1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \shorttitle{Spectroscopy of U Gem} \shortauthors{Echevarr\'\i{}a et
5: al.}
6:
7: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
8: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12:
13: \title{U Geminorum: a test case for orbital parameters determination}
14:
15: \author{Juan Echevarr\'\i{}a\altaffilmark{1}, Eduardo de la Fuente\altaffilmark{2}
16: and Rafael Costero\altaffilmark{3}}
17: \affil{Instituto de Astronom\'\i{}a, {\it Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico},\\
18: Apartado Postal 70-264, M\'exico, D.F., M\'exico}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{email: jer@astroscu.unam.mx}
21: \altaffiltext{2}{present address: Departamento de F\'\i{}sica,
22: CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara. Av. Revoluci\'on 1500 S/R
23: Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
24: email: edfuente@astro.iam.udg.mx}
25: \altaffiltext{3}{email: costero@astroscu.unam.mx}
26:
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29:
30: High-resolution spectroscopy of \object{U Gem} was obtained during
31: quiescence. We did not find a hot spot or gas stream around the
32: outer boundaries of the accretion disk. Instead, we detected a
33: strong narrow emission near the location of the secondary star. We
34: measured the radial velocity curve from the wings of the
35: double-peaked H$\alpha$ emission line, and obtained a
36: semi-amplitude value that is in excellent agreement with the
37: obtained from observations in the ultraviolet spectral region by
38: \citet{sio98}. We present also a new method to obtain $K_2$, which
39: enhances the detection of absorption or emission features arising in
40: the late-type companion. Our results are compared with published
41: values derived from the near-infrared NaI line doublet. From a
42: comparison of the TiO band with those of late type M stars, we find
43: that a best fit is obtained for a M6\,V star, contributing 5 percent
44: of the total light at that spectral region. Assuming that the radial
45: velocity semi-amplitudes reflect accurately the motion of the binary
46: components, then from our results: $ K_{em} = 107 \pm 2$ km
47: s$^{-1}$; $K_{abs} = 310 \pm 5$ km s$^{-1}$, and using the
48: inclination angle given by \citet{zha87}; $i = 69.7^\circ \pm 0.7$,
49: the system parameters become: $ M_{WD} = 1.20 \pm 0.05 \,
50: M_{\odot}$; $M_{RD} = 0.42 \pm 0.04 \, M_{\odot}$; and $ a = 1.55
51: \pm 0.02 \, R_{\odot}$. Based on the separation of the double
52: emission peaks, we calculate an outer disk radius of $R_{out}/a \sim
53: 0.61 $, close to the distance of the inner Lagrangian point $L_1/a
54: \sim 0.63$. Therefore we suggest that, at the time of observations,
55: the accretion disk was filling the Roche-Lobe of the primary, and
56: that the matter leaving the $L_1$ point was colliding with the disc
57: directly, producing the hot spot at this location.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{binaries: close --- novae, cataclysmic variables --- stars: individual (U Geminorum)}
62:
63: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}
64:
65: Discovered by \citet{hin56}, U Geminorum is the prototype of a
66: subclass of dwarf novae, a descriptive term suggested by
67: \citet{pay38} due to the small scale similarity of the outbursts in
68: these objects to those of Novae.
69:
70: After the work by \citet{kra62}, who found U~Gem to be a
71: single-lined spectroscopic binary with an orbital period around
72: 4.25~hr, and from the studies by \citet{krz65}, who establish the
73: eclipsing nature of this binary, \citet{wan71} and \citet{sma71},
74: established the classical model for Cataclysmic Variable stars. The
75: model includes a white dwarf primary surrounded by a disc accreted
76: from a Roche-Lobe filling late-type secondary star. The stream of
77: material, coming through the L$_1$ point intersects the edge of the
78: disc producing a bright spot, which can contribute a large fraction
79: of the visual flux. The bright spot is observed as a strong hump in
80: the light curves of U Gem and precedes a partial eclipse of the
81: accretion disk and bright spot themselves (the white dwarf is not
82: eclipsed in this object).
83:
84: A mean recurrence time for U Gem outbursts of $\approx$ 118 days,
85: with $\Delta$m$_V$=5 and outburst width of 12~d, was first found by
86: \citet{szk84}. However, recent analysis shows that the object has a
87: complex outburst behavior \citep{coo87, mat87, can02}.
88: \citet{sma04}, using the AAVSO data on the 1985 outburst, has
89: discovered the presence of super-humps, a fact that challenges the
90: current theories of super-outbursts and super-humps for long period
91: system with mass ratios above 1/3. The latter author also points out
92: the fact that calculations of the radius of the disc -- obtained
93: from the separation of the emission peaks \citep{kra75} in
94: quiescence -- are in disagreement with the calculations of the disc
95: radii obtained from the photometric eclipse data \citep{sma01}.
96:
97: Several radial velocity studies have been conducted since the first
98: results published by \citet{kra62}. In the visible spectral range,
99: where the secondary star has not been detected, their results are
100: mainly based on spectroscopic radial velocity analysis of the
101: emission lines arising from the accretion disc \citep{kra62, sma76,
102: sto81, und06}. In other wavelengths, works are based on absorption
103: lines: in the near-infrared, on the Na I doublet from the secondary
104: star \citep{wad81, fri90, nay05} and in the ultraviolet, on lines
105: coming from the white dwarf itself \citep{sio98, lon99}.
106:
107: Although the research work on U Gem has been of paramount importance
108: in our understanding of cataclysmic variables, the fact that it is a
109: partially-eclipsed and -- in the visual range -- a single-lined
110: spectroscopic binary, make the determination of its physical
111: parameters difficult to achieve through precise measurements of the
112: semi-amplitudes $K_{1,2}$ and of the inclination angle $i$ of the
113: orbit. Spectroscopic results of $K_{1,2}$ differ in the
114: ultraviolet, visual and infrared ranges. Therefore, auxiliary
115: assumptions have been used to derive its more fundamental parameters
116: \citep{sma01}. In this paper we present a value of $K_{1}$, obtained
117: from our high-dispersion Echelle spectra, which is in agreement with
118: the ultraviolet results, and of $K_{2}$ from a new method applicable
119: to optical spectroscopy. By chance, the system was observed at a
120: peculiar low state, when the classical hot spot was absent.
121:
122: \section{Observations}
123:
124: U Geminorum was observed in 1999, January 15 with the Echelle
125: spectrograph at the f/7.5 Cassegrain focus of the 2.1 m telescope of
126: the Observatorio Astr\'onomico Nacional at San Pedro M\'artir, B.C.,
127: M\'exico. A Thomson 2048$\times$2048 CCD was used to cover the
128: spectral range between $\lambda$5200 and $\lambda$9100 \AA, with
129: spectral resolution of R=18,000. An echellette grating of 150 l/mm,
130: with Blaze around 7000 \AA~, was used. The observations were
131: obtained at quiescence ($V \approx 14$), about 20 d after a broad
132: outburst (data provided by the AAVSO: www.aavso.org). The spectra
133: show a strong H$\alpha$ emission line. No absorption features were
134: detected from the secondary star. A first complete orbital cycle was
135: covered through twenty-one spectra, each with 10~min exposure time.
136: Thirteen further spectra were subsequently acquired with an exposure
137: of 5~min each. The latter cover an additional half orbital period.
138: The heliocentric mid-time of each observation is shown in column one
139: in Table~\ref{tab:RadVel}. The flux standard HR17520 and the late
140: spectral M star HR3950 were also observed on the same night. Data
141: reduction was carried out with the IRAF package\footnote {IRAF is
142: distributed by the National Optical Observatories, operated by the
143: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
144: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}. The
145: spectra were wavelength calibrated using a Th-Ar lamp and the
146: standard star was also used to properly subtract the telluric absorption
147: lines using the IRAF routine {\it telluric}.
148:
149: \section{Radial Velocities}
150:
151: In this section we derive radial velocities from the prominent
152: H$\alpha$ emission line observed in U Gem, first by measuring the
153: peaks, secondly by using a method based on a cross-correlating
154: technique, and thirdly by using the standard double-Gaussian
155: technique designed to measure only the wings of the line. In the
156: case of the secondary star, we were unable to detect any single
157: absorption line in the individual spectra; therefore it was not
158: possible to use any standard method. However, here we propose and
159: use a new method, based on a co-adding technique, to derive the
160: semi-amplitude of the orbital radial velocity of the companion star.
161: In this section, we compare our results with published values for
162: both components in the binary. We first discuss the basic
163: mathematical method used here to derive the orbital parameters and
164: its limitation in the context of Cataclysmic Variables; then we
165: present our results for the orbital parameters -- calculated from
166: the different methods -- and finally discuss an improved ephemeris
167: for U Gem.
168:
169: \subsection{Orbital Parameters Calculations} \label{orbparcal}
170:
171: To find the orbital parameters of the components in a cataclysmic
172: variable -- in which no eccentricity is expected \citep{zah66,
173: war95} -- we use an equation of the form
174: $$\mathrm{V(t)_{(em,abs)}} = \gamma + \mathrm{K_{(em,abs)}} sin[(2\pi(t - \mathrm{HJD_{\odot})/P_{orb}})],$$
175:
176: where $\mathrm{V(t)_{(em,abs)}}$ are the observed radial velocities
177: as measured from the emission lines in the accretion disc or from
178: the absorption lines of the red star; $\gamma$ is the systemic
179: velocity; $\mathrm{K_{(em,abs)}}$ are the corresponding
180: semi-amplitudes derived from the radial velocity curve;
181: $\mathrm{HJD_{\odot}}$ is the heliocentric Julian time of the
182: inferior conjunction of the companion; and $\mathrm{P_{orb}}$ is the
183: orbital period of the binary.
184:
185: A minimum least-squares sinusoidal fit is run, which uses initial
186: values for the four ($\mathrm{P_{orb}}$, $\gamma$,
187: $\mathrm{K_{em,abs}}$, and $\mathrm{HJD_{\odot}}$) orbital
188: parameters. The program allows for one or more of these variables to
189: be fixed, i.e. they can be set to constant values in the initial
190: parameters file.
191:
192: If the orbital period is not previously known, a frequency search --
193: using a variety of methods for evenly- or unevenly-sampled time
194: series data \citep{sch99} -- may be applied to the measured radial
195: velocities in order to obtain an initial value for
196: $\mathrm{P_{orb}}$, which is then used in the minimum least-squares
197: sinusoidal fit. If the time coverage of the observations is not
198: sufficient or is uneven, period aliases may appear and their values
199: have to be considered in the least-squares fits. A tentative
200: orbital period is selected by comparing the quality of each result.
201: In these cases, additional radial velocity observations should be
202: sought, until the true orbital period is found unequivocally. Time
203: series photometric observations are usually helpful to find orbital
204: modulations and are definitely important in establishing the orbital
205: period of eclipsing binaries. In the case of U Gem, the presence of
206: eclipses and the ample photometric coverage since the early work of
207: \citet{krz65}, has permitted to establish its orbital period with a
208: high degree of accuracy \citep{mar90}. Although in eclipsing
209: binaries a zero phase is also usually determined, in the case of
210: U~Gem the variable positions of the hot spot and stream, causes the
211: zero point to oscillate, as mentioned by the latter authors.
212: Accurate spectroscopic observations are necessary to correctly
213: establish the time when the secondary star is closest to Earth, i.e
214: in inferior conjunction. Further discussion on this subject is given
215: in section~\ref{ephem}.
216:
217: To obtain the real semi-amplitudes of the binary, i.e
218: K$_{(em,abs)}$=K$_{(1,2)}$, some reasonable auxiliary assumptions
219: are made. First, that the measurements of the emission lines,
220: produced in the accretion disc, are free from distortions and
221: accurately follow the orbital motion of the unseen white dwarf.
222: Second, that the profiles of the measured absorption lines are
223: symmetric, which implies that the brightness at the surface of the
224: secondary star is the same for all its longitudes and latitudes.
225: Certainly, a hot spot in the disc or irradiation in the secondary
226: from the energy sources related to the primary will invalidate
227: either the first, the second, or both assumptions. Corrections may
228: be introduced if these effects are present. In the case of U Gem, a
229: three-body correction was introduced by \citet{sma76} in order to
230: account for the radial velocity distortion produced by the hot spot,
231: and a correction to heating effects on the face of the secondary
232: star facing the primary was applied by \citet{fri90} before equating
233: $\mathrm{K_{abs}} = \mathrm{K_{2}}$.
234:
235: As initial values in our least-squared sinusoidal fits, we use
236: $\mathrm{P_{orb}} = 0.1769061911~d$ and $\mathrm{HJD_{\odot}} =
237: 2,437,638.82325~d$ from \citet{mar90}, a systemic velocity of 42 km
238: s$^{-1}$ from \citet{sma01}, and K$_1 = 107$ km s$^{-1}$ and K$_2 =
239: 295$ km s$^{-1}$ from \citet{lon99} and \citet{fri90}, respectively.
240: In our calculations, the orbital period was set fixed at the above
241: mentioned value, since our observations have a very limited time
242: coverage. This allow us to increase the precision for the other
243: three parameters.
244:
245: \begin{table}
246: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.8em} % increase intercolumn space
247: \begin{center}
248: \caption{Measured H$\alpha$ Radial Velocities.}
249: \label{tab:RadVel}
250: \begin{tabular}{llrrr}
251: \hline
252: \hline
253: \noalign{\smallskip}
254: HJD & $\phi\tablenotemark{*}$ & Peaks\tablenotemark{a} & Fxc\tablenotemark{b} & Wings\tablenotemark{c} \\
255: (240000+) & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{(km s$^{-1}$)} \\
256: \tableline
257: \noalign{\smallskip}
258: 51193.67651 & 0.68 & 166.1 & 139.1 & 121.1 \\
259: 51193.68697 & 0.75 & 183.4 & 130.0 & 133.8 \\
260: 51193.69679 & 0.80 & 181.9 & 125.0 & 126.9 \\
261: 51193.70723 & 0.86 & 167.9 & 102.0 & 101.1 \\
262: 51193.71744 & 0.92 & 137.1 & 81.7 & 90.9 \\
263: 51193.72726 & 0.97 & 90.0 & 46.8 & 41.7 \\
264: 51193.73581 & 0.02 & 14.0 & -17.9 & 6.9 \\
265: 51193.74700 & 0.09 & -47.9 & -48.1 & -27.1 \\
266: 51193.75691 & 0.14 & -67.1 & -66.7 & -48.2 \\
267: 51193.76743 & 0.20 & -99.6 & -84.6 & -79.3 \\
268: 51193.77738 & 0.26 & -132.3 & -86.1 & -75.7 \\
269: 51193.78900 & 0.32 & -152.6 & -60.2 & -48.8 \\
270: 51193.80174 & 0.39 & -77.9 & -32.9 & -33.6 \\
271: 51193.81211 & 0.45 & 9.0 & 10.9 & 14.5 \\
272: 51193.82196 & 0.51 & 104.3 & 79.2 & 65.1 \\
273: 51193.83176 & 0.56 & 134.6 & 113.7 & 107.0 \\
274: 51193.84175 & 0.62 & 141.0 & 142.8 & 124.9 \\
275: 51193.85156 & 0.67 & 159.3 & 158.6 & 147.6 \\
276: 51193.86133 & 0.73 & 165.6 & 148.0 & 131.7 \\
277: 51193.87101 & 0.79 & 192.9 & 142.8 & 130.3 \\
278: 51193.88116 & 0.84 & 175.0 & 120.7 & 110.6 \\
279: 51193.88306 & 0.91 & 154.6 & 106.5 & 91.1 \\
280: 51193.90530 & 0.98 & 90.6 & 32.3 & 31.9 \\
281: 51193.91751 & 0.05 & -70.5 & 8.0 & -23.1 \\
282: 51193.93029 & 0.12 & -88.5 & -71.8 & -51.6 \\
283: 51193.94259 & 0.19 & -97.1 & -79.0 & -66.7 \\
284: 51193.95483 & 0.26 & -114.4 & -88.8 & -75.6 \\
285: 51193.95955 & 0.29 & -142.2 & -70.9 & -67.9 \\
286:
287: \end{tabular}
288:
289: \tablenotetext{*}{Orbital phases derived from the ephemeris given in
290: section~\ref{ephem}} \tablenotetext{a}{Velocities derived as
291: described in section~\ref{double-peaks}}
292: \tablenotetext{b}{Velocities derived as described in
293: section~\ref{template}} \tablenotetext{c}{Velocities derived as
294: described in section~\ref{hdgram}}
295:
296: \end{center}
297: \end{table}
298:
299: \begin{table}
300: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em} % increase intercolumn space
301: \begin{center}
302: \caption{Orbital parameters derived from several radial
303: velocities calculations of the H$\alpha$ emission line.}
304: \label{OrbParam}
305: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
306: \hline
307: \hline
308: \noalign{\smallskip}
309: Orbital & Peaks~(a) & Fxc~(b) & Wings~(c) \\
310: Parameters \\
311: \tableline
312: \noalign{\smallskip}
313: $\gamma$ (km s$^{-1}$) & 38 $\pm$ 5 & 35 $\pm$ 3 & 34 $\pm$ 2 \\
314: $K$ (km s$^{-1}$) & 162 $\pm$ 7 & 119 $\pm$ 3 & 107 $\pm$ 2 \\
315: $\mathrm{HJD_{\odot}}$ & 0.8259(2) & 0.82462(6) & 0.82152(9) \\
316: (+2437638 days) \\
317: $P_\mathrm{orb}$ (days) & (d) & (d) & (d) \\
318: ${\sigma}$ & 25.2 & 12.2 & 9.1 \\
319: \end{tabular}
320:
321: \tablenotetext{a}{Derived from measurements of the double-peaks}
322: \tablenotetext{b}{Derived from cross correlation methods}
323: \tablenotetext{c}{Results from the fitting of fixed double gaussians
324: to the wings} \tablenotetext{d}{Period fixed, P=0.1769061911~d}
325:
326: \end{center}
327: \end{table}
328:
329: \subsection{The Primary Star} \label{prim}
330:
331:
332: In this section we compare three methods for determining the radial
333: velocity of the primary star, based on measurements of the H$\alpha$
334: emission line. Although, as we will see in the next subsections, the
335: last method results in far better accuracy and agrees with the
336: ultraviolet results, we have included all of them here because the
337: first method essentially provides an accurate way to determine the
338: separations of the blue and red peaks, which is an indicator of the
339: outer radius of the disc \citep{sma01}, and the second yields a
340: $K_{em}$ value much closer to that obtained from UV results than any
341: other published method. This cross-correlation method might be
342: worthwhile to consider for its use in other objects. Furthermore, as we will see in
343: the discussion, all three methods yield a consistent value of the systemic
344: velocity, which is essential to the understanding of other
345: parameters in the binary system.
346:
347: To match the signal to noise ratio of the first twenty-one spectra,
348: we have co-added, in pairs, the thirteen 5-minute exposures. The
349: last three spectra were added to form two different spectra, in
350: order to avoid losing the last single spectrum. A handicap to this
351: approach is that, due to the large read-out time of the Thomson CCD,
352: we are effectively smearing the phase coverage of the co-added
353: spectra to nearly 900~s. However, the mean heliocentric time was
354: accordingly corrected for each sum. This adds to a total sample of
355: twenty-eight 600~s spectra.
356:
357:
358: \subsubsection{Measurements from the double-peaks} \label{double-peaks}
359:
360: We have measured the position of the peaks using a double-gaussian
361: fit, with their separation, width and position as free parameters.
362: The results yield a mean half-peak separation $V_{out}$ of about
363: 460~km~s$^{-1}$. The average value of the velocities of the red and
364: blue peaks, for each spectrum, is shown in column 3 of
365: Table~\ref{tab:RadVel}. We then applied our nonlinear least-squares
366: fit to these radial velocities. The obtained orbital parameters are
367: shown in column 2 of Table~\ref{OrbParam}. The numbers in
368: parentheses after the zero point results are the evaluated errors of
369: the last digit. We will use this notation for large numbers
370: throughout the paper. The radial velocities are also shown in
371: Figure~\ref{fig:dob-peak}, folded with the orbital period and the
372: time of inferior conjunction adopted in the section~\ref{ephem}. The
373: solid lines in this figure correspond to sinusoidal fits using the
374: derived parameters in our program. Although we have not
375: independently tabulated the measured velocities of the blue and red
376: peaks, they are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dob-peak} together with
377: their average. The semi-amplitudes of the plotted curves are 154 km
378: s$^{-1}$ and 167 km s$^{-1}$ for the blue and red peaks,
379: respectively.
380:
381: \begin{figure}[!]
382: \begin{center}
383: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
384: \caption{Radial velocity curve of the double peaks.
385: The half-separation of the peaks, shown at the top of the diagram
386: has a mean value of about 460 km s$^{-1}$. The curve at the middle
387: is the mean from blue (bottom curve) and red (top curve).}
388: \label{fig:dob-peak}
389: \end{center}
390: \end{figure}
391:
392:
393: \subsubsection{Cross Correlation using a Template} \label{template}
394:
395: \begin{figure}[!]
396: \begin{center}
397: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,angle=90]{f2.eps}
398: \caption{
399: H$\alpha$ template near phase 0.02. The half-separation of the peaks
400: has a value of 470 km~s$^{-1}$. }
401: \label{fig:halfxc}
402: \end{center}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405: We have also cross-correlated the H$\alpha$ line in our spectra with
406: a template constructed as follows: First, we selected a spectrum
407: from the first observed orbital cycle close to phase 0.02 when, in
408: the case of our observations, we should expect a minimum distortion in the double-peaked
409: line due to asymmetric components (see section~\ref{tom}). The blue
410: peak in this spectrum is slightly stronger than the red one. This
411: is probably caused by the hot spot near the $L_1$ point (see
412: section~\ref{ugemb}), which might be visible at this phase due to
413: the fact that the binary has an inclination angle smaller than 70
414: degrees. The half-separation of the peaks is 470 km
415: s$^{-1}$, a value similar to that measured in a spectrum taken
416: during the same orbital phase in next cycle. The chosen spectrum was then
417: highly smoothed to minimize high-frequency correlations. The
418: resulting template is shown in Figure \ref{fig:halfxc}. A radial
419: velocity for the template was derived from the wavelength measured
420: at the dip between the two peaks and corrected to give an
421: heliocentric velocity. The IRAF {\it fxc} task was then used to
422: derive the radial velocities, which are shown in column 4 of
423: Table~\ref{tab:RadVel}. As in the previous section, we have fitted
424: the radial velocities with our nonlinear least-squares fit
425: algorithm. The resulting orbital parameters are given in column 3 of
426: Table~\ref{OrbParam}. In Figure~\ref{fig:rvhalfxc} the obtained
427: velocities and the corresponding sinusoidal fit (solid line) are
428: plotted.
429:
430: \begin{figure}[!]
431: \begin{center}
432: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f3.eps}
433: \caption{Radial velocities obtained from cross correlation using the template.
434: The solid line correspond to the solution from column 3 in Table 2.}
435: \label{fig:rvhalfxc}
436: \end{center}
437: \end{figure}
438:
439: \begin{figure}[t]
440: \begin{center}
441: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f4.eps}
442: \caption{\footnotesize Diagnostic Diagram One. Orbital Parameters as a function of width of individual
443: Gaussians for several separations. Crosses correspond to a = 180 pixels; Dots to a = 230 pixels
444: ($\approx 34 \, \rm{\AA}$) and Open circles to a = 280 pixels; }
445: \label{fig:diag1}
446: \end{center}
447: \end{figure}
448:
449:
450: \subsubsection{Measurements from the wings and Diagnostic Diagrams} \label{hdgram}
451:
452: The H$\alpha$ emission line was additionally measured using the
453: standard double Gaussian technique and its diagnostic diagrams, as
454: described in \citet{sha86}. We refer to this paper for the details
455: on the interpretation of our results. We have used the {\it
456: convolve} routine from the IRAF {\it rvsao} package, kindly made
457: available to us by Thorstensen (private communication). The double
458: peaked H$\alpha$ emission line -- with a separation of about
459: $20\,\rm{\AA}$ -- shows broad wings reaching up to $40\, \rm{\AA}$
460: from the line center. Unlike the case of low resolution spectra --
461: where for over-sampled data the fitting is made with individual
462: Gaussians having a FWHM of about one resolution element -- in our
463: spectra, with resolution $\approx$ 0.34 $\rm{\AA}$, such Gaussians
464: would be inadequately narrow, as they will cover only a very small
465: region in the wings. To measure the wings appropriately and, at the
466: same time, avoid possible low velocity asymmetric features, we must
467: select a $\sigma$ value which fits the line regions corresponding to
468: disc velocities from about 700 to 1000 $\rm{ km s^{-1}}$.
469:
470: As a first step, we evaluated the width of the Gaussians by setting
471: this as a free parameter from 10 to 40 pixels and for a wide range
472: of Gaussian separations (between 180 and 280 pixels). For each run,
473: we applied a nonlinear least-squares fit of the computed radial
474: velocities to sinusoids of the form described in
475: section~\ref{orbparcal}. The results are shown in
476: Figure~\ref{fig:diag1}, in particular for three different Gaussian
477: separations: $a = 180$, 230 and 280 pixels. These correspond to the
478: low and upper limits as well as to the value for a preferred
479: solution, all of which are self-consistent with the second step (see
480: below). In the bottom panel of the figure we have plotted the
481: overall rms value for each least-squares fit, as this parameter is
482: very sensitive to the selected Gaussian separations. As expected at
483: this high spectral resolution, the parameters in the diagram change
484: rapidly for low values of $\sigma$, and there are even cases when no
485: solution was found. At low values of $a$ (e.g. crosses) there are no
486: solutions for widths narrower than 20 pixels. The rms values
487: increase rapidly with width, while the $\sigma(K)/K$, $\gamma$ and
488: phase shift values differ strongly from the other cases. For higher
489: values of $a$ (open circles) we obtain lower values for
490: $\sigma(K)/K$, but the rms results are still large, in particular
491: for intermediate values of the width of the Gaussians. For the
492: middle solution (dots) the results are comparable with those for
493: large $a$ values, but the rms is much lower. Similar results were
494: found for other intermediate values of $a$, and they all converge to
495: a minimum rms for a width of 26 pixels at $a = 230$ pixels.
496:
497: For the second step we have fixed the width to a value of 26~$\rm{\AA}$
498: and ran the double-Gaussian program for a range of $a$ separations,
499: from about 60 to 120 $\rm{\AA}$. The results obtained are shown in
500: Figure~\ref{fig:diag2}.
501:
502: \begin{figure}[t]
503: \begin{center}
504: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f5.eps}
505: \caption{Diagnostic Diagram Two. The best estimate of the semi-amplitude of
506: the white dwarf is 107 km s$^{-1}$, corresponding to a $\approx 34 \, \rm{\AA}$.}
507: \label{fig:diag2}
508: \end{center}
509: \end{figure}
510:
511: If only an asymmetric low velocity component is present, the
512: semi-amplitude should decrease asymptotically as $a$ increases,
513: until $K_1$ reaches the correct value. Here we observe such
514: behavior, although for larger values of $a$, there is a $K_1$
515: increase for values of $a$ up to $40 \,\rm{\AA}$, before it
516: decreases strongly with high values of $a$. This behavior might be
517: due to the fact that we are observing a narrow hot-spot near the
518: $L_1$ point (see section~\ref{tom}). On the other hand, as expected,
519: the $\sigma(K)/K$ vs $a$ curve has a change in slope, at a value of
520: $a$ for which the individual Gaussians have reached the velocity
521: width of the line at the continuum. For larger values of $a$ the
522: velocity measurements become dominated by noise. For low values of
523: $a$, the phase shift usually gives spurious results, although in our
524: case it approaches a stable value around 0.015. We believe this
525: value reflects the difference between the eclipse ephemeris, which
526: is based mainly on the eclipse of the hot spot, and the true
527: inferior conjunction of the secondary star. This problem is further
528: discussed in section~\ref{tom}. Finally, we must point out that the
529: systemic velocity smoothly increases up to a maximum of about
530: 40~km~s$^{-1}$ at Gaussian separation of nearly 42~\AA, while the
531: best results, as seen from the Figure, are obtained for $a$~=~31\AA.
532: This discrepancy may be also be related to the narrow hot-spot near
533: the $L_1$ point and might be due to the phase-shift between the
534: hot-spot eclipse and the true inferior conjunction. This problem
535: will also be address in section~\ref{ephem}. The radial velocities,
536: corresponding to the adopted solution, are shown in column 5 of
537: Table~\ref{tab:RadVel} and plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:velrad}, while
538: the corresponding orbital parameters -- obtained from the nonlinear
539: least-squares fit -- are given in column 4 of Table~\ref{OrbParam}.
540:
541: \begin{figure}[t]
542: \begin{center}
543: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f6.eps}
544: \caption{Radial velocities for U Gem. The open circles correspond
545: to the measurements of the first 21 spectra single spectra,
546: while the dots correspond to those of the co-added spectra
547: (see section~\ref{prim}). The solid line, close to the
548: points, correspond to the solution with
549: $K_{em} = 107 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$ (see text), while the
550: large amplitude line correspond to the solution found for
551: $K_2$ (see section~\ref{secon}). }
552: \label{fig:velrad}
553: \end{center}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556:
557:
558: \subsection[]{The Secondary Star} \label{secon}
559:
560: We were unable to detect single features from the secondary star in
561: any individual spectra, after careful correction for telluric lines.
562: In particular we found no radial
563: velocity results using a standard cross-correlation technique near
564: the NaI $\lambda\lambda 8183.3, \, 8194.8 \, \mathrm{\AA}$ doublet.
565: As we will see below, this doublet was very weak compared with
566: previous observations \citep{wad81, fri90, nay05}. We have been
567: able, however, to detect the NaI doublet and the TiO Head band
568: around $\lambda$7050~\AA~with a new technique, which enables us to
569: derive the semi-amplitude $K_{abs}$ of the secondary star velocity
570: curve. We first present here the general method for deriving the
571: semi-amplitude and then apply it to U Gem, using not only the
572: absorption features but the $H\alpha$ emission as well.
573:
574: \subsubsection{A new method to determine K$_2$} \label{secon}
575:
576: In many cataclysmic variables the secondary star is poorly visible, or even absent,
577: in the optical spectral range. Consequently, no $V(t)$
578: measurements are feasible for this component. Among these systems
579: are dwarf novae with orbital periods under 0.25 days, for which it
580: is thought that the disc luminosity dominates over the luminosity of
581: the Roche-Lobe filling secondary, whose brightness depends on the
582: orbital period of the binary \citep{ech84}. For such binaries, the
583: orbital parameters have been derived only for the white-dwarf-
584: accretion disc system, in a way similar to that described in
585: section~\ref{orbparcal}.
586:
587: In order to determine a value of $K_{abs}$ from a set of spectra of
588: a cataclysmic variable, for which the orbital period and time of
589: inferior conjunction have been already determined from the emission
590: lines, we propose to reverse the process: derive $V(t)_{abs}$ using
591: $K_{pr}$ as the initial value for the semi-amplitude, and set the
592: values of $P_{orb}$ and $\mathrm{HJD_{\odot}}$, derived from the
593: emission lines, as constants. The initial value for the systemic
594: velocity is set to zero, and its final value may be calculated later
595: (see below). The individual spectra are then {\it co-added} in the
596: frame of reference of the secondary star, i.e. by Doppler-shifting
597: the spectra using the calculated $V(t)_{calc}$ from the equation
598: given in section~\ref{orbparcal}, and then add them together.
599: Hereinafter we will refer to this procedure as the {\it co-phasing
600: process}. Ideally, as the proposed $K_{pr}$ is changed through a
601: range of possible values, there will be a one for which the {\it
602: co-phased} spectral features associated with the absorption spectrum
603: will have an optimal signal-to-noise ratio.
604:
605: In fact, this will also be the case for any emission line features
606: associated with the red star, if present. In a way, this process
607: works in a similar fashion as the double Gaussian fitting used in
608: the previous section, provided that adequate criteria are set in
609: order to select the best value for $K_{abs}$. We propose three
610: criteria or tests that, for late type stars, may be used with this
611: method: The first one consists in analyzing the behavior of the
612: measured depths or widths of a well identified absorption line in
613: the {\it co-phased} spectra, as a function of the proposed $K_{pr}$;
614: one would expect that the width of the line will show a minimum and
615: its depth a maximum value at the optimal solution. This method could
616: be particularly useful for K-type stars which have strong single
617: metallic lines like Ca I and Fe I. The second criterion is based
618: upon measurements of the slope of head-bands, like that of TiO at
619: $\lambda$7050~\AA. It should be relevant to short period systems,
620: with low mass M-type secondaries with spectra featuring strong
621: molecular bands. In this case one could expect that the slope of the
622: head-band will be a function of $K_{pr}$, and will have a maximum
623: negative value at the best solution. A third test is to measure the
624: strength of a narrow emission arising from the secondary. This
625: emission, if present, would be particularly visible in the {\it
626: co-phased} spectrum and will have minimum width and maximum height
627: at the best selected semi-amplitude $K_{pr}$.
628:
629: We have tested these three methods by means of an artificial spectrum
630: with simulated narrow absorption lines, a TiO-like head band and a
631: narrow emission line. The spectrum with these artificial features
632: was then Doppler shifted using pre-established inferior
633: conjunction phase and orbital period, to produce a series of test
634: spectra. An amount of random Gaussian noise was added to each
635: Doppler shifted spectrum, sufficient to mask the artificial
636: features. We then proceeded to apply the {\it co-phasing process} to
637: recover our pre-determined orbital values. All three criteria
638: reproduced back the original set of values, as long as the random
639: noise amplitude was of the same order of magnitude as the strength
640: of the {\it clean} artificial features.
641:
642: \subsubsection{Determination of K$_2$ for U Gem} \label{ugemb}
643:
644:
645: We have applied the above-mentioned criteria to U Gem. The time of
646: the inferior conjunction of the secondary and the orbital period
647: were taken from section~\ref{ephem}. To attain the best signal to
648: noise ratio we have used all the 28 observed spectra. Although they
649: span over slightly more than 1.5 orbital periods, any departure from
650: a real $K_2$ value will not depend on selecting data in exact
651: multiples of the orbital period, as any possible deviation from the
652: real semi-amplitude will already be present in one complete orbital
653: period and will depend mainly on the intrinsic intensity
654: distribution of the selected feature around the secondary itself
655: (also see below the results for $\gamma$).
656:
657: Figure \ref{fig:sodcor} shows the application of the first test
658: to the NaI doublet $\lambda\lambda$~8183,8195~\AA. The spectra were
659: {\it co-phased} varying $K_{pr}$ between 250 to 450 km~s$^{-1}$. The
660: line depth of the blue and red components of the doublet (stars and
661: open circles, respectively), as well as their mean value (dots) are
662: shown in the diagram. We find a best solution for
663: $K_2$~=~310~$\pm$~5~km~s$^{-1}$. The error has been estimated from
664: the intrinsic modulation of the solution curve. As it approaches its
665: maximum value, the line depth value oscillates slightly, but in the
666: same way for both lines. A similar behavior was present when low
667: signal to noise features were used on the artificial spectra process
668: described above. Figure~\ref{fig:sodspec} shows the {\it co-phased}
669: spectrum of the NaI doublet of our best solution for $K_2$. These
670: lines appear very weak as compared with those reported by
671: \citet{fri90} and \citet{nay05}. We have also measured the gamma
672: velocity from the co-phased spectrum by fitting a double-gaussian to
673: the Na~I doublet (dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig:sodcor}) and find a
674: mean value $\gamma = 69 \,\pm$ 10 km s$^{-1}$ (corrected to the
675: heliocentric standard of motion). We did a similar calculation for
676: $\gamma$ by {\it co-phasing} the selected spectra used in
677: section~\ref{tom}, covering a full cycle only. The results were very
678: similar to those obtained by using all spectra.
679:
680: \begin{figure}[!]
681: \begin{center}
682: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f7.eps}
683: \caption{Maximum flux depth of the individual NaI lines $\lambda 8183.3 \, \mathrm{\AA} $ (top),
684: $\lambda 8194.8 \, \mathrm{\AA}$ (bottom) and mean (middle) as a function of $K_{pr}$.}
685: \label{fig:sodcor}
686: \end{center}
687: \end{figure}
688:
689:
690: \begin{figure}[!]
691: \begin{center}
692: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,angle=90]{f8.eps}
693: \caption{Co-phased spectrum around the NaI doublet.}
694: \label{fig:sodspec}
695: \end{center}
696: \end{figure}
697:
698: The second test, to measure the slope of the TiO band has at
699: $\lambda$7050~\AA~was not successful. The solution curve oscillates
700: strongly near values between 250 and 350 ${\rm km \, s^{-1}}$. We
701: believe that the signal to noise ratio in our spectra is too poor for this test and
702: that more observations, accumulated during several orbital cycles,
703: have to be obtained in order to attain a reliable result using this
704: method.
705:
706: However, we have co-phased our spectra for $K_2$~=~310 km~s$^{-1}$, with
707: the results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tioband}. The TiO band is clearly
708: seen while the noise is prominent,
709: particulary along the slope of the head-band. We have used this
710: co-added spectrum to compare it with several late-type M stars
711: extracted from the published data by \citet{mon97}
712: fitted to our {\it co-phased} spectrum. A gray continuum
713: has been added to the comparison spectra in order to compensate for
714: the fill-in effect arising from the other light sources in the
715: system, so as to obtain the best fit. In particular, we show in the same figure the
716: fits when two close candidates -- GJ406 (M6~V, upper panel) and GJ402
717: (M4-5~V, lower panel) -- are used. The best fit is obtained for the
718: M6~V star, to which we have added a 95 percent continuum. For the
719: M4-5~V star the fit is poor, as we observe a flux excess around
720: 7000 \AA~and a stronger TiO head-band. Increasing the grey flux
721: contribution will fit the TiO head band, but will result in a larger
722: excess at the 7000 \AA~region. On the other hand, the fit with the
723: M6~V star is much better all along the spectral interval. There are
724: a number of publications which assign to U~Gem spectral types M4
725: \citep{har00}, M5 \citep{wad81} and possibly as far as M5.5
726: \citep{ber83}. Even in the case that the spectral type of the
727: secondary star were variable, its spectral classification is still
728: incompatible with its mass determination \citep{ech83}.
729:
730:
731:
732: \begin{figure}[!]
733: \begin{center}
734: \includegraphics[width=1.2\columnwidth]{f9.eps}
735: \caption{U Gem TiO Head Band near 7050~\AA~compared with GJ406, an M6V star
736: (upper diagram), and GJ402, an M4~V star (lower diagram) (see text).}
737: \label{fig:tioband}
738: \end{center}
739: \end{figure}
740:
741:
742: For the third test, we have selected the region around H$\alpha$, as
743: in the individual spectra we see evidence of a narrow spot, which is
744: very well defined in our spectrum near orbital phase 0.5. In this
745: test we have {\it co-phased} the spectra as before, and have adopted
746: as the test parameter the peak intensity around the emission line.
747: The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hotflux}. A clear and
748: smooth maximum is obtained for $K_{pr}$~=~310~$\pm$~3~km~s$^{-1}$.
749: The co-phased spectrum obtained from this solution is shown in
750: Figure~\ref{fig:maxiflux}. The double-peak structure has been
751: completely smeared -- as expected when co-adding in the reference
752: frame of the secondary star, as opposed to that of the primary star-
753: and instead we observe a narrow and strong peak at the center of the
754: line. We have also fitted the peak to find the radial velocity of
755: the spot. We find $\gamma = 33 \,\pm$ 10 km~s$^{-1}$, compatible
756: with the gamma velocity derived from the radial velocity analysis of
757: the emission line, $\gamma = 34 \,\pm$ 2 km~s$^{-1}$ (see
758: section~\ref{hdgram}). This is a key result for the determination of
759: the true systemic velocity and can be compared with the values
760: derived from the secondary star (see section~\ref{discus}).
761:
762:
763: \begin{figure}[!]
764: \begin{center}
765: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f10.eps}
766: \caption{Maximum peak flux of the co-added $H\alpha$ spectra as a function of $K_{pr}$ }
767: \label{fig:hotflux}
768: \end{center}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: \begin{figure}[!]
772: \begin{center}
773: \includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth,angle=90]{f11.eps}
774: \caption{Shape of the co-added $H\alpha$ spectrum for
775: $\mathrm{K_{2}} = 310 \,{\rm km \, s^{-1}}$.}
776: \label{fig:maxiflux}
777: \end{center}
778: \end{figure}
779:
780: \section{Improved Ephemeris of U Gem} \label{ephem}
781:
782: As mentioned in section~\ref{orbparcal}, the presence of eclipses in
783: U Gem and an ample photometric coverage during 30 years has
784: permitted to establish, with a high degree of accuracy, the value of
785: orbital period. This has been discussed in detail by \citet{mar90}.
786: However, as pointed by these authors, this object shows erratic
787: variations in the timing of the photometric mid-eclipse that may be
788: caused either by orbital period changes, variations in the position
789: of the hot spot, or they may even be the consequence of the
790: different methods of measuring of the eclipse phases. A variation in
791: position and intensity of the gas stream will also contribute to
792: such changes. A date for the zero phase determined independently
793: from spectroscopic measurements would evidently be desirable.
794: \citet{mar90} discuss two spectroscopic measurements by
795: \citet{mar88} and \citet{wad81}, and conclude that the spectroscopic
796: inferior conjunction of the secondary star occurs about 0.016 in
797: phase prior to the mean photometric zero phase. There are two
798: published spectroscopic studies \citep{hon87, sto81}, as well as one
799: in this paper, that could be used to confirm this result.
800: Unfortunately there is no radial velocity analysis in the former
801: paper, nor in the excellent Doppler Imaging paper by \citet{mar90}
802: based on their original observations. However, the results by
803: \citet{sto81} are of particular interest since he finds the
804: spectroscopic conjunction in agreement with the time of the eclipse
805: when using the photometric ephemerides by \citet{wad81}, taken from
806: \citet{arn76}. The latter authors introduce a small quadratic term
807: which is consistent with the O-C oscillations shown in
808: \citet{mar90}.
809:
810: It is difficult to compare results derived from emission lines to
811: those obtained from absorption lines, especially if they are based
812: on different ephemerides. Furthermore, the contamination on the
813: timing of the spectroscopic conjunction -- either caused by a hot
814: spot, by gas stream or by irradiation on the secondary -- has not
815: been properly evaluated. However, since our observations were made
816: at a time when the hot spot in absent (or, at least, is along the
817: line between the two components in the binary) and the disc was very
818: symmetric (see section~\ref{tom}), we can safely assume that in our
819: case, the photometric and spectroscopic phases must coincide. If we
820: then take the orbital period derived by \citet{mar90} and use the
821: zero point value derived from our measurements of the H$\alpha$
822: wings, (section~\ref{hdgram}), we can improve the ephemeris:
823:
824: $$\rm{HJD} = 2,437,638.82566(4) \, + \, 0.1769061911(28) \,E \, ,$$
825:
826: for the inferior conjunction of the secondary star. These ephemeris
827: are used throughout this paper for all our phase folded diagrams and
828: Doppler Tomography.
829:
830: \begin{figure}[h]
831: %\hbox{(a)\hspace{68mm}(b)}
832: %\vspace{2mm}
833: \centerline{
834: \hbox{
835: \resizebox{45mm}{!}
836: {\includegraphics{f12a.ps}}
837: % \hspace{1mm}
838: \resizebox{45mm}{!}
839: {\includegraphics{f12b.ps}}
840: }
841: }
842: \caption{Trailed spectra of the H$\alpha$ emission line. Original (left) and
843: reconstructed data (right).}
844: \label{fig:spec2}
845: \end{figure}
846:
847:
848: \section{Doppler Tomography} \label{tom}
849:
850: Doppler Tomography is a useful and powerful tool to study the
851: material orbiting the white dwarf, including the gas stream coming
852: from the secondary star as well as emission regions arising from the
853: companion itself. It uses the emission line profiles observed as a
854: function of the orbital phase to reconstruct a two-dimensional
855: velocity map of the emitting material. A detailed formulation of
856: this technique can be found in \citet{mar88}. A careful
857: interpretation of these velocity maps has to be made, as the main
858: assumption invoked by tomography is that all the observed material
859: is in the orbital plane and is visible at all times.
860:
861: The Doppler Tomography, derived here from the H$\alpha$ emission
862: line in U~Gem, was constructed using the code developed by
863: \citet{spr98}. Our observations of the object cover 1.5 orbital
864: cycles. Consequently -- to avoid disparities on the intensity of the
865: trailed and reconstructed spectra, as well as on the tomographic map
866: -- we have carefully selected spectra covering a full cycle only.
867: For this purpose we discarded the first 3 spectra (which have the
868: largest airmass) and used only 18 spectra out of the first 21, 600~s
869: exposures, starting with the spectrum at orbital phase 0.88 and
870: ending with the one at phase 0.86 (see Table~\ref{tab:RadVel}). In
871: addition, in generating the Tomography map we have excluded the
872: spectra taken during the partial eclipse of the accretion disc
873: (phases between 0.95 and 0.05). The original and reconstructed
874: trailed spectra are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spec2}. They show the
875: sinusoidal variation of the blue and read peaks, which are strong at
876: all phases. The typical S-wave is also seen showing the same simple
877: sinusoidal variation, but shifted by 0.5 in orbital phase with
878: respect to the double-peaks. The Doppler tomogram is shown in
879: Figure~\ref{fig:doptom}; as customary, the oval represents the
880: Roche-Lobe of the secondary and the solid lines the Keplerian
881: (upper) and ballistic (lower) trajectories. The Tomogram reveals a
882: disc reaching to the distance of to the inner Lagrangian point in
883: most phases. A compact and strong emission is seen close to the
884: center of velocities of the secondary star. A blow-up of this region
885: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spottom}. Both maps have been constructed
886: using the parameters shown at the top of the diagrams and a $\gamma$
887: velocity of 34 km~s$^{-1}$. The velocity resolution of the map near
888: the secondary star is about 10 km s$^{-1}$. The $V(x,y)$ position of
889: the hot-spot (in km~s$^{-1}$) is (-50,305), within the
890: uncertainties.
891:
892: The tomography shown in Figure~\ref{fig:doptom} is very different
893: from what we expected to find and from what has been observed by
894: other authors. We find a very symmetric full disc, reaching close to
895: the inner Lagrangian point and a compact bright spot also close to
896: the L$_1$ point, instead of a complex system like that observed by
897: \citet{und06}, who find U~Gem at a stage when the Doppler Tomographs
898: show: emission at low velocity close to the center of mass; a
899: transient narrow absorption in the Balmer lines; as well as two
900: distinct spots, one very narrow and close in velocity to the
901: accretion disc near the impact region and another much broader,
902: located between the ballistic and Keplerian trajectories. They
903: present also tentative evidence of a weak spiral structure, which
904: have been seen as strong spiral shocks during an outburst observed
905: by \citet{gro01}. Our results also differ from those of
906: \citet{mar90}, who also find that the bulk of the bright spot
907: arising from the Balmer, He~I and He~II emission come from a region
908: between the ballistic and Keplerian trajectories. We interpret the
909: difference between our results and previous studies simply by the
910: fact that we have observed the system at a peculiar low state not
911: detected before (see sections~\ref{intro} and \ref{discus}) . This
912: should not be at all surprising because, although U~Gem is a well
913: observed object, it is also a very unusual and variable system.
914:
915: Figure~\ref{fig:spottom} shows a blow-up of the region around the
916: secondary star. The bright spot is shown close to the center of mass
917: of the late-type star, slightly located towards the leading
918: hemisphere. Since this is a velocity map and not a geometrical one,
919: there are at two possible interpretations of the position in space
920: of the bright spot (assuming the observed material is in the orbital
921: plane). The first one is that the emission is been produced at the
922: surface of the secondary, i.e. still attached to its gravitational
923: field. The second is that the emission is the result of a direct
924: shock front with the accretion disc and that the compact spot is
925: starting to gain velocity towards the Keplerian trajectory. We
926: believe that the second explanation is more plausible, as it is
927: consistent with the well accepted mechanism to produce a bright
928: spot. On the other hand, at this peculiar low state it is difficult
929: to invoke an external source strong enough to produce a
930: back-illuminated secondary and especially a bright and compact spot
931: on its leading hemisphere.
932:
933:
934: \section[]{Basic system parameters} \label{baspar}
935:
936: Assuming that the radial velocity semi-amplitudes reflect accurately
937: the motion of the binary components, then from our results -- $K_{em}
938: = K_1 = 107 \pm 2$ km~s$^{-1}$; $K_{abs} = K_2 = 310 \pm 5$
939: km~s$^{-1}$ -- and adopting $P=0.1769061911$ we obtain:
940:
941: $$q = {K_1 \over K_2} = {M_2 \over M_1} = {0.35 \pm 0.05},$$
942:
943: $$M_1 \sin^3 i = {P K_2 (K_1 + K_2)^2 \over 2 \pi G} = 0.99 \pm 0.03 M_{\odot},$$
944:
945: $$M_2 \sin^3 i = {P K_1 (K_1 + K_2)^2 \over 2 \pi G} = 0.35 \pm 0.02 M_{\odot},$$
946:
947: and
948:
949: $$ a \sin i = {P (K_1 + K_2) \over 2 \pi} = 1.46 \pm 0.02 R_{\odot}.$$
950:
951: Using the inclination angle derived by \citet{zha87}, $i =69.7^\circ
952: \pm 0.7$, the system parameters become: $ M_{WD} = 1.20 \pm 0.05 \,
953: M_{\odot}$; $ M_{RD} = 0.42 \pm 0.04 \, M_{\odot}$; and $ a = 1.55
954: \pm 0.02 \, R_{\odot}$.
955:
956:
957: \subsection[]{The inner and outer size of the disc} \label{discsize}
958:
959: A first order estimate of the dimensions of the disc -- the inner
960: and outer radius -- can be made from the observed Balmer emission
961: line. Its peak-to peak velocity separation is related to the outer
962: radius of the accreted material, while the wings of the line, coming
963: from the high velocity regions of the disc, can give an estimate of
964: the inner radius \citep{sma01}. The peak-to-peak velocity separation
965: of the 31 individual spectra were measured (see
966: section~\ref{double-peaks}), as well as the velocity of the blue and
967: red wings of $H\alpha$ at ten percent level of the continuum level.
968: >From these measurements we derive mean values of $V_{out} = 460 \,
969: \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$ and $V_{in} = 1200 \, \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$.
970:
971: These velocities can be related to the disc radii from numerical
972: disc simulations, tidal limitations and analytical approximations
973: (see \citet{war95} and references therein). If we assume the
974: material in the disc at radius $r$ is moving with Keplerian
975: rotational velocity $V(r)$, then the radius in units of the binary
976: separation is given by \citep{hor86}:
977:
978: $$ r/a = (K_{em} + K_{abs}) K_{abs} /V(r)^2,$$
979:
980: The observed maximum intensity of the double-peak emission in
981: Keplerian discs occurs close to the velocity of its outer radius
982: \citep{sma81}. From the observed $V_{out}$ and $V_{in}$ values we
983: obtain an outer radius of $ R_{out}/a = 0.61$ and an inner radius of
984: $R_{in}/a = 0.09$. If we take $ a = 1.55 \pm 0.02 \, R_{\odot}$ from
985: the last section we obtain an inner radius of the disc
986: $R_{in}=0.1395 R_{\odot}$ equivalent to about 97\,000~km. This is
987: about 25 times larger than the expected radius of the white dwarf
988: (see section~\ref{discus}). On the other hand, the distance from the
989: center of the primary to the inner Lagrangian point, $R_{L_1}/a$, is
990:
991: $$R_{L_1}/a = 1 - w + 1/3 w^2 + 1/9 W^3,$$
992:
993:
994: where $w^3= q/(3(1 + q)$ (\citep{kop59}). Using $q=0.35$ we obtain
995: $R_{L_1}/a = 0.63$. The disc, therefore, appears to be large, almost
996: filling the Roche-Lobe of the primary, with the matter leaving the
997: secondary component through the $L_1$ point colliding with the disc
998: directly and producing the hot spot near this location.
999:
1000: \section{Discussion} \label{discus}
1001:
1002:
1003: For the first time, a radial velocity semi-amplitude of the primary
1004: component of U~Gem has been obtained in the visual spectral region,
1005: which agrees with the value obtained from ultraviolet observations
1006: by \citet{sio98} and \citet{lon99}. In a recent paper, \citet{und06}
1007: present high-resolution spectroscopy around H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$
1008: and conclude that they cannot recover the ultraviolet value for
1009: $K_1$ to better than about 20 percent by any method. Although the
1010: spectral resolution at H$\alpha$ of the instrument they used is only
1011: a factor of two smaller than that of the one we used, the diagnostic
1012: diagrams they obtain show a completely different behavior as
1013: compared to those we present here, with best values for $K_{1}$ of
1014: about 95 km s$^{-1}$ from H$\alpha$ and 150 km s$^{-1}$ from
1015: H$\beta$ (see their Figures 13 and 14, respectively). We believe
1016: that the disagreement with our result lies not in the quality of the
1017: data or the measuring method, but in the distortion of the emission
1018: lines due to the presence of a complex accretion disc at the time of
1019: their observations, as the authors themselves suggest. Their Doppler
1020: tomograms show emission at low velocity, close to the center of
1021: mass, two distinct spots, a narrow component close to the $L_1$
1022: point, and a broader and larger one between the Keplerian and the
1023: ballistic trajectories. There is even evidence of a weak spiral
1024: structure. In contrast, we have observed U~Gem during a favorable
1025: stage, one in which the disc was fully symmetric, and the hot-spot
1026: was narrow and near the inner Lagrangian point. This allowed us to
1027: measure the real motion of the white dwarf by means of the
1028: time-resolved behavior of the H$\alpha$ emission line.
1029:
1030: Our highly consistent results for the systemic velocity derived from
1031: the H$\alpha$ spot ($\gamma = 33 \,\pm$ 10 km~s$^{-1}$ and those
1032: found from the different methods used for the radial velocity
1033: analysis of the emission arising from the accretion disk (see
1034: section~\ref{prim} and Table~\ref{OrbParam}), give strong support to
1035: our adopting a true systemic velocity value of $\gamma = 34 \,\pm$ 2
1036: km~s$^{-1}$. If we are indeed detecting the true motion of the white
1037: dwarf, we can use this adopted value, to make an independent check
1038: on the mass of the primary: The observed total redshift of the white
1039: dwarf (gravitational plus systemic)-- found by \citet{lon99} -- is
1040: 172~km~s$^{-1}$, from which, after subtraction of the adopted
1041: systemic velocity, we derive a gravitational shift of the white
1042: dwarf of 138~km s$^{-1}$. From the mass-radius relationship for
1043: white dwarfs \citep{and88}, we obtain consistent results for $M_{wd}
1044: = 1.23 M_{\odot}$ and $R_{wd}$ = 3900 km (see Figure 7 in
1045: \citep{lon99}). This mass is in excellent agreement with that
1046: obtained in this paper from the radial velocity analysis.
1047:
1048: >From our new method to determine the radial velocity curve of the
1049: secondary (section~\ref{ugemb}), we obtain a value for the
1050: semi-amplitude close to 310 km s$^{-1}$. Three previous papers have
1051: determinations of the radial velocity curves from the observed Na~I
1052: doublet in the near-infrared. In order to evaluate if our method is
1053: valid, we here compare our result with these direct determinations.
1054: The published values are: $ K_{rd} = 283$ km s$^{-1} \pm 15$
1055: (\citep{wad81}); $K_{rd} = 309$ km s$^{-1} \, \pm 3$, (before
1056: correction for irradiation effects, \citep{fri90}); and $ K_{rd} =
1057: 300$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{nay05}. \citet{wad81} notes that an
1058: elliptical orbital ($e=0.086$) may better fit his data, as the
1059: velocity extremum near phase 0.25 appears somewhat sharper than that
1060: near phase 0.75 (see his Figure 3). However, he also finds a very
1061: large systemic velocity, $\gamma = 85$ km s$^{-1}$, much larger than
1062: the values found by \citet{kra62} ($\gamma = 42$ km s$^{-1}$) and
1063: \citet{sma76} ($\gamma = 40 \,\pm$ 6 km s$^{-1}$), both obtained
1064: from the emission lines. Since the discrepancy with the results of
1065: these two authors was large, \citet{wad81} defers this discussion to
1066: further confirmation of his results. Instead, and more important,
1067: this author discusses two scenarios that may significantly alter the
1068: real value of $K_{2}$: the non-sphericity and the back-illumination
1069: of the secondary. In the latter effect, each particular absorption
1070: line may move further away from, or closer to the center of mass of
1071: the binary. He estimates the magnitude of this effect and concludes
1072: that the deviation of the photocenter would probably be much less
1073: than 0.1 radii. \citet{fri90} further discusses the circumstances
1074: that might cause the photocenter to deviate, and concludes that
1075: their observed value for the semi-amplitude should be corrected down
1076: by 3.5 percent, to yield $ K_{2} = 298$ km s$^{-1} \pm 9$. Although
1077: they discuss the results by \citet{mart88} -- which indicate that
1078: the relatively small heating effects in quiescent dwarf novae always
1079: lead to a decrease in the measured $K_{rd}$ for the Na~I lines --
1080: they argue that line quenching, produced by ionization of the same
1081: lines, may also be important, and result in an increased $K_{rd}$.
1082: Another disturbing effect, considered by the same authors, is line
1083: contamination by the presence of weak disc features, like the
1084: Paschen lines. In this respect we point out here that a poor
1085: correction for telluric lines will function as an anchor, reducing
1086: also the amplitude of the radial velocity measurements.
1087: \citet{fri90} also find an observed systemic velocity of $\gamma =
1088: 43 \,\pm$ 6 km s$^{-1}$ and a small eccentricity of $e=0.027$.
1089: \citet{nay05} also discuss the distortion effects on the Na~I lines
1090: and, based on their fit residuals, argue in favor of a depletion of
1091: the doublet in the leading hemisphere of the secondary, around
1092: phases 0.4 and 0.6, as removing flux from the blueward wing of the
1093: lines results in an apparent redshift, which would explain the
1094: observed residuals. However, they additionally find that fitting the
1095: data to an eccentric orbit, with $e=0.024$, results in a significant
1096: decrease in the residuals caused by this depletion, and conclude
1097: that it may be unnecessary to further correct the radial velocity
1098: curve. We must point out that a depletion of the blueward wing of
1099: the Na~I lines will results in a contraction of the observed radial
1100: velocity curves, as the measured velocities -- especially around
1101: phases 0.25 and 0.75 -- will be pulled towards the systemic
1102: velocity. \citet{nay05} present their results derived from the Na~I
1103: doublet and the K\,I/TiO region (around 7550-7750 \AA), compared
1104: with several spectral standards, all giving values between 289 and
1105: 305 km s$^{-1}$ (no errors are quoted). Based on the radial velocity
1106: measurements for Na~I, obtained by these authors in 2001 January
1107: (115 spectra), and using GJ213 as template (see their Table 1), we
1108: have recalculated the circular orbital parameters through our
1109: nonlinear least-squares fit. We find $K_{2} = 300$ km s$^{-1} \, \pm
1110: 1$, in close agreement with their published value.
1111:
1112: It would be advisable to establish a link between the observed gamma
1113: velocity of the secondary and the semi-amplitude $K_2$, under the
1114: assumption that its value may be distorted by heating effects. We
1115: take as a reference our results from the radial velocity analysis of
1116: the broad $H\alpha$ line and the hot-spot from the secondary, which
1117: support a true systemic velocity of 34 km s$^{-1}$. However, we find
1118: no positive correlation in the available results derived from the
1119: Na~I lines, either between different authors or even among one data
1120: set. In the case of \citet{nay05}, the gamma values show a range
1121: between 11 and 43 km s$^{-1}$, depending on the standard star used
1122: as a template, for $K_2$ velocities in the range 289 to 305 km
1123: s$^{-1}$. \citet{wad81} finds $\gamma = 85 \,\pm$ 10 km s$^{-1}$ for
1124: a low $K_2)$ value of 283 km s$^{-1}$, while \citet{fri90} finds
1125: $\gamma = 43 \,\pm$ 6 km s$^{-1}$ for $K_2$ about 309 km s$^{-1}$,
1126: and we obtain a large gamma velocity of about 69 km s$^{-1}$ for a
1127: $K_2$ value of 310 km s$^{-1}$. We believe that further and more
1128: specific spectroscopic observations of the secondary star should be
1129: conducted in order to understand the possible distortion effects on
1130: lines like the Na~I doublet, and their implications on the derived
1131: semi-amplitude and systemic velocity values.
1132:
1133: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1134:
1135: E. de la F wishes to thank Andr\'es Rodriguez J. for his useful
1136: computer help. The Thomson detector, used in our observations, was
1137: obtained through PACIME-CONACYT project F325-E9211.
1138:
1139:
1140: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1141: \bibitem[Anderson(1988)]{and88} Anderson, N., 1988, ApJ., 326, 266
1142: \bibitem[Arnold {\it et al.}(1976)]{arn76} Arnold, S., Berg, R.A. \& Duthie, J.G., 1976, ApJ., 206, 790
1143: \bibitem[Berriman {\it et al.}(1983)]{ber83} Berriman, G., Beattie, I.A., Lee, T.J., Mochnacki, S.W. \& Szkody, P., 1983, MNRAS, 204, 1105
1144: \bibitem[Cannizo, Gehrels \& Mattei(2002)]{can02} Cannizzo, J., K., Gehrels, N., \& Mattei, J.A., 2002, ApJ, 579, 760
1145: \bibitem[Cook(1987)]{coo87} Cook, L.M., 1987, JAVSO, 16, 83
1146: \bibitem[Echevarr\'\i{}a(1983)]{ech83} Echevarr\'\i{}a, J, 1983, RMAA, 8, 109
1147: \bibitem[Echevarr\'\i{}a \& Jones(1984)]{ech84} Echevarr\'\i{}a, J \& Jones, D.H.P., 1984, MNRAS, 206, 919
1148: \bibitem[Friend {\it et al.}(1990)]{fri90} Friend, M. T., Martin, J. S., Connon Smith, R., \& Jones, D. H. P., 1990, MNRAS, 246, 637
1149: \bibitem[Groot(1991)]{gro01} Groot, P.J., 1991, ApJ, , 2649
1150: \bibitem[Harrison {\it et al.}(2000)]{har00} Harrison, T.E., McNamara, B.J., Szkody, P. \& Gilliland, R.L., 2000, ApJ, 120, 2649
1151: \bibitem[Hind(1856)]{hin56} Hind, J. R., 1856, MNRAS, 16, 56
1152: \bibitem[Honeycutt {\it et al} et al.(1987)]{hon87} Honeycutt, R. K., Kaitchuck, R. H., \& Schlegel, E. M., 1987, ApJS, 65, 451
1153: \bibitem[Horne, Wade \& Szkody(1986)]{hor86} Horne, K., Wade, R.A. \& Szkody, P., 1986, MNRAS, 219, 791
1154: \bibitem[Kopal(1959)]{kop59} Kopal, Z., {\it Close Binary Systems}, Champan \& Hall, London.
1155: \bibitem[Kraft(1962)]{kra62} Kraft, R. P., 1962, ApJ, 135, 408
1156: \bibitem[Kraft(1975)]{kra75} Kraft, R. P., 1975, private communication in Smak (1976).64, 637
1157: \bibitem[Kreminski(1965)]{krz65} Kreminski, W., 1965, AJ, 142, 1051
1158: \bibitem[Long \& Gilliland(1999)]{lon99} Long, K. S., \& Gilliland, R. L., 1999, ApJ, 511, 916Mass.
1159: \bibitem[Marsh \& Horne(1988)]{mar88} Marsh, T.R., \& Horne, K., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 26997, A\&ASuppl.Ser., 123, 473
1160: \bibitem[Marsh {\it et al.}(1990)]{mar90} Marsh, T. R., Horne, K., Schlegel, E. M., Honeycutt, R. K. \& Kaitchuck, R. H., 1990, ApJ, 364, 637
1161: \bibitem[Martin(1988)]{mart88} Martin, J.S., 1988, {\it D Phil thesis}, University of Sussex No. 5, Cambridge, Mass.
1162: \bibitem[Mattei {\it et al.}(1987)]{mat87} Mattei, J.A., Saladyga, M., Wagen, E.O. \& Jones, C.M., 1987, AAVSO, Monograph, Cambridge, Mass.
1163: \bibitem[Montes {\it et al.}(1997)]{mon97} Montes, D., Mart\'\i{}n, E.L., Fern\'andez-Figueroa, M.J., Cornide, M. \& De Castro, E., 1997, A\&ASuppl.Ser., 123, 473
1164: \bibitem[Naylor {\it et al.}(2005)]{nay05} Naylor, T., Allan, A. \& Long, K. S., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1091ApJ, 496, 449
1165: \bibitem[Payne-Gaposchkin \& Gaposchkin(1938)]{pay38} Payne-Gaposchkin, C. \& Gaposchkin, 1938, {\it Variable Stars}, Harv. Obs. Mono. No. 5, Cambridge, Mass.
1166: \bibitem[Schwarzenberg-Czerny(1999)]{sch99} Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A., 1999 , Astrophys. J., 516, 315
1167: \bibitem[Shafter, Szkody and Thorstensen(1986)]{sha86} Shafter, A.W., Szkody, P. \& Thorstensen, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 308, 765
1168: \bibitem[Sion {\it et al.}(1998)]{sio98} Sion, E.L., Cheng, F.H., Szkody, P., Sparks, W., G\"ansicke, B.Huang, M \& Mattei,, J. 1998, ApJ, 496, 449
1169: \bibitem[Smak(1971)]{sma71} Smak, J., 1971, Acta Astr., 21, 15
1170: \bibitem[Smak(1976)]{sma76} Smak, J., 1976, Acta Astr., 26, 277
1171: \bibitem[Smak(1981)]{sma81} Smak, J., 1981, Acta Astr., 31, 395
1172: \bibitem[Smak(2001)]{sma01} Smak, J., 2001, Acta Astr., 51, 279
1173: \bibitem[Smak(2004)]{sma04} Smak, J., 2004, Acta Astr., 54, 433
1174: \bibitem[Spruit(1998)]{spr98} Spruit, H. C., 1998, astro-ph/9806141
1175: \bibitem[Stover(1981)]{sto81} Stover, R. J., 1981, ApJ, 248, 684
1176: \bibitem[Szkody \& Mattei(1984)]{szk84} Szkody, P., \& Mattei, J. A., 1984, PASP, 96, 988
1177: \bibitem[Unda-Sanzana {\it et al.}(2006)]{und06} Unda-Sanzana, E., Marsh, T. R. \& Morales-Rueda, L., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 805
1178: \bibitem[Wade(1981)]{wad81} Wade, R. A., 1981, ApJ, 246, 215
1179: \bibitem[Warner(1995)]{war95} Warner, B., 1995, {\it{``Cataclysmic Variable Stars''}}, Cambridge University Press
1180: \bibitem[Warner \& Nather(1971)]{wan71} Warner, B. \& Nather, R.E., 1971, MNRAS, 152, 219
1181: \bibitem[Zahn(1966)]{zah66} Zahn, J.-P., 1966. Ann. d'Astrophys., 29, 489.
1182: \bibitem[Zhang \& Robinson(1987)]{zha87} Zhang, E. H., \& Robinson, E. L., 1987, ApJ, 321, 813
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186: \end{thebibliography}
1187:
1188: \begin{figure*}
1189: %\hspace{20mm}
1190: \epsscale{.9} \plotone{f13.ps}
1191: %\vspace{20mm}
1192: \caption{Doppler Tomography of U~Gem. The various features are discussed in the text. The $v_x$ and $v_y$ axes are in
1193: km s$^{-1}$. A compact hot spot, close to the inner Lagrangian point is detected instead of the usual bright spot and/or broad stream,
1194: where the material, following a Keplerian or ballistic trajectory strikes the disc. The Tomogram reveals
1195: a full disc whose outer edge is very close to the L$_1$ point (see text).}
1196: \label{fig:doptom}
1197: \end{figure*}
1198:
1199: \begin{figure*}
1200: \epsscale{1} \plotone{f14.ps}
1201: \vspace{20mm}
1202: \caption{Blow-up of the region around the hot spot. Note that this feature is slightly ahead of the center of mass of
1203: the secondary star. Since this is a velocity map and not a geometrical one, its physical position in the binary
1204: is carefully discussed in the text.}
1205: \label{fig:spottom}
1206: \end{figure*}
1207:
1208: \label{lastpage}
1209:
1210: \end{document}
1211:
1212:
1213: