1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}

2: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

3: 

4: % General purpose macros

5: \newcommand{\ee}[1]{\mbox{${} \times 10^{#1}$}}% scientific number format

6: \newcommand{\eten}[1]{\mbox{$10^{#1}$}}% power of ten

7: 

8: %macros for RA and Dec

9: \newcommand{\h}{\mbox{$^h$}}

10: \newcommand{\m}{\mbox{$^m$}}

11: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{$^s$}}

12: \newcommand{\degree}{\mbox{$^{\circ}$}}

13: \newcommand{\am}{\mbox{\arcmin}}

14: \newcommand{\as}{\mbox{\arcsec}}

15: 

16: %macros for distance, volume, speed

17: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}% km/s

18: \newcommand\cmv{\mbox{cm$^{-3}$}}

19: \newcommand\cmc{\mbox{cm$^{-2}$}}

20: \newcommand\cmdv{\mbox{cm$^{-2}$ (\kms)$^{-1}$}}

21: \newcommand{\um}{$\mu$m}

22: %\newcommand{\micron}{$\mu$m}

23: 

24: %macros for commonly used symbols

25: \newcommand{\x}{\mbox{${}\times{}$}}

26: %\def\lsim {$\rlap{\raise.4ex\hbox{$<$}}\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}\,$}

27: \newcommand\tto{\mbox{$\rightarrow$}}

28: \newcommand\about{\mbox{$\sim$}}

29: %macros to avoid typing headache and needless acronyms simultaneously

30: \newcommand{\iras}{\mbox{\it IRAS}}

31: \newcommand{\iso}{\mbox{\it ISO}}

32: \newcommand{\ISO}{\mbox{\it ISO}}

33: \newcommand{\mm}{millimeter}

34: \newcommand\submm{submillimeter}

35: \newcommand\smm{submillimeter}

36: \newcommand\fir{far-infrared}

37: \newcommand\mir{mid-infrared}

38: \newcommand\nir{near-infrared}

39: \newcommand\uv{ultraviolet}

40: \newcommand{\sfr }{\mbox{$\dot M_{\star}$}}

41: \newcommand{\massloss }{\mbox{$\dot M$}}

42: \newcommand\sed{spectral energy distribution}

43: \newcommand{\lsun}{\mbox{L$_\odot$}}% Lsun

44: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{M$_\odot$}}% Msun

45: \newcommand{\ta}{{$T_A^*$}}

46: \newcommand{\tex}{\mbox{$T_{\rm ex}$}}

47: \newcommand{\tmb}{\mbox{$T_{\rm mb}$}}

48: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{$T_R$}}

49: \newcommand{\tk}{\mbox{$T_K$}}

50: \newcommand{\td}{\mbox{$T_d$}}

51: \newcommand{\lbol}{\mbox{$L_{bol}$}} % bolometric luminosity

52: \newcommand{\tbol}{\mbox{$T_{bol}$}} % bolometric temperature

53: \newcommand{\dv}{\mbox{$\Delta v$}}

54: \newcommand{\n}{\mbox{$n$}}

55: \newcommand{\nbar}{\mbox{$\overline{n}$}}

56: \newcommand{\mv}{\mbox{$M_V$}} % virial mass

57: \newcommand{\mc}{\mbox{$M_N$}} % column density mass

58: \newcommand{\mn}{\mbox{$M_n$}} % density mass

59: \newcommand{\meanl}{\mbox{$\langle l \rangle$}} % mean size

60: \newcommand{\meandev}{\mbox{$\langle \delta \rangle$}} % mean deviation

61: \newcommand{\meanar}{\mbox{$\langle a/b \rangle$}} % mean aspect ratio

62: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\mbox{$\langle#1\rangle$}} %generic mean for defined qu.

63: \newcommand{\opacity}{\mbox{$\kappa(\nu)$}} % opacity as func. of freq.

64: \newcommand{\av}{\mbox{$A_V$}} % Visual Extinction

65: \newcommand{\bperp}{\mbox{$B_{\perp}$}} % Projection of B on plane of sky

66: \newcommand{\rinf}{\mbox{$r_{inf}$}} % infall radius

67: \newcommand{\fsmm}{\mbox{$L_{smm}/L_{bol}$}} % submm lum over bol. luminosity

68: \newcommand{\lsmm}{\mbox{$L_{smm}$}} % luminosity longward of 350 mic.

69: \newcommand{\alphanir}{\mbox{$\alpha_{NIR}$}} % spectral index 2-20 mic.

70: \newcommand{\isrf}{\mbox{\rm{ISRF}}}

71: 

72: %macros for molecule names

73: \newcommand{\hh}{\mbox{{\rm H}$_2$}}

74: \newcommand{\form}{H$_2$CO}

75: \newcommand{\water}{H$_2$O}

76: \newcommand{\ammonia}{\mbox{{\rm NH}$_3$}}

77: \newcommand{\nthp}{\mbox{{\rm N$_2$H}$^+$}}

78: \newcommand{\coo}{$^{13}$CO}

79: \newcommand{\cooo}{C$^{18}$O}

80: \newcommand{\coooo}{C$^{17}$O}

81: \newcommand{\hcop}{HCO$^+$}

82: \newcommand{\hcopi}{H$^{13}$CO$^+$}

83: \newcommand{\dcop}{DCO$^+$}

84: 

85: 

86: %%% macros for figures in postscript format

87: %   syntax: \psfig{vertical size}{ps file name}{caption}

88: \input{epsf}

89: \newcommand{\psfig}[3]

90:            {{\begin{figure}[tbp]

91:             \vbox to#1{\epsfxsize=\textwidth\epsfbox{#2.ps}}

92: 	    \caption{#3}

93: 	    \end{figure}}}

94:  \newcommand{\psscaledfig}[4]

95:             {{\begin{figure}[tbp]

96: 	    \centerline{\vbox to#1{\epsfxsize=#2\epsfbox{#3.ps}}}

97: 	    \caption{#4}

98: 	    \end{figure}}}

99: 

100: \def\plotfiddle#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{\centering \leavevmode

101: \vbox to#2{\rule{0pt}{#2}}

102: \special{psfile=#1 voffset=#7 hoffset=#6 vscale=#5 hscale=#4 angle=#3}}

103: 

104: %Macros for this paper

105: \newcommand{\Inu}{\mbox{$I_{\nu}(b)$}}

106: \newcommand{\Snu}{\mbox{$S_{\nu}$}}

107: \newcommand{\Bnu}{\mbox{$B_{\nu}(\Td)$}}

108: \newcommand{\nInu}{\mbox{$I^{norm}(b)$}}

109: \newcommand{\nInum}{\mbox{$I^{norm}_{mod}(b)$}}

110: \newcommand{\kappanu}{\mbox{$\kappa_{\nu}$}}

111: \newcommand{\Td}{\mbox{$T_{d}$}}

112: \newcommand{\Tk}{\mbox{$T_{K}$}}

113: \newcommand{\Tdr}{\mbox{$T_{d}(r)$}}

114: \newcommand{\Tkr}{\mbox{$T_{K}(r)$}}

115: \newcommand{\rhor}{\mbox{$\rho (r)$}}

116: \newcommand{\ppc}{pre-protostellar core}

117: %\newcommand{\m}{\mbox{$m$}}

118: \newcommand{\p}{\mbox{$p$}}

119: \newcommand{\nc}{\mbox{$n_c$}}

120: \newcommand{\chisq}{\mbox{$\chi_r^2$}}

121: \newcommand{\beam}{\mbox{$\theta_{mb}$}}

122: \newcommand{\router}{\mbox{$r_o$}}

123: \newcommand{\rinner}{\mbox{$r_i$}}

124: \newcommand{\rflat}{\mbox{$r_{flat}$}}

125: %

126: %

127: 

128: \begin{document}

129: 

130: %\slugcomment{Revised version 1.1; 12 Mar 2007}

131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% title %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

132: \title {\bf Multi-spectral Observations of Lunar Occultations: I. Resolving The Dust Shell Around AFGL 5440}

133: \author{Paul M. Harvey\altaffilmark{1} and Andrew Oldag\altaffilmark{1}

134: }

135: 

136: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C1400, Austin, TX 78712-0259;  pmh@astro.as.utexas.edu, feardrew@astro.as.utexas.edu}

137: 

138: 

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: \begin{abstract}

141: 

142: We present observations and modeling of a lunar occultation of the dust-enshrouded carbon star

143: AFGL 5440.  The observations were made over a continuous range of wavelengths from 1 -- 4\micron\

144: with a high-speed spectrophotometer designed expressly for this purpose.   We find

145: that the occultation fringes cannot be fit by any single-size model.  We use the DUSTY radiative

146: transfer code to model a circumstellar shell and fit both the observed occultation light curves

147: and the spectral energy distribution described in the literature.   We find a strong constraint

148: on the inner radius of the dust shell, T$_{max}$ = 950 K $\pm$ 50K, and optical depth at 5\micron\

149: of 0.5 $\pm$ 0.1.  The observations are best fit by models with a density gradient of $\rho \propto r^{-2}$

150: or the gradient derived by Ivezi\'c \& Elitzur for a radiatively driven hydrodynamic outflow.  Our models cannot fit

151: the observed IRAS 60\micron\ flux without assuming a substantial abundance of graphite or by assuming

152: a substantially higher mass-loss rate in the past.

153: 

154: 

155: \end{abstract}

156: 

157: \keywords{ stars: AGB and post-AGB --  techniques: high angular resolution --  stars: mass loss}

158: 

159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Main text %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

160: 

161: \section{Introduction}

162: 

163: Mass loss from post-main-sequence stars provides a large fraction of the heavy element abundance and solid

164: particle content of the interstellar medium (e.g. Wallerstein \& Knapp 1998; Ferrarotti \& Gail 2006).   The mechanism(s) of the mass loss during the AGB phase

165: of stellar evolution are thought to involve both radiation pressure and stellar pulsation \citep{suh97,walknapp98,schroder98}, but 

166: most details of this process are not well understood.  Many uncertainties about these processes can

167: be clarified by studies of the spatial structure of circumstellar mass-loss shells.  For example,

168: a number of molecular line studies of the extended envelopes around AGB stars have found strong evidence for

169: periodic variations in mass-loss rates leading to the appearance of ``rings'' in the radial distribution

170: of molecular emission lines, (e.g. Fong, Meixner \& Shah 2003, Olofsson et al. 1996).  Very deep, sensitive imaging studies have also found similar phenomena in the dust around

171: the most nearby extreme example of these objects IRC+10216 \citep{mauron00}.  In order to study the inner regions of

172: these circumstellar shells, however, angular resolutions well under 1 arcsec are required.  For example,

173: at a distance of 1 kpc, the dust evaporation radius around a 10$^4$ \lsun\ star corresponds to an angular

174: radius of 20 milli-arcsec (mas).  Speckle interferometry and more recently adaptive optics observations have

175: enabled resolutions of order 0.1 arcsec \citep{hoff01,biller05}, while lunar occultation observations and

176: multi-aperture interferometry have pushed angular resolutions to the milli-arcsecond level, e.g. reviews by

177: \citet{quir04} and \citet{mon03}.

178: 

179: Until recently most interferometric observations have been made in

180: typically one or two relatively broad bands.  We present here observations of a lunar occultation

181: of the star AFGL 5440 (aka OH 06.86-1.5, IRAS 18036-2344),

182: made with a high-speed infrared spectrophotometer, pMIRAS \citep{harv03}, developed as a prototype for a more

183: ambitious instrument now nearing completion.  This star has been classified as a carbon-rich AGB star on the

184: basis of its IRAS LRS spectrum \citep{zuck86,volk89,kwok97}.  \citet{groen02} have estimated

185: the distance to be 2.25 kpc.  Near-infrared through far-infrared photometry of the source has been summarized

186: by \citet{gug93} and more recently by \citet{guand06}, including a combination of ground based photometry, the IRAS values, and more

187: recent MSX results.  The reported distance and photometry imply a luminosity of 1.4$\times$10$^4$ \lsun.

188: 

189: In addition to the observations of AFGL 5440, we

190: also discuss observations that we have made 

191: of two ``calibration'' stars 

192: in order to

193: understand the limitations of our observation/analysis process.  These objects are cool stars with no

194: detectable circumstellar dust shell based on their near-infrared and IRAS colors, IRC+00233 (M7) and HD 155292 (K2).  

195: 

196: Our observations cover the entire 1 - 4\micron\ spectral region

197: with a resolving power 

198: %R 

199: that varies from $\sim$ 20 at the shortest wavelengths to $\sim$ 100 at the long end.  Our time resolution of 8 msec permits an effective angular resolution of a

200: couple milli-arcsec, with the exact resolution being a strong function of the signal-to-noise ratio as discussed

201: later.

202: The broad wavelength coverage allows us to observe simultaneously the Fresnel fringe pattern

203: of the obscured central star at the shorter wavelengths together with the circumstellar dust emission from the

204: warmest part of the dust distribution.  In \S \ref{obs} we describe the details of the observations and instrumental

205: parameters and the basic data reduction process.  Then in \S \ref{model} we describe

206: various ways we have modelled the star$+$shell in order to determine the limits on the circumstellar shell

207: structure placed by our observations.  Finally in \S \ref{summary} we summarize the implications of these results

208: for the mass loss of this object.

209: 

210: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{obs}

211: 

212: The observations of AFGL 5440 were made during an immersion occultation event on 28 Aug 2001 at approximately 02:44:00 UT.

213: The elevation of the Moon at the time of the event was 36\degree, and the Sun was 17\degree\ below the horizon.  The sky conditions

214: were not completely photometric but cloud cover was minimal and intermittent.  The position angle of the occultation event on

215: the lunar limb was 54\degree, and the lunar phase was 0.72.  We used the pMIRAS instrument on the McDonald Observatory 2.7-m

216: telescope.  The details of the instrument have been described by Harvey \& Wilson (2003), but we summarize the most

217: important characteristics here.  The instrument is essentially a long/wide slit, high-speed spectrophotometer using a

218: NaCl prism to disperse the light from the slit, which is then imaged onto a 32$\times$100 pixel portion of a 256$^2$

219: InSb array detector. The slit width is chosen to be the minimum acceptable in order to

220: minimize the background on the detector within the limitations imposed by the seeing conditions.  For these 

221: observations the slit width was set at about 5 arcsec for the

222: typical seeing of 1.5 arcsec.  The detector is read-out every 8 msec, with photon integration occuring over essentially the full 8 msec time.

223: Therefore, the Fresnel occultation fringe pattern is averaged over this 8 msec time (as well as over the 2.7-m telescope

224: aperture).  Because we use a refractive dispersive element, the dispersion/spectral resolution is not equal at all

225: wavelengths; the highest

226: dispersion is at the longest wavelengths, a feature that minimizes the background photon count at those wavelengths.  On average

227: over the 1 -- 4\micron\ waveband covered by the instrument, one pixel corresponds roughly to $\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ = 100. Because

228: of uncompensated seeing effects and the lower spectral dispersion at shorter wavelengths, the true resolving power at the

229: shortest wavelengths is R $\sim$ 20.

230: In the spatial direction the plate scale is 0.4 arcsec/pixel.

231: The instrument is read-noise limited shortward of 2.5\micron\ and background-limited longward of 3\micron.  A typical observation

232: consists of taking 5000 frames at a time roughly centered on the occultation event.  This is accomplished by using a buffer

233: that holds the most recent 5000 frames and terminating the data acquisition a few seconds after the event is observed on

234: a real-time display.  This is an important feature since the predicted times of occultation events are often in error by as much

235: as 10 seconds due to irregularities in the lunar limb as well as imperfect stellar astrometry.  

236: Our observations of the occultation event of the comparison star, IRC+00233, were obtained during an

237: immersion event on 29 Jun 2001, and those of HD 155292 were obtained during an immersion event on 26 Aug 2001.

238: 

239: The data reduction process consists of several typical steps.  Because the spectrum is being observed with much higher time

240: resolution than the seeing timescale, the spectrum moves around by several pixels over the course of an occultation event.

241: Therefore, to construct a light curve with minimal spectral blurring, the images must be shifted to correspond to the same

242: wavelength/pixel scale.  This is done with a simple cross-correlation algorithm that works well for the high S/N data

243: discussed here.  The spectrum is also not perfectly aligned with the X/Y axes of the detector, so we take out this tilt

244: as well during the processing to simplify later steps.  Because we use a ``long slit'', $\sim$ 10 arcsec, we can use the

245: sky measurements on either side of the stellar spectrum to provide an accurate and high-time-resolution sky subtraction.

246: For the data discussed here we produce a weighted average in the spectral direction that is two pixels wide and sum the pixels

247: in the spatial direction that have detectable signal.  We have experimented with more elaborate photometric extraction

248: schemes, but this technique appears to produce S/N ratios as high as any more complex algorithms.   We have also experimented

249: with various flat-fielding methods but have found only a small improvement in S/N with these methods.  The end result of

250: the data reduction process

251: is a sequence of $\sim$ 100 light curves for which we extract a few hundred frames centered on the occultation event.

252: The frames that are taken well before the Fresnel fringe pattern of the occultation becomes evident are used to estimate the noise

253: level in the data, due both to read-noise, background photon statistics, and the often non-negligible amount of

254: seeing/scintillation noise caused by the atmosphere.  

255: 

256: Because the exact location of the spectrum on the detector

257: varies both due to seeing and between observing runs after adjustments to the instrument, we perform the wavelength

258: calibration by fitting the NaCl dispersion function to the observed positions of the J, H, K, and L atmospheric

259: transmission maxima in the actual data for each occultation event.  The accuracy of this calibration is probably

260: good to $\pm$ .01 $\lambda$ throughout the 1 -- 4\micron\ region that is observed.

261: Because of variable instrumental efficiency depending on the placement of the star image on the input slit, and

262: the common occurrence of non-photometric sky conditions during occultation events, we specifically do not

263: attempt to derive a flux calibration for our data.  We have, however, compared the relative signal from AFGL 5440

264: to that of relatively well characterized stars observed on the same night and conclude that the stellar magnitudes

265: in the published literature for AFGL 5440 are consistent with values that we would have derived from

266: our signal strengths to within $\pm$ 30\%.

267: 

268: 

269: \section{Source Modeling}\label{model}

270: 

271: The fringe pattern of a lunar occultation event is a convolution of the pattern for a point source over several parameters that all act

272: to blur the fringes.  These parameters include: the telescope aperture, the integration time of the detector, the

273: wavelength bandwidth of the observation, and, most importantly, the source size/structure.  In order to extract the

274: source size or more detailed properties of the spatial structure, the typical procedure is to model the combination of

275: all the above ``blurring'' parameters with various possible source models to find the best fit to the data (e.g.

276: Nather \& McCants 1970; Richichi et al. 1995).

277: An additional uncertainty in the observations is the basic frequency of the fringe pattern, i.e. the speed of the

278: lunar shadow.  Although this parameter is calculated by the software that we use to predict occultation events, small uncertainties

279: in the shape of the lunar limb (roughness due to craters, etc) can produce differences in the predicted shadow speed up

280: to several tens of percent.  Therefore, this parameter must also be fit in addition to the parameters that blur the fringes.

281: 

282: We began our modeling process by assuming a uniform disk 

283: as the simplest possible model with which to try fitting the data for the 

284: observed objects, AFGL 5440, IRC+00233, and HD 155292.

285: We use a simple $\chi^2$ test for the best model, allowing one or more parameters to vary during the process.

286: Typically we first allow both the size and lunar shadow velocity to vary until we find an approximate fit to

287: both.  This fit can be done either individually at each wavelength or globally using the entire waveband.

288: 

289: \subsection{Comparison Stars}

290: 

291: For IRC+00233 and HD 155292 we assumed that a single source size was likely to be appropriate 

292: for the entire wavelength range

293: within our observational uncertainties,

294: and we fit the observations globally for source size and lunar velocity.  

295: Rough estimates of the angular sizes of these two stars can be derived simply by assuming that they are

296: blackbodies of the effective temperatures given by their spectral types.  Using the empirical relation between

297: angular size and B-K color from van Belle (1999) for IRC+00233 (B = 11.06, K = 1.95),

298: we would expect an angular size 

299: of 3.5 mas; the star is, however, likely to be mildly variable, so the size at the time of our

300: observations might have been different by $\pm$ 20\%.  For HD155292 (B = 11.0, K = 4.9) a similar

301: calculation gives

302: an angular size of 0.6 mas.   Since typical departures from a uniform

303: disk model are at the level of 10 -- 30\% (e.g. Thompson, Creech-Eakland \& van Belle 2003; and Scholz 2003), 

304: the resolution required to detect them reliably for even IRC+00233 is below 1 mas.  

305: Based on tests we have done with model data,

306: this is beyond the capabilities of our current data set which is limited by both

307: spectral resolution and signal-to-noise ratio to accuracies on the order of $\pm$2 mas. 

308: 

309: The best fit size for IRC+00233

310: is between 4.5 and 5.0 mas.  Figure \ref{hatlams} shows observed and model light

311: curves for a model assuming a 4.5 mas uniform disk for a subset of the wavelengths observed.  Figure \ref{hatchi} 

312: shows the $\chi^2$ and signal-to-noise ratio as

313: a function of wavelength over the entire observed band for this model.  Both figures show that this model provides a very

314: good fit to the observations except for a small range of wavelengths around $\sim$ 1.7\micron\ where a substantially

315: larger size would provide a better fit.  We do not have a good explanation for this discrepancy; it may be due to

316: some systematic noise effect or to a real difference in the stellar photosphere in that region.  

317: For comparison

318: Schmidtke et al. (1986) observed this same star in an occultation event using narrow-band

319: filters near 1.6 and 2.2\micron.  They found a size at those wavelengths of $\sim$ 3 mas, similar to but smaller

320: than our calculated blackbody

321: size.  

322: For HD 155292 all uniform-disk models with a size less than about 3 mas were able to fit the data reasonably well

323: (Figures \ref{hatlamshd} and \ref{hatchihd}).

324: Since the blackbody size of the star is less than a milli-arcsecond, this is consistent with the expected

325: uncertainties in our data and modeling.  The signal-to-noise ratio for this star was low enough that

326: we had no effective narrow-band information beyond 2.5\micron, and at the shorter wavelengths some

327: periodic electronic pickup had a non-negligible effect on the observed fringe patterns as well.

328: Note that for both these comparison stars there are wavelengths with reasonable S/N as shown in 

329: Figures \ref{hatlams} and \ref{hatlamshd} where there is a less than adequate fit, so these are

330: difficult to explain solely as due to telluric atmospheric absorption effects. 

331: 

332: \subsection{AFGL 5440}

333: 

334: For AFGL 5440 a quick glance at the

335: observed light curves (Figure \ref{hat11lams}) indicated that a single source size was unlikely to fit over the entire 1 -- 4\micron\ bandwidth

336: (Harvey \& Wilson 2003).  This suggests that we are seeing the combination of the emission from the central star and

337: a circumstellar shell of material due to mass loss from the star.  To demonstrate the poor fit with a single size

338: uniform disk, we show in Figures \ref{hat11lams} and \ref{hat11chi} the results of trying to fit the data with one example uniform disk,

339: 11 mas.  As can be seen in the plots of $\chi^2$ as well as the observed versus model light curves, the

340: 11 mas disk provides a passable fit in the mid-range of wavelengths, 2.5 -- 3.2\micron, but produces

341: fringes that are too sharp at the longer wavelengths and too broadened at the shortest wavelengths. 

342: 

343: This result motivated us to pursue a full radiative transfer model for the object that could be used to compare both the

344: size constraints provided by our occultation data {\it and} the spectral energy distribution \citep{guand06} which contains

345: important and different information about the relative amount of dust at different temperatures.  The DUSTY

346: code \citep{ivez99} was originally created, in fact, for modeling the emission from AGB stars surrounded by mass-loss shells.  Its

347: output includes model source images as well as the total energy distribution, so it is ideal for our purposes.

348: Our approach to using the code was to choose a particular combination of input parameters and then vary the

349: dust optical depth to find the best fit to the energy distribution for those parameters.  We then used the

350: output source images that were computed as a function of wavelength to calculate expected occultation fringes for the model and

351: compared those to the observed fringes.  Since AFGL 5440 has been classified as a carbon-rich star,

352: we assumed a carbon-rich dust composition, typically some combination of amorphous carbon, silicon carbide,

353: and graphite as the major constituents.

354: The other critical parameters for the models are the dust temperature

355: at the inner radius and the radial density gradient.  The outer radius of the dust shell makes essentially no difference

356: to the observed characteristics at $\lambda <$ 60\micron\ as long as it is at least 100 times the inner radius.

357: The goal of our modeling was to find some reasonable fit to our occultation data and the rough spectral

358: energy distribution for the circumstellar dust shell; we have not attempted to extract

359: details of the stellar photosphere or attempt a thorough examination of all possible dust size/composition

360: models since our data do not bear directly on those issues for reasons of wavelength coverage and

361: spectral resolution.  In particular, we did not try to find any better than superficial agreement with

362: the IRAS LRS data.

363: 

364: We explored more than 200 models to understand the effect of varying the input parameters on the quality of

365: the fit.  Basically all the models that provided an approximate fit to the occultation observations and

366: the spectral energy distribution had several features in common.  First, the dust temperature at the inner

367: radius of the dust shell was of order 950K $\pm$ 50K.  Models with a maximum dust temperature below 900 K did

368: not have enough hot dust to fit the occultation fringes at the longer wavelengths, while models with hotter inner

369: edges had even more difficulty than the best-fit model in reproducing the energy distribution longward of 10\micron.  

370: Secondly, the radial density gradient of models with a reasonable fit was close to

371: r$^{-2}$ (or to DUSTY's calculation of the gradient appropriate for a radiatively driven wind

372: which approximates an r$^{-2}$ distribution for large radii).  

373: Models with a density gradient of r$^{-1.8}$ came closer to producing the IRAS 60\micron\ flux, but did not

374: fit the shape of the 5 -- 20\micron\ energy distribution well.  Models with a density gradient of r$^{-2.2}$

375: can fit the energy distribution out to 20\micron\ and also provide a good fit to the occultation results, but

376: have substantially worse fits to the IRAS 60\micron\ flux than our best fit models.

377: The optical depth for best fit at the fiducial wavelength

378: of 5\micron\ was typically in the range 0.3 -- 0.6.  Finally, the dust composition that provided the best fit included

379: a small amount of SiC together with comparable amounts of amorphous carbon and graphite.  Other carbon-rich

380: compositions produced reasonable fits except at the longest wavelengths or in the 11\micron\ SiC feature.

381: Note that there is a range of optical properties for different forms of amorphous carbon \citep{ander99} that

382: we did not explore.

383: We experimented with two grain size distributions, the MRN slope \citep{mathis77}, and another, the KMH shape \citep{kim94}, used by

384: \citet{ivez96} for models of IRC+10216, that has a smoother fall-off on each end.

385: We found that we could obtain reasonably good fits with either distribution.

386: Figures \ref{sedbest} and \ref{bestlams} show the fits to the spectral energy distribution and to the occultation light curves for the

387: best-fit model.  Figure \ref{bestchi} shows the quality of the fit versus wavelength, and figure \ref{liprobest} illustrates

388: the spatial profiles of this best-fit model.   Figures \ref{sedbestamorph} and \ref{bestlamsamorph}

389:  likewise show for comparison the fits for a model discussed below

390: that does not use any graphite.  Finally, figures \ref{sedbad} and \ref{badlams}

391: show results for a third model that fits the energy distribution but

392: gives a poor fit to the occultation results because of a lack of enough warm dust close to the star.

393: 

394: \section{Discussion and Summary}\label{summary}

395: 

396: Model dust shells have been computed for a number of carbon-rich AGB stars by various authors.

397: Le Bertre, Gougeon, \& Le Sidaner (1995) and Le Bertre (1997) found that the energy distributions

398: for nearly two dozen carbon-rich stars could be modelled with very similar dust shell parameters.

399: They found a common value of maximum dust temperature of order 950 K with shell density gradient of

400: $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ for spherically symmetric shells.  The best fit dust property implied a dust

401: emissivity, $\epsilon \propto \lambda^{-1.3}$, consistent with that expected for an amorphous carbon-rich dust

402: composition as also found by \citet{jura04}.  These conclusions were enhanced by their ability to fit the energy distributions over

403: a range of phases of the observed variability of many of the stars.  On the other hand, Suh (1997)

404: suggested that a ``superwind'' phase of mass loss could improve model fits to the energy distributions

405: for a number of carbon-rich AGB dust shells by enhancing the emission shortward of 30\micron\ because

406: of a high rate of mass loss in recent times, e.g. at small radii where most of the emission would

407: be due to hotter dust.  \citet{ivez96} used a self-consistent radiatively driven hydrodynamic model for

408: the density distribution around IRC+10216 and were able to fit both the spectral energy distribution

409: and the near-infrared angular visibility data from speckle observations.  Interestingly they derived

410: an inner dust shell temperature substantially lower than ours and most other studies, $\sim$ 750K.

411: \citet{winters97} computed

412: a full time-dependent model of periodic outflow from AFGL 3068 and were able to produce a good

413: fit to the energy distribution and observed light curves.  Virtually all of these

414: modeling efforts used dust emissivities appropriate for some form of amorphous carbon (usually

415: including SiC), but with no graphite (see also Lorenz-Martins 2001), contrary to our best model fit above.  The model of

416: \citet{ivez96} utilized a grain size distribution that included substantially larger grains than most

417: earlier models.

418: 

419: Our lunar occultation observations add constraints to these results most directly in defining the 

420: amount of dust in

421: the innermost region around AFGL 5440, since our longest observed wavelength is 4\micron.  Basically, our data

422: imply that the density of grains emitting in the 3 -- 4\micron\ spectral region must be sufficiently

423: large to produce the substantial fringe ``blurring'' observed in our light curves.  Graphically,

424: this amount of emission is illustrated in figure \ref{liprobest} showing the source profiles for the best-fit

425: model.  For any given assumed dust emissivity, this constraint then implies a fairly narrow

426: range of optical depth and ratio of near-infrared to mid-infrared dust emission.  Thus, we

427: constrain the dust density gradient in the innermost part of the circumstellar shell.

428: Finally, as mentioned above, the fact that we were unable to find a satisfactory fit to

429: the data with {\it any} model having a maximum dust temperature lower than 900 K is a strong

430: constraint on the location of the inner edge of the dust shell.  This result follows

431: from the fact that dust cooler than 900 K cannot emit sufficiently to produce the required 

432: amount of 3 -- 4\micron\ emission.  Note that this temperature is nearly a factor of two below the

433: expected condensation temperatures for dust around these stars \citep{egan95}.  The physical value of this inner radius for AFGL 5440

434: for the dust properties of the best-fit model is 3.7$\times 10^{14}$ cm, or an angular radius

435: at the assumed distance of 2.25 kpc of 11 mas.  For reference the angular {\it diameter} of the central star is

436: of order 3 mas, based on a blackbody approximation for its likely photospheric temperature 

437: of 2500K $\pm$ 300K and 2\micron\ magnitude.

438: 

439: Since our modeling is the first of which we are aware for this particular star over the entire infrared wavelength

440: region, we also discuss here the constraints on the circumstellar 

441: cloud properties implied

442: by the overall energy distribution.  

443: As mentioned above, our best-fit model utilized roughly

444: equal amounts of amorphous carbon and graphite in addition to the small amount of SiC required

445: to fit the 11\micron\ feature seen in the IRAS LRS spectrum.  This result is contrary to the

446: large amount of evidence against substantial amounts of graphite in stars like AFGL 5440.  The

447: factor that drove us to include graphite was its relatively flat emissivity vs. wavelength

448: dependence between 10 and 50\micron\ that enabled us to fit the IRAS 60\micron\ flux.

449: Models with only amorphous carbon and SiC failed to fit that flux by factors of 3 or more.

450: Figures \ref{sedbestamorph} and \ref{bestlamsamorph} discussed above show the energy distribution and model 

451: light curves for the best-fitting model

452: that uses only amorphous carbon and SiC, and which uses the radiatively driven hydrodynamic density gradient of

453: Ivezic \& Elitzur (1996) as computed by DUSTY.  The light curves fit the observed occultation

454: data nearly as well as those for the best-fit model.  

455: 

456: Clearly, however, the IRAS 60\micron\ flux cannot

457: be fit by any similar model without graphite, and substantial modifications would have to be made to the

458: assumed density law in the outer regions or to the dust emissivity in order to come close

459: to fitting the 60\micron\ flux.  Explaining this problem is beyond the scope of our

460: study, but the fact that there is abundant evidence for non-constant outflow from carbon

461: stars \citep{fong03,mauron00} provides a convenient (if ad hoc) explanation.  If the mass-loss rate were

462: greater in the past, then the amount of dust at radii appropriate for emission at 60\micron\

463: might well be larger than a simple extrapolation from the dust responsible for the

464: 3 -- 20\micron\ emission.  This would describe the opposite situation from that proposed by

465: \citep{suh97} who suggested higher mass-loss rates in the recent past to explain observations

466: of a number of other similar carbon stars.  The radial location of dust emitting strongly at

467: 60\micron\ is of order 1 to a few arcseconds from the star.  For an assumed distance of 2.25 kpc

468: and its measured outflow velocity of 22 km s$^{-1}$ (Groenewegen et al. 2002), this would correspond

469: to a time of order 500 years to a couple thousand years in the past for the proposed higher mass-loss

470: rate.  This time scale is comparable to the period of fluctuation seen by \citet{mauron00} for IRC+10216.

471:  

472: The fact that we have constrained the absolute value and radial dependence of the dust density 

473: with our observations means that we have constrained the recent dust mass-loss rate for

474: AFGL 5440 as well.  The dust mass-loss rate implied by our derived optical depth and radial

475: density dependence is \massloss$_{dust}$ = 6.5 $\times$ 10$^{-8}$ \msun$/$yr for

476: the optical constants of amorphous carbon used by DUSTY \citep{ivez99}.   Groenewegen et al. (2002)

477: computed dust and gas mass-loss rates individually for AFGL 5440 on the basis of the IRAS 60\micron\

478: flux for the dust, and millimeter CO observations for the gas.  They derived a gas mass-loss

479: rate of 3.1$\times 10^{-5}$ \msun$/$yr and dust mass-loss rate of 5.1$\times$10$^{-8}$ \msun$/$yr

480: implying a gas-to-dust mass ratio of 600.  Interestingly, their dust mass-loss rate is slightly lower than the value

481: we have derived in spite of their using the 60\micron\ IRAS flux for normalization.  This result

482: reinforces the overall uncertainties in model assumptions and absolute dust opacties, particularly at

483: longer infrared wavelengths.  In any case, a dust mass-loss rate of order 5 -- 10$\times10^{-8} $\msun/yr and gas

484: mass-loss rate a few hundred times larger are consistent with the data.

485: 

486: In summary, our observations have separately resolved the stellar photosphere and the inner edge of the

487: circumstellar dust shell around AFGL 5440.  We have strongly constrained the inner radius of the dust shell surrounding the star

488: as well as the near-infrared optical depth.  Our constraints together with the spectral energy

489: distribution suggest a dust density gradient consistent with that expected for radiatively driven

490: mass loss with the exception that the far-infrared flux may imply a recent decrease in mass-loss

491: rate from the time when the far-ir-emitting dust was ejected.

492: 

493: \section{Acknowledgments}

494: 

495: We thank a number of people and institutions that have supported this work since its earliest stages.

496: M. Simon greatly encouraged our efforts and provided many useful comments over the

497: course of this work.  He also provided the basic prediction software (developed by L. Cassar) that

498: we use for determining the times and elements of occultation events.  We also acknowledge illuminating

499: conversations with A. Richichi, S. Guilloteau, D. Evans, and R. E. Nather and very helpful

500: suggestions from two anonymous referees.  D. Wilson developed the

501: initial versions of a number of the reduction algorithms used in this work and provided a great

502: deal of assistance during the observations.  C. Young provided help in the intricacies of DUSTY. This project has

503: been supported by: internal McDonald Observatory funding, NASA Grant NAG5-10458, and NSF grant AST-0096626.

504: We also acknowledge extensive use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System and SIMBAD, and P. Harvey thanks

505: the University of Colorado's Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy for graciously hosting him

506: during a sabbatical while much of this paper was written.

507: 

508: 

509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figures %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

510: 

511: 

512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Tables %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

513: 

514: 

515: 

516: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}

517: %\rotate

518: \tablecolumns{7}

519: \tablecaption{DUSTY Models of AFGL 5440\label{modtbl}}

520: \tablewidth{0pt} 

521: \tablehead{

522: \colhead{Model}                &

523: %%\colhead{RA (J2000)}  &

524: %%\colhead{Dec (J2000)}     &

525: \colhead{T$_{max}$} &

526: \colhead{$\rho \propto r^{-N}$ } &

527: \colhead{$\tau$}  &

528: \colhead{Amorph C}  &

529: \colhead{Graphite}  &

530: \colhead{SiC}  &

531: \colhead{Size Dist.}               \\

532: \colhead{}                &

533: %%\colhead{(\h\ \m\ \s)}  &

534: %%\colhead{(\degree\ \arcmin\ \arcsec)}     &

535: \colhead{K} &

536: \colhead{} &

537: \colhead{@5\micron}  &

538: \colhead{\%}  &

539: \colhead{\%)}  &

540: \colhead{\%)}  &

541: \colhead{}                  

542: }

543: 

544: \startdata 

545: 

546: 

547:  194& 950 & -2.0 &   0.41  &  40 & 50 &  10 & MRN$^1$ \cr

548: 

549:  200& 950 & -2.0 &   0.55  &  95 & 0 &  5 & KMH$^2$ \cr

550: 

551:  206& 850 & rad-flow$^3$ &   0.45  &  95 & 0 &  5 & KMH$^2$ \cr

552: \enddata

553: 

554: \tablecomments{$^1$\citet{mathis77} with a$_{min} = .005$\micron; a$_{max} = 0.25$\micron.\\

555: $^2$\citet{kim94} with a$_{min} = .005$\micron; a$_{max} = 0.2$\micron.\\

556: $^3$ Radiatively driven outflow computed by DUSTY as described by \citet{ivez96}}

557: \end{deluxetable}

558: 

559: %20&J182914.27+003125.5 & -2.00 &    32.3$\pm$  3.9\phn &    29.7$\pm$  3.6\phn &    26.8$\pm$  3.2\phn &    15.6$\pm$  1.9\phn &     1.87$\pm$  0.28\phn\cr

560: 

561: \begin{thebibliography}{199}

562: 

563: \bibitem[Andersen, Liodl,\& Hofner(1999)]{ander99}

564: Andersen, A. C., Liodl, R. \& Hofner, S. 1999, A\&A, 349, 243

565: \bibitem[Biller et al.(2005)]{biller05}

566: Biller, B. A. et al. 2005, \apj, 620, 450

567: \bibitem[Egan \& Leung(1995)]{egan95}

568: Egan, M. P. \& Leung, C. M. 1995, \apj, 444, 251

569: \bibitem[Ferrarotti \& Gail(2006)]{ferr06}

570: Ferrarotti, A. S. \& Gail, H.-P. 2006, A\&A, 447, 553

571: \bibitem[Fong, Meixner \& Shah(2003)]{fong03}

572: Fong, D., Meixner, M. \& Shah, R. Y. 2003, \apj, 582, L39

573: \bibitem[Groenewegen et al.(2002)]{groen02}

574: Groenewegen, M. A. T., Sevenster, M., Spoon, H. W. W. \& P\'erez, I. 2002, A \& A, 390, 511

575: \bibitem[Guandalini et al.(2006)]{guand06}

576: Guandalini, R., Busso, M., Ciprini, S., Silvestro, G. \& Persi, P. 2006, A\&A, 445, 1069

577: \bibitem[Guglielmo et al.(1993)]{gug93}

578: Guglielmo, F. et al. 1993, A\&A Suppl., 99, 31

579: \bibitem[Harvey \& Wilson(2003)]{harv03}

580: Harvey, P. M. \& Wilson, D. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 355

581: \bibitem[Hofmann et al.(2001)]{hoff01}

582: Hofmann, K.-H., Blocker, T., Weigelt, G. \& Balega, Y. 2001, A\&A, 379, 529

583: %\bibitem[Ivezi\'c \& Elitzur (1995)]{ivez95}

584: %Ivezi\'c, Z. \& Elitzur, M. 1995 \apj, 445, 415

585: \bibitem[Ivezi\'c \& Elitzur(1996)]{ivez96}

586: Ivezi\'c, Z. \& Elitzur, M. 1996 MNRAS, 279, 1019

587: \bibitem[Ivezi\'c, Nenkova \& Elitzur (1999)]{ivez99}

588: Ivezi\'c, Z., Nenkova, M. \& Elitzur, M. 1999, User Manual for DUSTY, University of Kentucky Internal Report, accessible at http://www.pa.uky.edu/~moshe/dusty

589: \bibitem[Jura(2004)]{jura04}

590: Jura, M. 2004, ASP Conf. Series, 309, 321

591: \bibitem[Kim, Martin \& Hendry(1994)]{kim94}

592: Kim, S. H., Martin, P. G. \& Hendry P. D. 1994, \apj, 422, 164

593: \bibitem[Kwok, Volk \& Bidelman(1997)]{kwok97}

594: Kwok, S., Volk, K. \& Bidelman, W. P. 1997, \apj, 112, 557

595: \bibitem[Le Bertre(1997)]{lebert97}

596: Le Bertre, T. 1997, A\&A, 324, 1059

597: \bibitem[Le Bertre, Gougeon \& Le Sidaner(1995)]{lebert95}

598: Le Bertre, T., Gougeon, S. \& Le Sidaner, P. 1995, A\&A, 299, 791

599: \bibitem[Lorenz-Martins et al.(2001)]{lorenz01}

600: Lorenz-Martins, S., de Ara\'ujo, F. X., Codina Landaberry, S. J., de Almeida, W. G. \& de Nader, R. V. 2001, A\&A, 367, 189

601: \bibitem[Mathis, Rumpl \& Nordsieck(1977)]{mathis77}

602: Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W. \& Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, \apj, 217, 425

603: \bibitem[Mauron \& Huggins(2000)]{mauron00}

604: Mauron, N. \& Huggins, P. J. 2000, A\&A, 359, 707

605: \bibitem[Monnier(2003)]{mon03}

606: Monnier, J.D. 2003, Rep. Prog. Phys., 66, 789

607: \bibitem[Nather \& McCants(1970)]{nather70}

608: Nather, R. E. \& McCants, M. M. 1970, AJ, 75, 963

609: \bibitem[Olofsson et al.(1996)]{oloff96}

610: Olofsson, H., Bergman, P., Eriksson, K. \& Gustafsson, B. 1996, A\&A, 311, 587

611: \bibitem[Quirrenbach(2004)]{quir04}

612: Quirrenbach, A. 2004, Adv. Sp. Res., 34, 524

613: \bibitem[Richichi et al.(1995)]{rich95}

614: Richichi, A. et al. 1995, A\&A, 301, 439

615: \bibitem[Schr\"oder et al.(1998)]{schroder98}

616: Schr\"oder, K.-P., Winters, J. M., Arndt, T. U. \& Sedlmayr, E. 1998, A\&A, 335, L9

617: \bibitem[Schmidtke, P. C. et al. (1986)]{schmid86}

618: Schmidtke, P. C. et al. 1986, \aj, 91, 961

619: \bibitem[Scholz(2003)]{scholz03}

620: Scholz, M. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4838, 163

621: \bibitem[Suh(1997)]{suh97}

622: Suh, K. Y. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 559

623: \bibitem[Thompson, Creech-Eakman \& van Belle(2003)]{thomp03}

624: Thompson, R.R., Creech-Eakman, M.J. \& van Belle, G.T. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4838, 221

625: \bibitem[van Belle(1999)]{vanbelle99}

626: van Belle, G.T. 1999, PASP, 111, 1515

627: \bibitem[Volk \& Cohen(1989)]{volk89}

628: Volk, K. \& Cohen, M. 1989, AJ, 98, 931

629: \bibitem[Wallerstein \& Knapp(1998)]{walknapp98}

630: Wallerstein, G. \& Knapp, G. R. 1998, ARAA, 36, 369

631: \bibitem[Winters et al.(1997)]{winters97}

632: Winters, J. M., Fleischer, A. J., Le Bertre, T. \& Sedlmayr, E. 1997, A\&A, 326, 305

633: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Dyck(1986)]{zuck86}

634: Zuckerman, B. \& Dyck, M. 1986, \apj, 311, 345

635: 

636: \end{thebibliography}

637: 

638: \clearpage

639: 

640: 

641: \begin{figure}

642: \plotfiddle{f1.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

643: \figcaption{\label{hatlams} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for the

644: 4.5 mas uniform disk model of IRC+00233 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.

645: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.}

646: \end{figure}

647: %\clearpage

648: 

649: \begin{figure}

650: \plotfiddle{f2.eps}{5.0in}{90}{65}{65}{270}{0}

651: \figcaption{\label{hatchi} Plots of the $\chi^2$ (solid) for the model fit of the 4.5 mas uniform disk to the observed

652: light curve for IRC+00233 over the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.  The observed signal-to-noise

653: ratio is also shown (dashed) as a function of wavelength for comparison.}

654: \end{figure}

655: %\clearpage

656: 

657: \begin{figure}

658: \plotfiddle{f3.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

659: \figcaption{\label{hatlamshd} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for the

660: 2.0 mas uniform disk model of HD155292 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.

661: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.}

662: \end{figure}

663: %\clearpage

664: 

665: \begin{figure}

666: \plotfiddle{f4.eps}{5.0in}{90}{65}{65}{270}{0}

667: \figcaption{\label{hatchihd} Plots of the $\chi^2$ (solid) for the model fit of the 2.0 mas uniform disk to the observed

668: light curve for HD155292 over the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.  The observed signal-to-noise

669: ratio is also shown (dashed) as a function of wavelength for comparison.}

670: \end{figure}

671: %\clearpage

672: 

673: \begin{figure}

674: \plotfiddle{f5.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

675: \figcaption{\label{hat11lams} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for the

676: 11 mas uniform disk model for AFGL 5440 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.

677: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.}

678: \end{figure}

679: %\clearpage

680: 

681: \begin{figure}

682: \plotfiddle{f6.eps}{5.0in}{90}{65}{65}{240}{0}

683: \figcaption{\label{hat11chi} Plots of the $\chi^2$ (solid) for the model fit of the 11 mas uniform disk to the observed

684: light curve for AFGL 5440 over the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.  The observed signal-to-noise

685: ratio is also shown (dashed) as a function of wavelength for comparison.}

686: \end{figure}

687: %\clearpage

688: 

689: \begin{figure}

690: \plotfiddle{f7.eps}{5.0in}{0}{100}{100}{-310}{-100}

691: \figcaption{\label{sedbest} Plot of the observed spectral energy distribution of AFGL 5440 versus that predicted

692: by model 194, the best fit model.  The open diamonds show the values from \citet{guand06} and \citet{gug93}.  The light

693: grey line indicates the IRAS LRS spectrum.}

694: \end{figure}

695: %\clearpage

696: 

697: \begin{figure}

698: \plotfiddle{f8.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

699: \figcaption{\label{bestlams} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for model 194

700: for AFGL 5440 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.

701: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.}

702: \end{figure}

703: %\clearpage

704: 

705: \begin{figure}

706: \plotfiddle{f9.eps}{5.0in}{90}{65}{65}{260}{0}

707: \figcaption{\label{bestchi} Plots of the $\chi^2$ (solid) for the fit of model 194 (the best fit) to the observed

708: light curve for AFGL 5440 over the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.  The observed signal-to-noise

709: ratio is also shown (dashed) as a function of wavelength for comparison.}

710: \end{figure}

711: %\clearpage

712: 

713: \begin{figure}

714: \plotfiddle{f10.eps}{5.0in}{0}{100}{100}{-330}{-90}

715: \figcaption{\label{liprobest} Plots of the model spatial distributions for AFGL 5440 predicted

716: by model 194, the best fit model.  The curves are drawn for 1.0 and 1.2\micron\ (solid, 1.0\micron\ is the more extended),

717: and 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4,

718: 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, and 4.0\micron, with the longest wavelengths being the most extended of these.}

719: \end{figure}

720: %\clearpage

721: 

722: \begin{figure}

723: \plotfiddle{f11.eps}{5.0in}{0}{100}{100}{-310}{-100}

724: \figcaption{\label{sedbestamorph} Plot of the observed spectral energy distribution of AFGL 5440 versus that predicted

725: by model 200, the best fit model that does not use graphite as for fig. \ref{sedbest}.}

726: \end{figure}

727: %\clearpage

728: 

729: \begin{figure}

730: \plotfiddle{f12.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

731: \figcaption{\label{bestlamsamorph} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for model 200

732: for AFGL 5440 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.

733: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.}

734: \end{figure}

735: %\clearpage

736: 

737: \begin{figure}

738: \plotfiddle{f13.eps}{5.0in}{0}{100}{100}{-310}{-100}

739: \figcaption{\label{sedbad} Plot of the observed spectral energy distribution of AFGL 5440 versus that predicted

740: by model 206, illustrating the fit for a shell with a cooler inner dust temperature as for fig. \ref{sedbest}.}

741: \end{figure}

742: %\clearpage

743: 

744: \begin{figure}

745: \plotfiddle{f14.eps}{8.0in}{180}{75}{75}{220}{590}

746: \figcaption{\label{badlams} Plots of observed light curves (crosses) versus computed model light curves for model 206

747: for AFGL 5440 at a sampling of the range of wavelengths observed between 1 and 4\micron.  

748: In each panel the lower curve of triangles shows the difference of observed minus model.

749: Note the larger residuals

750: at the longer wavelengths than for the best fit model 194.}

751: \end{figure}

752: %\clearpage

753: 

754: %\section{Data Reduction}\label{reduce}

755: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

756: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

757: %% To embed the sample graphics in

758: 

759: \end{document}

760: 

761: