides better energy resolution than the PDS but at the expense of
sensitivity. This instrument is generally used for the study of bright Galactic
sources.

A log of the six {\it BeppoSAX}  NFI observations of 1ES 2344+514 together with
the count-rates in the LECS, MECS and PDS instruments is given in Table 1.

\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{140mm}
\caption{Log of the {\it BeppoSAX}  observations 1ES 2344+514}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline \hline
date    & LECS & count rate &  MECS (three units)& count rate& PDS &count rate\\
        & exposure (s) & $ct~s^{-1}$ &exposure (s) & $ct~s^{-1}$ &exposure (s)
& $ct~s^{-1}$\\
\hline
3-DEC-1996 &  ~4719&$~0.19\pm 0.01~$ & 13109& $0.42\pm 0.01$&5993& $-0.03\pm0.08$ \\
4-DEC-1996 &  ~5264&$~0.22\pm 0.01~$ & 13300& $0.42\pm 0.01$&6518&$~~0.22\pm0.08$  \\
5-DEC-1996 &  ~3516&$~0.32\pm 0.01~$ & ~8040& $0.65\pm 0.01$&3779& $~~0.27\pm0.11$ \\
7-DEC-1996 &  ~5563&$~0.35\pm 0.01~$ & 14069&$0.82\pm 0.01$ &6448&$~~0.41\pm0.08$\\
11-DEC-1996&  ~2992&$~0.22\pm 0.01~$ & 13062&$0.53\pm 0.01$ &5833& $~~0.06\pm0.09$ \\
26-JUN-1998&  13460&$0.102\pm 0.003$ & 50558$^a$&$0.140\pm 0.002$ &21388& $~~0.11\pm0.04$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$^a$ 2 MECS units
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}

\section{Data analysis}

The analysis of the LECS and MECS data was based on the linearized, cleaned
event files obtained
from the {\it BeppoSAX}  Science Data Center (SDC) on-line archive (Giommi \& Fiore 1997)
and on the XIMAGE package (Giommi et~al.  1991) upgraded to support the analysis
of {\it BeppoSAX}  data. The LECS data above 4 keV were not used due to calibration
uncertainties in this band that have not been completely solved at this time.
LECS data have been then fitted only in the $0.1-4$
keV range, while MECS data were fitted in the $1.8-10.5$ keV range.

Spectra were accumulated for each observation using the SAXSELECT tool, with
8.5 and 4 arcmin extraction radii for the LECS and MECS respectively, which
include more than 90\% of the flux. The count rates given in Table 1 were
obtained using XIMAGE and refer to channels 10 to 950 (0.1-9.5 keV)
for the LECS and 36 to 220 (1.8-10.5 keV) for the MECS.
The PDS spectra were taken from the {\it BeppoSAX}  on-line archive
which is based on the results of the {\it Supervised Standard Analysis}, a
standard procedure routinely run at the SDC on every {\it BeppoSAX}
observation. The very stable PDS background (due to the very low inclination
orbit) and the background subtraction
technique used ensure that the systematic uncertainties in the net count-rate
are well below both statistical errors and the confusion limit
(Guainazzi \& Matteuzzi, 1997).

The {\it BeppoSAX}  X-Ray images were checked for the presence of
serendipitous sources which could affect the data analysis
in the PDS.
Only one weak serendipitous source (1SAXJ2348.7+5127) is present near the
edge of the MECS field of view (see figure 1). No significant excess is
instead present in the (smaller) field of view of the LECS instrument.
1SAXJ2348.7+5127 was detected in all six MECS observations at a nearly constant
flux of approximately $1\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}~$.
This count-rate takes into account
telescope vignetting and PSF corrections and is over a factor 10 fainter
than that of 1ES 2344+514 in its lowest state.

1SAXJ2348.7+5127 spatially coincides with the dwarf nova V630 CAS
at a distance of about 20 arcminutes from the target of the observation.
Given its low flux, flat light-curve and off-axis position, we can
safely assume that 1SAXJ2348.7+5127 does not contribute in any significant way
to the PDS flux of 1ES 2344+514.

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig1.ps,height=8.cm,width=8.cm}
\caption{The 2-10 keV MECS image of the 1ES 2344+514 field. The BL Lac
is the bright source at the center, while the faint
serendipitous source 1SAXJ2348.7+5127, identified with the dwarf nova
V630 CAS, is visible to the lower left}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

\section{X-Ray Luminosity and spectral variability}
\subsection{December 1996 observations}

Figure 2 shows the LECS-MECS lightcurve of 1ES 2344+514 in three energy
bands: 0.1-2 keV, 2-5 keV, and 5-10 keV during the five December 1996
observations.
1ES 2344+514 doubled its X-ray luminosity in a few days at all energies
but followed different evolutions in different energy bands.
A visual inspection of Figure 2 shows that the source brightening seems to start
one day earlier (on December 4) in the hardest band where it also
seems to last longer. Interestingly, the 0.1-2.0 keV lightcurve appears
to peak on December 5, two days earlier than the harder bands.
The source was clearly detected in the PDS instrument only on December 4
and December 7, when the target was bright. A somewhat weaker detection is also
present in the PDS data of December 5 when the exposure time was shortened
to only 3779 seconds due to a satellite problem.

Luminosity variability on short timescales was searched for in all six
observations. A single significant event was found during the observation
of December 7 when the source was in its brightest state. Figure 3 plots
the MECS lightcurve during that observation where
a flux increase of the order of 40\% on a timescale of $\approx 5000$ seconds
is clearly visible.

\subsection{June 1998 observations}

1ES 2344+514 was re-observed by {\it BeppoSAX}  in June 1998 for approximately 50,000
seconds (Table 1). At the time of this observation only two MECS units were
operational and therefore
the count-rates reported in Table 1 refer to this reduced MECS configuration.
The source was found to be significantly fainter than in December 1996
and showed no rapid variability.
Despite the lower flux a significant PDS detection was achieved in the low
energy channels (up to $\sim 30$ keV) thanks to the much longer exposure
compared to the 1996 observations.

\subsection{X-ray spectra}

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig2.ps,height=8.cm,width=7.0cm,angle=-90}
\caption{The lightcurve of 1ES 2344+514 in three energy bands. The evolution
of the flare depends on the energy band where it is observed. The event
possibly starts earlier in the 5-10 keV band}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig3.ps,height=8.cm,width=7.0cm,angle=-90}
\caption{The MECS lightcurve of 1ES 2344+514 during the observation of December
7 when the source was brightest. Note that although the observation
lasted a total of about 25,000 seconds, the effective on-source exposure
was limited to 14,069 seconds because of interruptions caused by occultation
by the Earth in a 600 km orbit satellite.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig4.ps,height=7.cm,width=8.0cm}
\caption{LECS, MECS and PDS data obtained on December 7 1996 fitted to a
single power law spectral model with $N_H$ fixed to the Galactic value.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig5.ps,height=7.cm,width=8.0cm}
\label{fig13}
\caption{LECS, MECS and PDS data obtained on June 26 1996 fitted to a
single power law spectral model with $N_H$ fixed to the Galactic value.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{figure=2344_fig6.ps,height=8.cm,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
\caption{Combined LECS, MECS and PDS energy distribution of 1ES 2344+514
during the observations of December 1996 and June 1998.
Points at energies softer than 0.5 keV are not shown due
to the high column along the line of sight to 1ES 2344+514.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

To quantify the evolution of the spectrum of 1ES 2344+514
we fitted each day's dataset individually in XSPEC (v. 9.00).
The LECS and MECS background is low, although not uniformly distributed across
the  detectors, and rather stable. For this reason, and in particular for the
spectral analysis, it is better to evaluate the background from blank fields,
rather than in annuli around the source. Background files accumulated from
blank fields, obtained from the SDC public ftp site, were then used.
Due to some residual uncertainties in the relative calibration of the
imaging instruments, we allowed
the LECS/MECS normalization to vary freely. This procedure produced values
of $0.6-0.8$, consistent with the expected value (see the {\it BeppoSAX}  cookbook for
details).

At first, we fitted the LECS and MECS data with a single power-law model
modified at low energies by absorption due to neutral gas in the Galaxy. The
absorbing column was parameterized in terms of N$_{\rm H}$, the HI column
density, with heavier elements fixed at solar abundances. Cross sections were
taken from Morrison and McCammon (1983). For one set of fits, N${\rm _H}~$ was fixed at
the Galactic value of $1.63 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ derived
from the data of Dickey \& Lockman (1990).
The data and the best fit for the December 7 1996 and
the June 1998 observations are shown in figure 4 and 5.
In another set of fits, we allowed N${\rm _H}~$ to vary to check for
internal absorption and/or indications of a ``soft excess.''
The results of the fits are presented in
Table 2, which gives the observing date in column (1), the unabsorbed
$2 - 10$ keV flux in column (2), the energy index $\alpha_{\rm
x}$ and the reduced chi-squared and number of degrees of freedom
$\chi^2_{\nu}/$d.o.f. for the LECS plus MECS fits in columns (3)-(4), and the
same parameters including the PDS data for the two observations with PDS
detections. The errors quoted on the fit parameters are the 90\% uncertainties
for one interesting parameter.

The main results of Table 2 are the following: \begin{enumerate}
\item A single power-law model
with Galactic absorption is a good representation of most data, apart from the
December 4 ($P_{\chi^2} \simeq 0.2\%$).
In the this case a free-N${\rm _H}~$ fit improves
significantly the fit ($> 99.99\%$ according to the $F$-test), resulting in
a factor of 2 excess absorption above the Galactic value. Of course this could
also mean that the spectrum exhibits a flattening at low energies (see below);
however, we stress that no evidence of a soft excess was detected.
\item The source is clearly variable.
\item The fitted energy indices also show variability: the
weighted mean is $0.98\pm0.02$ but the six observations are clearly
inconsistent with a constant value (at the $> 99.99\%$ level).
Note that the hardest spectrum corresponds to the brightest state of the
source, although there is not a clear correlation between flux and spectral
index. This is most likely due to the fact that the flux change between the
lowest state and the second highest one is relatively small ($\sim 40\%$).
\item The addition
of the PDS does not change significantly the best fit parameters. This is
likely because most of the weight in the fit is carried by the LECS and
MECS instruments.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{120mm}
\caption{Results of spectral fits: simple power law}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline \hline
date    &  Flux (2-10 keV) & Spectral slope$^a$ &$\chi_{\nu} ^{2}$
/d.o.f.&Spectral slope$^{a,b}$ &$\chi_{\nu} ^{2}$/d.o.f. \\
        &  erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}~$         & (energy index)     &
        & (energy index) & \\
\hline
3-DEC-1996 &$1.8\times 10^{-11}$ &
$1.05^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$& 1.13/57& ... & ...  \\
4-DEC-1996 & $2.0\times 10^{-11}$&
$0.95^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$& 1.59/68&$0.94^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$& 1.53/83 \\
5-DEC-1996 & $2.9\times 10^{-11}$&
$1.10^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$& 1.23/69&$1.10^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ &1.22/81 \\
7-DEC-1996 & $3.8\times 10^{-11}$& $0.77^{+0.03}_{-0.04}
$& 0.85/75 & $0.77^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$& 0.83/90  \\
11-DEC-1996& $2.3\times 10^{-11}$& $1.03^{+0.04}_{-0.04}
$& 1.00/68& ... & ...  \\
26-JUN-1998 & $8.4\times 10^{-12}$& $1.31^{+0.05}_{-0.05}
$&0.83/68 & $1.31^{+0.05}_{-0.05} $&0.83/71  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

$^a$ $N_{\rm H}$ fixed to the Galactic value of $1.63\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$
\\
$^b$ PDS included
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\end{center}

As some of the single power-law fits were not acceptable, we also tried to fit
a broken power-law model to our LECS and MECS data (the best-fit parameters
are unchanged if one includes the PDS). Our results are reported in Table 3,
which gives the observing date in column (1), the soft and hard energy
indices, $\alpha_{\rm S}$ and $\alpha_{\rm H}$, in columns (2)-(3), the break
energy in keV in column (4), the reduced chi-squared and number of degrees of
freedom $\chi^2_{\nu}/$d.o.f. in column (5). Column (6) gives the $F$-test
probability that the addition of two free parameters results in a significant
improvement in the $\chi^2$ values. Note that the errors quoted on the fit
parameters are the 68\% uncertainties for three interesting parameters.
As can be seen, all the fits are now satisfactory.  Interestingly,
an improvement in the fit
was obtained for all observations (not just the two where the single
power-law fit was not acceptable!) and this was highly significant ($\ge 99.6\%$
level) for all observations.
Moreover, with a broken power-law model there is no need for absorption
above the Galactic value for any of the data.

\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{100mm}
\caption{Results of spectral fits: broken power law}
\begin{tabular}{lrcccr}
\hline \hline
date    & $\alpha_{\rm S}$~~~~& $\alpha_{\rm H}$ & $E_{\rm break}$ &$\chi_{\nu} ^{2}$
/d.o.f.& P$(F$-test) \\
        &  &  & keV &  \\
\hline
3-DEC-1996 & $0.97^{+0.10}_{-0.32}$& $1.47^{+0.49}_{-0.33}$&
$5.3^{+1.3}_{-1.6}$ & 1.01/55 & 99.9\% \\
4-DEC-1996 & $-0.44^{+1.55}_{-5.44}$& $1.00^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$&
$1.0^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 1.17/66 & $>99.9\%$ \\
5-DEC-1996 & $-0.66^{+~0.9}_{-~1.2}$& $1.14^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$&
$0.8^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & 1.00/67 & $>99.9$\% \\
7-DEC-1996 & $0.73^{+0.05}_{-0.15}$& $1.01^{+0.55}_{-0.23}$&
$5.8^{+2.3}_{-4.5}$ & 0.81/73 & 99.6\% \\
11-DEC-1996 & $0.77^{+0.19}_{-0.23}$& $1.16^{+0.15}_{-0.10}$&
$2.8^{+1.5}_{-0.5}$ & 0.85/66 & $>99.9\%$ \\
26-JUN-1998 & $0.58^{+~1.4}_{-~4.0}$& $1.34^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$&
$0.8^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & 0.66/65 & $>99.9\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

$N_{\rm H}$ fixed to the Galactic value of $1.63\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
In all but two observations (that of December 4 and 5), the overall X-ray
spectrum is convex, that is the spectrum steepens at higher
energies, and the break energy ranges between 1 and 7 keV, with relatively
large errors. The Dec. 4 and 5 fits, which have both large errors on
$\alpha_{\rm S}$, can be explained by the poor signal below $\sim 1$ keV, the
relatively short LECS exposure (for the Dec. 5 data), and more generally by
the inadequacy of even a broken power-law model to fit the data.
For example, we fitted the Dec. 4 observations excluding the data at
$E < 1$ keV.
The resulting fit, with $E_{\rm break} \approx 9$ keV and $\alpha_{\rm H} -
\alpha_{\rm S} \sim -0.4$ is indeed suggestive, again within the rather large
errors, of a flatter component emerging at high energies.
The same spectral analysis has been carried out on the 1998 data and the
results are reported in Table 2 and 3. During this last observation
1ES2344+514 was significantly fainter and steeper than in 1996.
Again significant improvement in the fit is obtained going from a single
power law to a (convex) broken power law model, with spectral flattening
at energies lower than 1 keV.

We have combined the LECS, MECS and PDS data to produce spectral energy
distributions ($\nu f(\nu)~vs~\nu $) for all six observations (Figure 6).
As can be seen, we observed spectacular spectral variability in the highest
energy bins. Particularly on December 4 and 7, the progression of the
hard ($\alpha \approx 0.75$) component from dominating only above 10 keV (in the
December 4 observation) until it becomes dominant in the full 1-10 keV band
(in the December 7 observation) can easily be seen.
Also apparent in this figure is the inhomogeneity in the flare.
While the hard bands ($\ga 2$ keV) exhibit a gradual brightening during
December 4-7,
the soft bands peak more suddenly, and considerable brightening is only seen
in the December 5 and 7 data (see figure 2). The amplitude of the
variability we observed is clearly largest above 5-10 keV, where it amounts
to at least a factor 3-4.

\section{Discussion}

During the five 1996 {\it BeppoSAX}  observations
1ES 2344+514 varied by about a factor 2 in the 0.1-10 keV band and by
a larger factor in the PDS band.
Relative to the 1998 observation the flux change was even larger, reaching
a factor $\sim 8 $ at 10 keV (see Figure 6).

Our spectral analysis (Tables 2 and 3)  reveals that the overall X-ray spectral
shape of 1ES 2344+514 varied with intensity in a way that is typical of
BL Lacs with the peak of their emission in the ultraviolet/X-ray band (HBL;
Padovani \& Giommi 1996), namely the spectrum hardens when the source brightens
(e.g. Giommi et~al.  1990, Sambruna et~al.  1994). Moreover the comparison
between the 1996 and 1998 data implies that a large shift (factor $\sim 30$ )
in synchrotron peak frequencies occurred, similarly to the case of MKN 501
(Pian et~al.  1998).

As shown by Figure 6, the progression of the December 1996 flare
seems to be dominated by the onset of a variable hard component
with peak emission at very high energy (above $\sim $10 keV) on December 4.
By December 7, this hard component dominates the entire X-ray band.
{}From figure 6 we see that the peak of the synchrotron emission
(that is where the spectrum is flat in $\nu f(\nu)~vs~\nu $ space)
during the lowest 1996 state was at frequencies of a few times $10^{17}$ Hz
while when the intensity was maximum the peak shifted to $ \ge 3\times
10^{18}$ Hz.
This peak frequency at maximum intensity was a factor 30 or higher than
at the time of the 1998 observation when the source was seen at its
faintest.
Such a large shift has only been observed once before in MKN501 (Pian et~al.
1998) despite the many multi-wavelength campaigns that led to the
detection of several large X-ray variability events (e.g. MKN 421, Takahashi
et~al.  1996, 1999, Malizia et~al.  1999, PKS2005-489, Perlman et~al.  1999a,
S50716+714 Giommi et~al.  1999, PKS2155-304, Chiappetti et~al.  1999).
A shift of this magnitude implies a significant increase in the maximum
electron energy $\gamma_{max}$ or a change in the magnetic field which could
be caused by a compression of the jet magnetic field at a shock. Evidence
for such compression has been seen in recent HST polarimetric observations of
the M87 jet (Perlman et~al.  1999b).
Kirk, Rieger \& Mastichiadis (1998) postulate a mechanism for explaining the
spectral variability in synchrotron sources whereby a hardening with intensity
is to be expected at energies below the synchrotron peak.  Kirk et~al.
(1998) also predict a softening at the location of the peak if the
magnetic field remains constant. This is contrary to what is observed here,
as well as in Pian et~al.  (1998).  A model that includes
a change in magnetic field combined with the fresh injection of electrons
(as postulated by Kirk et~al.  1998) is probably necessary to explain
both the 1ES2344+514 and MKN 501 flares (Pian et~al.  1998).

We think that the second component cannot be due to a variable Inverse
Compton emission since the $F_x/F_r$ ratio of 1ES 2344+514 during the
high state is $2\times 10^{-10} ~erg~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~Jy^{-1}$.
This value is typical of BL Lacs with synchrotron peak
in the X-ray band (i.e. 1ES 2344+514 is an extreme HBL) and at least two
orders of magnitudes higher than values typical of LBL BL Lacs (with peak
emission in the infrared/optical band) where the X-rays
are thought to be dominated by inverse Compton radiation (Padovani \&
Giommi 1995, 1996).

The interpretation involving two synchrotron components also explains
in a simple way most of the differences in the 1996 light-curves in the
soft (0.1-2.0 keV), medium (3.-5. keV) and hard (5.-10. keV) energy bands.
The flare starts in the 5-10 keV band
because as soon as the second component emerges its high energy part easily
dominates the flux above $\approx$ 5 keV where the steep continuum of the
first component quickly drops. At lower energies the flux is dominated by the
first (possibly steady) component until the normalization of the second
component is comparable or larger than that of the first one.  Physically
this can be explained in the context of reacceleration of synchrotron emitting
electrons in the jet.  The part of the continuum which would respond most
sensitively to such acceleration would be the portion just beyond the peak
(in $\nu F_\nu$). Inspection of Figure 6 shows that it is in exactly this
region of the spectrum where the most drastic changes are seen.

This simple explanation cannot, however, account for the fact that the
flux in the softest band peaks on December 5, two days before the peak
in the harder band.  As shown in Figure 2, the increase in this band is also
far more sudden.  This indicates that a more complex explanation for the
flare may be required; however, it may also be that the true $\nu F_\nu$ peak
of the SED prior to the flare was somewhat below 1 keV, or that the peak is
quite broad.  If indeed the physical explanation of the flare involves
reacceleration of jet electrons by e.g. a shock, one would expect that the
reacceleration would be gradual and one might see a quick response at energies
near the high end of a broad peak as well as just above the peak.  Unfortunately
due to the high $N_H$ it is not possible to discern with these data whether the
quiescent peak of the SED is at energies $<0.5-1$ keV.  Analysis of the
multiwavelength data gathered during this campaign may enable us to resolve
these questions (Perlman et~al. , in preparation).

{\it BeppoSAX}  observations of Mkn 501 during May-June 1997 revealed a flare which appears
similar in nature to the one described here, but was
even more spectacular in amplitude (Pian et~al.  1998).
Large shifts of the synchrotron peak energy (implying very large changes in
the bolometric luminosity) might therefore be relatively frequent in the
hard X-ray band for HBL BL Lacs. Similar behavior should be expected in
LBL or intermediate BL Lacs in the optical/UV band. One such event has indeed
been observed in ON 231 in spring 1998 (Massaro et~al.  1999). Simultaneous
multi-wavelength observations in the optical and UV band might reveal
large changes in the synchrotron activity in LBL similar to those found in
MKN501 and 1ES 2344+514.  Along these lines, however, it is important to note
the fact that the variability of LBLs in the optical is much larger in amplitude
than that of HBLs (Jannuzi et~al.  1994), since one would naturally expect the
largest amplitude variability very near the peak of the synchrotron component
(Padovani \& Giommi 1996).

The rapid X-ray variability of 1ES 2344+514 (Figure 3) is similar to an
event observed in a long {\it BeppoSAX}  observation of PKS2155-304 where
rise time was approximately equal to decay time (Giommi et~al.  1998).
This event has been interpreted as evidence for observed variability driven
by the size of the emitting region, which would be of the order of a few
thousands
light seconds, rather than to an intrinsically symmetrical physical process.
Under this hypothesis, and assuming SSC as the emission mechanism, it is
possible to derive the maximum energy of the photons produced in the
Inverse Compton component
($E_{\it max} \propto \nu_{\it peak}^{2/3} t_h^{1/3}$, Giommi et~al.  1998).
Since the peak of the synchrotron emission ($\nu_{\it peak}$) in 1ES 23444+514
is in the medium-hard X-rays compared to a synchrotron peak in the optical/UV
band for PKS2155-304 and the time variability scale ($t_h$) is similar in the
two objects, $E_{\it max}$ for 1ES 2344+514 is about a factor of 20 higher than
that of PKS2155-304 and well within the TeV range.
Emission at TeV energies in 1ES 2344+514 is therefore fully consistent with
the SSC mechanism (see Pian et~al.  1998 for details of a SSC model predicting
emission at TeV energies applied to MKN 501; we will explore the SSC model
in more depth in Perlman et~al.  (in preparation) in the context of the
multiwavelength variability of 1ES2344+514 during the flare). The fact that
simultaneous Whipple observations did not result in a positive detection of
1ES 2344+514 during the {\it BeppoSAX}  monitoring could simply be due to a still too low
luminosity level during these observations. The firm detection by Whipple in
1995 (Catanese et~al.  1998) would then suggest that the X-ray flux of
1ES 2344+514 can reach even higher intensity levels than during the 1996 {\it BeppoSAX}
observations, probably combined with a large shift of the position of the
synchrotron peak.

As in the case of MKN501 (Pian et~al.  1998) and 1ES1426+428 (Ghisellini
et~al.  1999) the results reported
here demonstrate that most of the power emitted by HBL BL Lacs
may be in the hard X-Rays ($ \ge 10 $ keV) an energy band
poorly explored by previous satellites. The detection of large
and energy-dependent luminosity variations contribute to make the hard X-rays
a promising new window for the study of the physics of BL Lacs and of
Blazars in general.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We wish to thank Fabrizio Fiore for useful discussions and for providing
the software to combine deabsorbed LECS, MECS and PDS data into a
$\nu f(\nu)~vs~\nu$ representation.


\section*{INTRODUCTION}

There have been many studies of processes sensitive to additional $Z$-like
bosons ($Z'$s)  but comparatively few studies pertinent to
$W'$s (see for instance \cite{BR,Hew}), especially at $e^+e^-$ colliders. Why?
Firstly, there are fewer models which predict $W'$s.
Secondly, at LEP II energies,
the $W'$ signal is rather weak. Hence direct
searches have been limited to hadron colliders and the $W'$-quark
couplings are poorly constrained in some models.

In this contribution we present preliminary results of an
investigation of the sensitivity of the
process  $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}+ \gamma$ to
$W'$ bosons in various models. Our results are obtained by measuring the
deviation from the standard model expectation. Interesting
discovery limits are
obtained for center-of-mass $e^+e^-$ energy of 500 GeV or higher
-- {\em Next-Linear-Collider}\ (NLC) energies.

Direct searches have been performed and indirect bounds
have been obtained for $W'$s in a few models, the details of which
are given later. Bounds for the Left-Right Symmetric Model (LRM)
and Sequential Standard Model (SSM)
can be found in \cite{pdg}. They are obtained from the non-observation
of direct production
of $W'$s at the Tevatron and from indirect
$\mu$-decay constraints. For the LRM (with equal left- and
right-handed couplings) CDF obtains
$M_{W'} \gapp 650$ GeV and for the SSM, D0 finds
$M_{W'} \gapp 720$ GeV. From $\mu$-decay, the LRM $W'$ is constrained
to $M_{W'} \gapp 550$ GeV \cite{Barenboim}.
A naive leading order analysis for the SSM
yields a bound of between 900 GeV and 1 TeV. One expects a somewhat higher
bound than for the LRM since, in $\mu$-decay, there will be a
$W$-$W'$ interference term. The major limitation in this method is the
uncertainty in the $W$ mass.

The LHC will have a discovery reach in the TeV range \cite{LHC}.
The search is analogous to
that done at the Tevatron, except for the higher energy and luminosity.
On the down side, one has $pp$ instead of $p\bar{p}$, which means no
valence-valence contribution in the large Feynman-$x$ region. For the
LRM, the magnitude of the effect will depend also on the $W'$-quark couplings
which are unknown. Therefore it is hard to make predictions
a-priori concerning discovery limits.
The NLC search nicely sidesteps the above problem as no
$W'$-quark couplings enter. Other LHC disadvantages include a lack of
initial state quark polarizability, parton distribution dependence and
large QCD corrections. The latter problems will affect the
ability to pin down the $W'$ couplings. Hence, the complimentary
nature of the cleaner NLC measurement
is obvious despite the LHC's high energy
reach.

\section*{BASIC PROCESS}

\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=feyn.eps,height=2.5in,width=3.3in}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{The Feynman diagrams contributing to the SM process.}
\label{feyn}
\end{figure}

The basic process under consideration is:
\begin{equation}
e^-(p_1) + e^+(p_2) \rightarrow \gamma(p_3) + [\nu(p_4) + \bar{\nu}(p_5)],
\end{equation}
where the square brackets indicate that since the neutrinos are not
observed, we effectively only have single photon production. The diagrams
representing the leading Standard Model (SM) contribution are shown in
Fig.\ 1. The $W'$($Z'$) contributions are obtained by replacing
$W\rightarrow W'$, $Z\rightarrow Z'$ in the SM diagrams. Then one must
include all interferences between SM and beyond-SM diagrams in the
squared amplitude.

The resulting squared amplitude is quite short, including spin dependence
which comes out automatically when expressing the result in terms of
the left- and right-handed couplings. The result is quite general and
includes an arbitrary number of $W'$s and $Z'$s.

\section*{MODELS}

We have considered three models having $W'$s which contribute to our
process and are briefly described below.

{\em Sequential Standard Model:}\ This is the simplest $W'$-containing
extension of the SM, although not well motivated by theory. One has an extra
$W'$ which is heavier than the SM one, but which has identical couplings.

{\em Left-Right Symmetric Model:}\ In this model \cite{LRM}, the symmetry
$SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ is obeyed,
giving rise to a
 $W'$ and a $Z'$. The $W'$ is purely right-handed; we do not
consider mixing between the SM and beyond-SM bosons. The pure SM couplings
remain unchanged and we take the new right-handed neutrinos to be
massless. In principle they could be very heavy as well, but this would
lead to decoupling of the $W'$ from our process
and we would be effectively left with a
$Z'$ model, which is not the principal interest of this study.

Two parameters arise; $\rho$ and $\kappa$. For symmetry breaking
via Higgs
doublets (triplets) $\rho=1$ (2). $\kappa$ is defined by $\kappa=g_R/g_L$
and thus measures the relative strength of the $W'l\nu_l$ and
$Wl\nu_l$ couplings. It lies in the range \cite{Hew,kappa}
\begin{equation}
\label{kappa_range}
 0.55 \lapp \kappa \lapp 2 \,\,.
\end{equation}
More specifically, we have the coupling
\begin{equation}
W'l\nu = i \frac{g\kappa}{\sqrt{2}} \gamma^\mu \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2},
\end{equation}
suggesting that larger values of $\kappa$ will lead to larger deviations
from the SM. In addition, we have the relation
\begin{equation}
M_{Z'}^2 = \frac{\rho \kappa^2}{\kappa^2-\tan^2\theta_W} M_{W'}^2,
\end{equation}
so that $\rho=1$ leads to a lighter $Z'$ mass for fixed $M_{W'}$,
which should yield
a bigger effect versus $\rho=2$.

{\em Un-Unified Model (UUM):}\ The UUM \cite{UUM} obeys the symmetry
$SU(2)_q\times SU(2)_l \times U(1)_Y$, again leading to a
$W'$ and a $Z'$. Both new bosons are left-handed and generally taken
to be approximately equal in mass. There are two parameters:
a mixing angle $\phi$, which represents a mixing between the charged
bosons of the two SU(2) symmetries,
and $x=(u/v)^2$, where $u$ and $v$ are the
VEV's of the two scalar multiplets of the model.
The relation $M_{Z'}\simeq M_{W'}$ follows in
the limit $x/\sin^2\phi \gg 1$ and the parameter $x$ may
be replaced by $M_{W'}$, so that only $\phi$ enters as a parameter for
determining mass discovery limits. The leptonic couplings may be inferred from
the Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{\rm lept} =  - \frac{g \sin\phi}{2 \cos\phi} [
\sqrt{2} \,\, \overline{\psi}_{\nu_l} \gamma_\mu \psi_{l,L}  W_2^{+,\mu}
+ ( \overline{\psi}_{\nu_l} \gamma_\mu \psi_{\nu_l,L}
   -\overline{\psi}_{l} \gamma_\mu \psi_{l,L}) Z_2^\mu
]
,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_L = \frac{1}{2}(1-\gamma_5)\psi$. The existing constraint
on $\phi$ is \cite{BR}
\begin{equation}
\label{phi_range}
0.24 \lapp \sin\phi \lapp 0.99 \,\, .
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{1cm}
\special{psfile=sguvs.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=40 hoffset=-15 voffset=-200}
\special{psfile=sglrvs.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=39 hoffset=205 voffset=-250}
\vspace{2.8in}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\caption{Unpolarized total cross section versus center-of-mass
energy in the SM, LRM, SSM and UUM.}
\label{sguvs}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\protect\caption{As Fig.\ 2, except for (a) right-handed; (b)
left-handed $e^-$ beam.}
\label{sglvrs}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\section*{CROSS SECTIONS}

As inputs, we take $M_W = 80.33$ GeV, $M_Z = 91.187$ GeV,
$\sin^2\theta_W = 0.23124$, $\alpha=1/128$, $\Gamma_Z=2.49$ GeV.
Let $E_\gamma$, $\theta_\gamma$ denote the photon's energy and angle
in the $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass, respectively.
No binning or transverse momentum cuts have
been explicitly introduced at this point. However, we have restricted
the range of $E_\gamma$, $\theta_\gamma$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
E_\gamma > 10\,\, {\rm GeV}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
10^o < \theta_\gamma < 170^o\,\, ,
\end{equation}
so that the photon may be detected cleanly. As well, the angular cut
eliminates the collinear singularity arising when the photon is
emitted parallel to the beam.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{1.5cm}
\special{psfile=sguve5.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=39 hoffset=-13 voffset=-240}
\special{psfile=sguvz5.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=39 hoffset=205 voffset=-240}
\vspace{2.8in}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\caption{(a) Cross section and (b) relative statistical significance of the
deviation from the SM versus photon energy.}
\label{sguve5}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\caption{(a) Cross section and (b) relative statistical significance of the
deviation from the SM versus $\cos\theta_\gamma$.}
\label{sguvz5}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Figure 2 shows the total unpolarized cross section
versus center-of-mass energy for the SM, LRM (taking
$\kappa=\rho=2$), SSM and UUM (taking a representative value of
$\sin\phi = 0.6$). Throughout,
we use $M_{W'}$ = 750 GeV. Figure 3 shows the same, except for pure
right- and left-handed $e^-$ beams. The peaks are due to the $Z'$s in the
LRM and UUM. As expected, the LRM gives a large effect when the
$e^-$ is right-handed while the SSM and UUM give a larger effect for
a left-handed $e^-$.
The fact that the SM right-handed cross section goes to zero for large
$\sqrt{s}$ indicates $W$ ($t$-channel) dominance well above the
$Z$ pole.

In Figure 4(a), we plot the differential cross section with respect
to $E_\gamma$ for $\sqrt{s}$ of 500 GeV.
The peak in the photon distributions is due to the radiative
return to the $Z$ resonance.
At higher energies, there are additional peaks in the $E_\gamma$ spectrum
due to $Z'$s. We see that most of the
contribution comes from the lower $E_\gamma$ range. This must be weighted
with the deviation from the SM in order to gauge the relative
statistical significance of the various energy regions. This is done
in Figure 4(b) where $(d\sigma/dE_\gamma-d\sigma_{SM}/dE_\gamma)/
\sqrt{d\sigma_{SM}/dE_\gamma}$ is plotted as a function of
$E_\gamma$. Indeed, we see
that one benefits little from the region $E_\gamma$ above
$\sim 200$ GeV in all
models.

In Figure 5 we plot the the differential cross section with respect
to $\cos\theta_\gamma$ and the corresponding relative
statistical significance.
We see that both
the cross section and relative statistical significance are peaked in
the forward/backward direction and the distributions are very nearly
symmetric in $\cos\theta_\gamma$. In Figures 4(b) and 5(b), the overall
normalization is unimportant. Experimentally, some binning scheme
will be adopted and each bin will carry a weight proportional to the
beam luminosity.

\section*{NLC $W'$ mass discovery Limits}

\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{1.5cm}
\special{psfile=limuvkap.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=39 hoffset=-13 voffset=-240}
\special{psfile=limrvkapp9.eps
          angle=0 hscale=40 vscale=39 hoffset=205 voffset=-240}
\vspace{2.8in}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\caption{$W'$ 95\% C.L. discovery limits versus \protect$\kappa$ in the LRM
obtained with unpolarized beam for (a) $\rho=2$; (b) $\rho=1$.
}
\label{limuvkap}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.8in}
\caption{As Fig.\ 6, except
with 90 percent right-polarized electron beam.}
\label{limrvapp9}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

For $\sqrt{s}$ of 500 GeV, we take an integrated luminosity
of $50 fb^{-1}$ and for $\sqrt{s}$ of 1 TeV and 1.5 TeV we take
$200 fb^{-1}$. For the polarized limits we take half
the above luminosities assuming equal running in both polarization
states (of the $e^-$ beam). We assume 90\% $e^-$ polarization
unless otherwise stated.

In obtaining limits, we have imposed the
additional cut:
\begin{equation}
E_\gamma < E_{\gamma, {\rm max}} \,\, ,
\end{equation}
in order to cut out the  high energy
events, especially those near the $Z$ pole,
which are insensitive to
$W'$s and $Z'$s.
It was found that $E_{\gamma, {\rm max}}$ of 200, 350 and 500 GeV
for $\sqrt{s}$ of $500$ GeV, $1$ TeV and $1.5$ TeV, respectively,
lead to the best limits in general, although the limits
were not very sensitive to moderate variations in $E_{\gamma, {\rm max}}$.
The limits are given at 95\% confidence level and are
calculated for all three energies.

Figure 6 presents the $W'$ mass
discovery limits obtainable with an unpolarized beam
for the LRM, plotted versus $\kappa$ for $\rho=1,2$. Depending on
$\sqrt{s}$, $\rho$ and $\kappa$, they range from 600 GeV to 2.5 TeV.
The predicted dependence on $\kappa$ and $\rho$ is generally observed,
except at low $\kappa$ where we notice a moderate {\em increase} in the
limits, even though the $W'$ couplings have weakened. We attribute this
effect to the $Z'$, whose couplings are enhanced (but its mass increased)
in the low $\kappa$ region. This is evidenced by the appreciable
improvement in the bounds for low $\kappa$ and $\rho=1$. Figure 7 demonstrates
the improvement in bounds in the moderate to large $\kappa$ region
obtained when a (90\%) polarized right-handed $e^-$ beam is used. The
beam polarization picks out the LRM $W'$ and suppresses the SM $W$.
Increase of the polarization can lead to even higher
limits as shown in the rightmost column of Table 1, where limits are
tabulated for all three models.

\begin{table}
\caption{$W'$ 95\% C.L.\ discovery
limits obtained in the SSM, LRM ($\kappa=\rho=2$)
and the UUM ($\sin\phi=0.6$), assuming 90 percent $e^-$ polarization
(unless otherwise stated) and
using $1/2$ the unpolarized luminosity for the left and right cases.}
\label{tablimits}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
   \parbox{1cm}{\protect $\sqrt{s}$  (GeV)} & Model &
 \parbox{25mm}{\raggedright Unpolarized \protect $e^-$  Limit (TeV)}
& \parbox{22mm}{\raggedright Left Pol.\ \protect $e^-$  Limit (TeV)}
& \parbox{22mm}{\raggedright Right Pol.\ \protect $e^-$  Limit (TeV)}
& \parbox{25mm}{\raggedright 100\% L/R Pol.\  Limit (TeV)}
\\
\tableline
500 & SSM & 2.45 & 2.45 & 1.15  & 2.45\\
(50 fb$^{-1}$) & LRM & 1.0 & $<$0.75 & 1.45 & 2.05 \\
 & UUM & 0.65 & 0.65 & 0.55 & 0.65 \\
 & & & & & \\
1000 & SSM & 4.55 & 4.5 & 2.15 & 4.55 \\
(200 fb$^{-1}$)  & LRM & 1.75 & $<$1 & 2.55 & 4.5 \\
 & UUM & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1.15 & 1.3 \\
 & & & & & \\
1500 & SSM & 5.2 & 5.15 & 2.45 & 5.2 \\
(200 fb$^{-1}$)  & LRM & 2.15 & $<$1.25 & 3.2 & 6.2 \\
 & UUM & 1.85 & 1.85 & 1.65 & 1.85 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The highest limits are obtained for the
SSM in most scenarios, except when $\sin\phi$ is large, as indicated in
Figure 8 which shows the limits in the UUM versus $\sin\phi$. We observe
a turn-on in sensitivity for $\sin\phi\gapp 0.62$ at
$\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV and 1 TeV, while for $\sqrt{s} = 1.5$ TeV this
occurs for $\sin\phi\gapp 0.73$. The interference term may play
a role in this behaviour.
From another perspective,  for fixed $\sin\phi$,
one may observe sudden changes in sensitivity as $\sqrt{s}$ is varied
as can be seen from the changing of the sign of the effect on the cross
section in Figs 2,3. The result is that for $0.62 \lapp \sin\phi
\lapp 0.72$, we obtain better limits at $\sqrt{s} = 1$ TeV than we
do at  $\sqrt{s} = 1.5$ TeV.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\special{psfile=limvphi.eps
          angle=0 hscale=45 vscale=45 hoffset=75 voffset=-200}
\vspace{2.5in}
\caption{ 95\% C.L. discovery limits versus
$\sin(\phi)$ in the UUM; lines as in Fig.\ 6.}
\label{limvphi}
\end{figure}

For both the UUM and the SSM, where the $W'$s are left-handed, there is
little benefit from polarization. The reason is that all the effect
comes from the left-handed $e^-$ initial state, which also dominates the
unpolarized cross section. After folding in the luminosity decrease
associated with running in a particular polarization state, all
benefits are lost.

\section*{SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK}

The usefulness of the process $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}
+ \gamma$ in searching for $W'$s has been demonstrated and should
be complimentary to direct searches at the LHC.
The results of our study will be extended to include
cuts on the transverse momentum of the photon to reduce backgrounds
(primarily from radiative Bhabha scattering with undetected $e^+e^-$)
and to examine the effect of binning. All remaining backgrounds will
have to be included in the final analysis of the data and are currently
under investigation, but are not expected to significantly affect our limits.
Other models are also under consideration.


\section{When can star impacting planetesimals be produced?}

During the migration of a major planet, mean-motion resonances
will be swept through the disk of planetesimals.
Though secular resonances are also capable driving
particles to extremely high eccentricities  (\cite{levisonb})
they may not necessarily be swept through the disk.
We also cannot necessarily assume that secular
resonances are always strong in extra-solar systems (\cite{beust})
particularly as the innermost planet becomes more distant from
its neighboring planets.
So we concentrate here on mean motion resonances with one
major planet.

The maximum eccentricity reached by particles librating
in a resonance is extremely sensitive to the eccentricity
of the planet (\cite{beust}; \cite{yoshikawa90}; \cite{moons}).
We expand on the work of \cite{beust_} to determine
what range of eccentricities for a planet are required
to pump particle eccentricities to 1.  We created contour plots
numerically from the Hamiltonian averaged over time
(as in \cite{beust} and \cite{yoshikawa90}).
For each resonance we then determined what minimum initial
particle eccentricity is needed for a particle
to later reach the star ($e=1$).  We estimated
this minimum eccentricity (shown in Fig.~1) for a range of
planet eccentricities, $e_p$.
These contour plots are only extremely weakly dependent on the planet
mass.   We see in Fig.~1 that past a planet eccentricity of 0.3
the 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 5:2 and 7:2 resonances are all capable
of driving low eccentricity particles to extremely high
eccentricities.  The eccentricities of the extrasolar planets
are not restricted to extremely low values (\cite{marcy}).
This implies that resonances which are capable of
causing star grazing or impacting planetesimals are likely
to exist in almost all of these systems.

\section{Simulation of particles in mean motion resonances
during orbital migration}

To estimate the efficiency of production of high eccentricity
orbits we numerically integrate the orbits of particles
(using a conventional Burlisch-Stoer numerical scheme)
during the slow migration of a major planet.
All particles are massless except for the star and
one planet with an eccentricity $\epsilon_p$,
which remains constant throughout the integration.
During the integration we
force the semi-major axis of the planet to drift inwards
at a rate given by the dimensionless parameter
\begin{equation}
D_a = {da \over dt } {P \over a}
\end{equation}
for $P$ the period of the planet and $a$ its semi-major axis.
$D_a$ is fixed during the integration resulting in
${da\over dt} \propto  \sqrt{a}$.
Particles are placed in the plane of the planet's orbit
just within (a few resonance widths)
the semi-major axis of either the 3:1 or 4:1 resonance.
For each particle the angle of perihelion
and the mean anomalies were chosen randomly.
Massless particles were integrated until they
were driven to high eccentricity  ($\epsilon > 0.995$)
and so impact the star,
or crossed the Hill sphere radius of the planet and were
ejected to semi-major axes larger than the planet.
This took between a few times $10^5$ to $10^6$ periods
measured in units of the initial orbital period of the planet.
In Table 1 we note the initial conditions, migration rates, planet
masses and eccentricities (which remain fixed during the simulation),
and final particle fates for a set of 10 particle integrations.
In Table 2 we note the resonances operating on the particles
in each simulation prior to impact or ejection.

A sample plot showing eccentricity and semi-major axes for
a run (denoted N8) are shown in Fig.~2.
Almost at all times particles are strongly affected by resonances.
When a particle crosses the 3:1 or 4:1 resonance it may be
trapped in a high eccentricity
region of the resonance.  Then the particle can be pumped to extremely
high eccentricities and impact the star.   We find that both the 3:1 and 4:1
resonances cause impacts.  However if the particle does not
remain trapped in the resonance it can later on be caught in
another resonance.   For example, we observe that particles not removed by
the 3:1 may later on be caught in the 5:2 or 7:3 resonances and particles
not initially affected by the 4:1 may subsequently be caught in the
3:1, 7:2 or 8:3 resonances (see Table 2).
If the particle is trapped or strongly affected by a resonance
nearer to the planet (such as the 8:3 resonance)
then it has a higher chance of being ejected than hitting the star.
In the slower migration rate simulations (N5, M5) we see that even
minor resonances
such as the 11:3, 10:3, 11:4 cause jumps in the semi-major axis as
the particle crosses the resonance.  However only the 3:1 and 4:1
are strong enough (and with large enough regions in phase space)
that particles are trapped in them for long periods of time.
These resonances are responsable for the majority of impacts.

In Fig.~2a we see that particles trapped in the 3:1 and 4:1 resonances can
make multiple close approaches to the star.
During a close approach the surface of a planetesimal will graze
the star and so be sublimated it.
Thus we would predict that a migrating planet would cause
continuing production
of `falling evaporative bodies',  as proposed to explain the transient
absorption lines observed against beta Pictoris and other stars
(e.g., \cite{beust}; \cite{crawford}; \cite{lagrange96}; \cite{grady}).
We see in our simulations that
more than one resonance can cause star grazers.
If star grazers are produced by more
than one resonance then particles could approach
the star from different angles with respect to the planet's angle of
perihelion.  This might provide an alternative explanation for
the occasional blue-shifted event on beta Pictoris (\cite{blueshift}).

Even though the 3:1 and 4:1 resonances can pump
eccentricities to 1.0, in every simulation (see Tab.~1) we find
particles which pass
through these resonances that are not pumped
to high eccentricities and so removed from the system
by an impact with the star.
These particles can later be ejected by the planet.
While the 3:1 and 4:1 resonances can reduce the surface density
in a disk of planetesimals, they do not create a hole as they
are swept through the disk.
If the density of planetesimals is
high enough, a planet migrating as a result of
ejection of planetesimals can migrate to within
its original (at formation) 3:1 or 4:1 mean motion resonances.
This would allow a planet to migrate a substantial
fraction of the planet's semi-major axis via ejection of
planetesimals.

Particles which impact the star loose all their angular momentum
to the planet which would reduce the planet's
eccentricity.  During the time they are trapped in a resonance
their semi-major axes decreases.  This implies
that the planet will gain energy.
However the decrease in semi-major axis was typically less than $30\%$
of the particle's initial semi-major axes,
so the energy gained by the planet from trapped particles
should be small compared to that lost from ejected particles.

We did not find that the fraction of impacts was strongly dependent on
the planet migration rate,
initial particle conditions, or planet eccentricity.
However more particles should be integrated to verify this.
We would have expected that slower migration rates,
more massive planets, lower eccentricity initial
particle eccentricities, and higher planet eccentricities
would result in an
increase in the efficiency of trapping particles in resonances
and so in producing impacts.  However the number of resonances
operating on each particle makes it difficult to predict the final
states.  For example when the migration rate
is fast or the planet eccentricity is lowered then  we found that
weaker resonances such as the 4:1 or 7:2 did not affect the particles much,
however the 3:1 was still strong enough to cause impacts.

\subsection{Survival until impact}

In our integrations we can estimate
the timescale for the eccentricity to reach $\gtrsim 0.995$.
While some particles impact the star
on a very short timescale (e.g., particle 1 in Fig.~2), others
are slowly pumped to high eccentricities (e.g., particles
5,6,7,and 8 in Fig.~2).
For the slower approaches the particle or planetesimal
could make $\sim 10^4 - 10^5$ close passages to the star before impact.
When the migration rate was slower
particles typically experienced larger numbers of close passages
before impact.  We have estimated the mass loss from
a rocky body during a free fall time at solar
radius from the sun to be $\sim 30$ cm.
If the planetesimal makes $10^4$ of such close passages then
a km body will be completely evaporated by a solar type star.
For particles making multiple close approaches
only large bodies $\gtrsim 1$km will survive until
impact.  Notably the size distribution of
asteroids subsequent to Gyr timescale collisional evolution
(\cite{davis}; \cite{greenberg})
is expected to be such that most of the integrated disk {\it mass} is contained
in the largest bodies.
When migration is relatively quick,
this mechanism could be a way to increase the metallicity of the star,
despite the fact that the lower mass bodies may not survive until impact.
Smaller bodies which will completely evaporate could
manifest themselves as transient absorption
features, a phenomenon which is observed on beta Pictoris
and other stars (e.g., \cite{crawford}; \cite{lagrange96};
\cite{grady}).

We now consider whether large bodies are likely to fragment
upon close approach.  If the object is strengthless then
it is likely to fragment at periapse
only if the density of the object is lower
than the mean density of the star
(e.g., \cite{asphaug}; \cite{sridhar}).
The mean density of the sun is $\rho \sim 1.4$ g cm$^{-3}$
so that on a solar type star all but the least dense asteroids
should not fragment and so should survive
until impact.  On lower mass main sequence stars (which are denser),
however, denser objects
could be fragmented during close passages subsequent to impact.
On higher mass stars, such as beta Pictoris, even cometary material
will not be fragmented by the star during close passages.

\section{Summary and Discussion}

We have presented a series of numerical integrations
of particles initially at low eccentricities which
pass through mean motion resonances with
a major moderate eccentricity migrating planet.
We confirm that the 3:1 and 4:1 resonances can pump
the particles eccentricities to 1.0 and so can cause particles
trapped in them to impact the star or be evaporated by it.
As a planet migrates through a disk of planetesimals we would
expect continuing production of bodies undergoing close
approaches to the star.
This provides us with a possible observational test.
A recent study finds that beta Pictoris may be quite young ($2\times 10^7$ years;
\cite{agebetapic}).  If orbital migration occurs commonly
during this timescale then a multi-object (or multi-fiber) survey
in young clusters should detect
transient absorption features due to evaporating bodies
similar to those seen in beta Pictoris and other stars.

Our integrations show that many particles which pass
through these resonances will not be pumped
to high eccentricities and so removed from the system
by evaporation or by impact with the star.
These particles can subsequently be ejected by the planet.
This implies that a planet can migrate
a significant fraction of its initial semi-major axis via
ejection of planetesimals.

For the faster migration rates,
we estimate that $\gtrsim 1$ km sized rocky bodies will survive
heating from a solar type star during multiple close passages
and so can become incorporated into the convection
zone of the star.  Because we expect that most of the mass
will be in the most massive bodies,
this migration process may be capable of increasing the
metallicity of the star.
Planet migration should occur on a $10^7$ year timescale
(\cite{murray}) so we do not expect
the star to be fully convective during migration.
Metals dumped into the star should remain
in the convection zone of the star.
This scenario therefore offers a plausible explanation
for the metallicity enhancements observed in stars
with extrasolar planets (\cite{gonzalez99}).

To migrate a significant fraction of its semi-major axis
the planet must eject on the order of its mass (\cite{murray}) in
planetesimals.  If the material ejected is rocky then the original
proto-stellar disk would have had $\gtrsim 30$ times this mass in
gas and volatiles.  It is not inconceivable that this amount of material
was left in and interior to a Jupiter mass planet after formation.
However planetesimals exterior to the planet forced to
high eccentricity by a secondary planet may also
be ejected by a planet and so cause its
migration.  Some fraction of these particles will also impact the star
(e.g., as seen in simulations of short period comets, \cite{levison}).
This suggests another possible link between star grazers and
impactors and orbital migration.

\acknowledgments

This work could not have been carried out without
suggestions, discussions and correspondence
from N.~Murray, C.~Pilachowski, R.~Strom, M.~Sykes, D.~Davis, R.~Greenberg,
J.~Raymond,
D.~Trilling, D.~Garnett, B.~Livingston, R.~Kudriski, and J.~Lunine.
We also thank G.~Rivlis and K.~Ennico for
donations of computer time and support.
We acknowledge support from
NASA project numbers NAG-53359 and NAG-54667.

\clearpage