1: %
2: % A. Sigut
3: % The University of Western Ontario
4: % asigut@astro.uwo.ca
5: %
6: % (519) 661-2111 x86718
7: %
8: % Revision to MS 70677
9: %
10: \documentclass{emulateapj}
11:
12: \shorttitle{The Thermal Structure of $\gamma\,$Cas's Disk}
13: \shortauthors{T.\ A.\ A.\ Sigut \& C.\ E.\ Jones}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{The Thermal Structure of the Circumstellar Disk Surrounding the
18: Classical Be Star $\gamma\,$Cassiopeia}
19:
20: \author{T.\ A.\ A.\ Sigut \& C.\ E.\ Jones\\
21: Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University
22: of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada
23: \email{asigut@astro.uwo.ca} \email{cjones@astro.uwo.ca}}
24:
25: \slugcomment{Accepted for Publication by {\it The Astrophysical Journal}}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: %
30: % Referee query[1] resulted in the deletion of the word
31: % "realistic" from the abstract.
32: %
33: We have computed radiative equilibrium models for the gas in the
34: circumstellar envelope surrounding the hot, classical Be star
35: $\gamma\,$Cassiopeia. This calculation is performed using a code
36: that incorporates a number of improvements over previous treatments
37: of the disk's thermal structure by \citet{mil98} and \citet{jon04};
38: most importantly, heating and cooling rates are computed with atomic
39: models for H, He, CNO, Mg, Si, Ca, \& Fe and their relevant ions. Thus,
40: for the first time, the thermal structure of a Be disk is computed for
41: a gas with a solar chemical composition as opposed to assuming a pure
42: hydrogen envelope. We compare the predicted average disk temperature,
43: the total energy loss in H$\alpha$, and the near-IR excess with
44: observations and find that all can be accounted for by a disk that is
45: in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium with a density in the equatorial
46: plane of $\rho(R)\approx 3$ to $5\cdot\,10^{-11} (R/R_*)^{-2.5}\, \rm
47: g\,cm^{-3}$. We also discuss the changes in the disk's thermal structure
48: that result from the additional heating and cooling processes available
49: to a gas with a solar chemical composition over those available to a
50: pure hydrogen plasma.
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords
55: {stars: circumstellar matter -- stars: emission line, Be --
56: stars: individual: $\gamma\,$Cas}
57: % We are allowed a max of 6 keywords, each individual star counts as 1.
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: Classical Be stars are non-supergiant B~stars that possess circumstellar
62: material in the form of an equatorial disk. While the circumstellar
63: disk is almost certainly a decretion disk of material from the star's
64: atmosphere, the detailed mechanism that creates and maintains such a
65: disk remains unclear \citep{por03,owo04}. Rapid rotation of the central
66: B~star seems to play an important role, but there is still considerable
67: debate as to the extent \citep{tow04,fre05}. Historically, the observational
68: evidence for such circumstellar material has been either spectroscopic
69: or polarimetric in nature, and the accepted observational definition of a
70: Be star has been the appearance (at the current or previous epoch)
71: of emission in the hydrogen Balmer lines. It has been recognized since
72: the days of \citet{str31} that recombination in a flattened disk could
73: reproduce the range of spectroscopically observed H$\alpha$ profiles.
74: In addition, the net (continuum) linear polarization observed in Be
75: stars is well explained by electron scattering from non-spherically
76: distributed circumstellar gas \citep{coy69,wat92}.
77:
78: Beginning with the resolution of $\phi\,$Persei (B2~Vpe) at radio
79: wavelengths with the Very Large Array by \citet{dou92}, interferometry
80: has increasingly been used to spatially resolve circumstellar material. Be
81: star disks have been resolved at radio, near-IR, and optical wavelengths,
82: with these observations conclusively revealing the disk \citep{qui93,
83: qui97, tyc05, tyc06}. The observations are consistent with the
84: suggestion of \citet{poe78} that Be star disks are geometrically quite
85: thin with opening angles of only a few degrees.
86:
87: Currently, optical interferometric observations require theoretical
88: models of the emitting region in order to interpret the observed
89: visibilities. Often observers fit simple models with free parameters to
90: the data to describe the disk emissivity. However, this simple procedure
91: can be considerably improved by using a detailed model for the
92: thermal structure of the Be star disk. Such models naturally predict
93: the emissivity and opacity of the gas required to produce theoretical
94: spectroscopic images \citep{mil98,jon04,car05}.
95:
96: $\gamma\,$Cassiopeia (HD~5394; B0~IVe) is a interesting classical Be star
97: which has a dense, cool, equatorial disk \citep{mil98}. This disk has been
98: resolved with optical interferometry \citep{ste95,tyc05}. $\gamma\,$Cas
99: is likely the primary in a binary system \citep{har00,mir02} and has
100: unique X-ray characteristics \citep{smi04}. Although $\gamma\,$Cas
101: is often quoted as ``the prototypical" Be star, it has become clear
102: that it possesses some unique characteristics. Nevertheless, it is
103: a well-studied star making it an appropriate choice to test new codes
104: and compare results with previously published work. In this current
105: paper, we extend the radiative-equilibrium models of \citet{mil98} and
106: \citet{jon04} for the early Be star $\gamma\,$Cas to a disk models with
107: a solar chemical composition.
108:
109: \section{Calculations}
110:
111: \subsection{Overview}
112:
113: The calculations in this paper were performed with a new code, {\sc
114: bedisk}, which is loosely based upon the calculational approach of
115: \citet{mil98} and \citet{jon04}. Models for the circumstellar material
116: were constructed assuming a density distribution falling as an $R^{-n}$
117: power-law in the equatorial plane, following the models of \citet{wat86},
118: \citet{cot87}, and \citet{wat87}. By comparing to observations of the
119: infrared excesses of Be stars, these authors found power-law density
120: exponents in the range $n\approx\,2.0$ to $3.5$. Perpendicular to the
121: equatorial plane, it was assumed that the gas is in vertical, isothermal,
122: hydrostatic equilibrium. Given the disk density distribution and the
123: photoionizing radiation field from the central star, the equations of
124: statistical equilibrium were solved for the ionization state and level
125: populations of H, He, CNO, Mg, Si, Ca, and Fe subject to the constraints
126: of charge and particle conservation. Radiative transfer was handled
127: via the escape probability approximation, and it was assumed that the
128: dominant escape route for photons was perpendicular to the exponentially
129: stratified disk. From this solution, the rates of energy gain and
130: energy loss at each computational grid point were obtained, and the local
131: temperatures were iteratively adjusted to enforce radiative equilibrium.
132:
133: The main features and assumptions of this code are now discussed in detail.
134:
135: \subsection{The {\sc bedisk} Code}
136:
137: \label{sec:detail}
138:
139: The circumstellar disk was assumed to be axisymmetric about the
140: star's rotation axis and symmetric about the mid-plane of the disk. In
141: all that follows, $R$ is used for the radial distance from the star's
142: rotation axis and $Z$, for the perpendicular height above the
143: equatorial plane. Thus the cylindrical co-ordinates of any disk location
144: are $(R,Z)$. If $R_*$ denotes the stellar radius, then the calculation domain
145: is $R_* \le R_i \le R_{\max}$ with $i=1\ldots\,n_r$, and $0 \le Z_j \le
146: Z_{\max}(R_i)$ with $j=1\ldots\,n_z$. Typically, $n_r$ is set to 60 with
147: $R_{\max}/R_*=50$, and $n_z$ is set to 40.
148:
149: The code accepts a user-defined set of atomic models which list
150: the energy levels and the bound and free radiative and collisional
151: transitions for each atom and ion to be included in the calculation.
152: The set of atoms and ions and the total number of atomic levels and
153: radiative transitions used for the current calculations are listed in
154: Table~\ref{tab:atomic_models}. For this initial work, the number of
155: energy levels included for each atom and ion is similar to the list of
156: energy levels given by \citet{mor68}. Sources for the required atomic
157: data are given in Appendix~A. The abundances assumed for the various
158: elements can be found in Table~\ref{tab:abun} and are taken from the
159: accepted solar abundances of \citet{and89} and \citet{and93}.
160:
161: %
162: % Paragraph added in response to referee query[2]
163: %
164: The number of atomic levels included for each atom/ion in
165: Table~\ref{tab:atomic_models} is fairly modest, although large enough
166: to include most of the collisionally-excited lines seen in the optical
167: and UV spectra of Be stars. While non-LTE solutions can be sensitive
168: to the number of atomic levels included (see, for example, \cite{sig96}
169: for a case-study of C\,{\sc ii} in B~stars), the computational time also
170: increases sharply with the number of levels. Table~\ref{tab:atomic_models}
171: represents a compromise between realism and computational efficiency.
172: Several techniques exist to group atomic levels into ``super-levels"
173: \citep[see, for example,][]{hhl94} which will allow future work to
174: utilize more complete atomic models.
175: %
176:
177: \begin{deluxetable}{rlrr}
178: %\tablewidth{0pt}
179: \tablecaption{Atomic Models\label{tab:atomic_models}}
180: \tablehead{
181: \colhead{Z} & \colhead{Atom} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Number of} \\
182: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Levels} &
183: \colhead{Transitions}
184: }
185: %\tablehead{
186: %\colhead{Z} & \colhead{Atom} & \colhead{\# Levels} &
187: %\colhead{\# of Transitions}
188: %}
189: \startdata
190: 1 & H\,{\sc i} & 15 & 77 \\
191: 1 & H\,{\sc ii} & 1 & 0 \\
192: 2 & He\,{\sc i} & 13 & 16 \\
193: 2 & He\,{\sc ii} & 1 & 0 \\
194: 6 & C\,{\sc i} & 15 & 23 \\
195: 6 & C\,{\sc ii} & 10 & 20 \\
196: 6 & C\,{\sc iii} & 21 & 45 \\
197: 6 & C\,{\sc iv} & 8 & 15 \\
198: 6 & C\,{\sc v} & 1 & 0 \\
199: 7 & N\,{\sc i} & 23 & 51 \\
200: 7 & N\,{\sc ii} & 15 & 24 \\
201: 7 & N\,{\sc iii} & 10 & 20 \\
202: 7 & N\,{\sc iv} & 1 & 0 \\
203: 8 & O\,{\sc i} & 15 & 19 \\
204: 8 & O\,{\sc ii} & 29 & 80 \\
205: 8 & O\,{\sc iii} & 15 & 24 \\
206: 8 & O\,{\sc iv} & 10 & 19 \\
207: 8 & O\,{\sc v} & 1 & 0 \\
208: 12& Mg\,{\sc i} & 17 & 28 \\
209: 12& Mg\,{\sc ii} & 12 & 25 \\
210: 12& Mg\,{\sc iii} & 1 & 0 \\
211: 14& Si\,{\sc i} & 37 &109 \\
212: 14& Si\,{\sc ii} & 8 & 13 \\
213: 14& Si\,{\sc iii} & 18 & 27 \\
214: 14& Si\,{\sc iv} & 11 & 23 \\
215: 14& Si\,{\sc v} & 1 & 0 \\
216: 20& Ca\,{\sc i} & 24 & 42 \\
217: 20& Ca\,{\sc ii} & 11 & 20 \\
218: 20& Ca\,{\sc iii} & 1 & 0 \\
219: 26& Fe\,{\sc i} & 40 & 90 \\
220: 26& Fe\,{\sc ii} & 39 &191 \\
221: 26& Fe\,{\sc iii} & 1 & 0 \\
222: & {\sc total} & 425 & 1001 \\
223: \enddata
224: \end{deluxetable}
225:
226: \begin{deluxetable}{lr}
227: \tablewidth{0pt}
228: \tablecaption{Elemental Abundances\label{tab:abun}}
229: \tablehead{
230: \colhead{Element} & \colhead{Abundance\tablenotemark{a}}
231: }
232: \startdata
233: H & 12.00 \\
234: He & 10.90 \\
235: C & 8.55 \\
236: N & 7.97 \\
237: O & 8.87 \\
238: Mg & 7.58 \\
239: Si & 7.55 \\
240: Ca & 6.36 \\
241: Fe & 7.51 \\
242: \enddata
243: \tablenotetext{a}{The tabulated is abundance is $\log(N/N_{\rm H})+12$.}
244: %\tablecomments{The abundances are from \citet{and89} and \citet{and93}.}
245: \vspace{0.1in}
246: \end{deluxetable}
247:
248: The density structure of the disk is chosen in an ad-hoc manner.
249: All calculations assume that the density
250: drops as an $R^{-n}$ power-law in the equatorial plane, and at each $R$, the
251: gas is in vertical,
252: isothermal hydrostatic equilibrium. To obtain the density
253: above the
254: equatorial plane at each radial distance, the user supplies a fixed set of density-drops from
255: the equatorial plane,
256: \begin{equation}
257: d_j\equiv\ln\{\rho(Z_j)/\rho(Z_j=0)\}
258: \end{equation}
259: for $j=1\ldots n_Z$. Here $d_1=0$ by definition, and $d_{n_z}\equiv-4$. Then the $Z_j$
260: at which this density drop would occur, given the current value of $R_i$,
261: is computed assuming vertical hydrostatic equilibrium with an isothermal
262: temperature $T_o$,
263: \begin{equation}
264: \frac{Z_j}{R_i}=\left\{\left(\frac{\alpha /R_i}{d_j+
265: \alpha /R_i}\right)^2-1\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}} \;.
266: \end{equation}
267: Here $\alpha$ is given by
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{eq:scaleH}
270: \alpha=\frac{\mu\,m_{\rm H}}{k\,T_o}\,GM \,,
271: \end{equation}
272: where $\mu$ is the mean-molecular weight, $\approx 0.5$ for an ionized,
273: pure hydrogen disk,
274: and M is the mass of the
275: central B-star. Thus the density at $(R_i,Z_j)$ is given by
276: \begin{equation}
277: \rho(R_i,Z_j)=\rho_0\left(\frac{R_i}{R_*}\right)^{-n}\,d_j \;.
278: \end{equation}
279: In this expression, $\rho_o$, $n$, and $T_o$ (through equation~\ref{eq:scaleH})
280: are the parameters which define the density structure of the disk.
281:
282: At each computational grid point, the photoionizing
283: radiation field is required to evaluate the photoionization rates of
284: all atoms/ions for the statistical equilibrium equations and to
285: compute the photoionization heating rates for the radiative equilibrium
286: solution. It is usual to divide this radiation field into a direct and
287: diffuse contribution,
288: \begin{equation}
289: \label{eq:jnu}
290: J_{\nu}=J^{\rm Dir}_{\nu} + J^{\rm Dif}_{\nu} \;.
291: \end{equation}
292: The direct contribution represents the radiation from the central star
293: while the diffuse contribution arises from the disk. Note that despite
294: this division, the only energy input into the circumstellar disk is
295: assumed to be from the star itself so that ultimately, the energy in
296: the diffuse field has its origin in direct radiation from the star.
297:
298: %
299: % Response to referee query[5].
300: %
301: There is some evidence that $\gamma$~Cas has a binary companion with an
302: orbital period of $\sim200$ days \citep{har00,mir02}. However, the exact
303: orbit and the nature of the companion, including its spectral type and
304: luminosity, are unknown. Rather than introduce further uncertain parameters
305: into the calculation (and invalidate the axisymmetric geometry), we
306: shall assume that the energy input into the disk of $\gamma$~Cas from
307: any potential companion is negligible.
308:
309: The direct component from the central star to the photoionizing radiation
310: field at grid location $(R_i,Z_j)$ is given by
311: \begin{equation}
312: \label{eq:jdir}
313: J^{\rm Dir}_{\nu}(R_i,Z_j)=\int_{\Omega_*} I_{\mu\nu}(R_i,Z_j,\hat{n})\,d\Omega\,
314: \end{equation}
315: where $d\Omega$ is an infinitesimal patch of solid angle centred around
316: the direction $\hat{n}$. The integral is over the visible stellar surface.
317: Typically the surface is divided into a few hundred patches and the transfer
318: equation is solved along a ray from the centre of each patch to the
319: grid location\footnote{By choosing to solve the transfer equation along these rays,
320: as opposed to simply applying exponential extinction of the stellar photospheric
321: intensity,
322: some contribution of the diffuse field is included.}.
323: The radiation field at the stellar surface was taken
324: from an LTE stellar atmosphere of \citet{kur93} which specified
325: the mean intensity, $J_{\nu}(\tau_{\nu}=0)$, at the top of the photosphere over a grid
326: of 1221 frequencies. This was turned into the required intensity at
327: each surface element by using the limb-darkening law
328: \begin{equation}
329: I_{\mu\nu}=I_o\,\left\{1-a_{\nu}(1-\mu)-b_{\nu}(1-\mu)^2\right\}
330: \end{equation}
331: where the coefficients
332: $a_{\nu}$ and $b_{\nu}$ were linearly interpolated from Table~V of
333: \citet{wad85}. Here $\mu$ is the usual cosine of the surface viewing
334: angle.
335: Computing the mean intensity from this expression
336: and setting it to the LTE model atmosphere prediction, we find that
337: \begin{equation}
338: I_o=\frac{J_{\nu}(\tau_{\nu}=0)}{1-a_{\nu}-(3/4)\,b_{\nu}} \,.
339: \end{equation}
340: While this procedure is approximate, and the exact $I_{\mu\nu}$
341: for each $\mu$ predicted by the LTE model could have been used, this approximation
342: seems commensurate with others made in the
343: construction of these models. We also note the use of a more physically
344: realistic non-LTE, line-blanketed atmosphere for $J_{\nu}(\tau_{\nu}=0)$
345: would be a useful future improvement.
346:
347: %
348: % Added in response to referee query[6]
349: %
350: In addition to limb darkening, gravity darkening induced by rapid stellar
351: rotation can change the intensity distribution across the stellar disk
352: and hence modify the direct component to the photoionizing radiation field.
353: \cite{tyc05} interferometrically resolved $\gamma$~Cas's disk and
354: estimated its inclination angle to the sky. They conclude the
355: $\gamma$~Cas rotates at $0.7\pm0.1$ of its critical velocity. As
356: $\gamma\,$Cas does not seem to rotate particularly close to its critical
357: velocity, we have not included gravity darkening (and the associated
358: geometrical distortion of it's surface) into the calculation of the
359: direct photoionizing radiation field. This point is further discussed
360: in Section~\ref{sec:MM} where the adopted stellar parameters for
361: $\gamma\,$Cas are discussed.
362:
363: %
364: % This paragraph was modified in response to query[9]
365: %
366: The simplest treatment for the diffuse field is to employ the
367: on-the-spot (OTS) approximation in which
368: the recombination rate to level $n$ of hydrogen is written as
369: \begin{equation}
370: \label{eq:OTS}
371: R_{\kappa,n}^{\rm H}(\tau_n)\,\equiv\,R_{\kappa,n}^{\rm H}\,e^{-\tau_n} \,.
372: \end{equation}
373: Here $\tau_n$ is the optical depth at the continuum limit for
374: photoionization from level $n$ along a vertical ray to the nearest edge
375: of the disk (this is consistent with our assumption that the dominant
376: photon escape route is perpendicular to the disk ---see later discussion).
377: Thus the principle assumption of the OTS approximation is that at
378: high continuum optical depths, $\tau_n\gg1$, recombination to level $n$
379: produces a photon that is locally absorbed within the same volume
380: element, essentially undoing the recombination. Including the continuum
381: optical depth dependence in equation~(\ref{eq:OTS}) ensures that the OTS
382: approximation is used only when $\tau_n\gg1$; the full recombination
383: coefficient is employed when the gas becomes optically thin in the
384: continuum. We have applied to OTS approximation only to recombination to
385: level $n=1$ in hydrogen. The optical depths in the remaining continua
386: are typically not large enough for a significant effect. We discuss
387: a more complex, but still approximate, treatment for the diffuse field
388: in section~\ref{sec:diffuse}.
389:
390: Given the photoionizing radiation field and current estimates of the electron
391: temperature and electron density at each grid location, we solve the
392: statistical equilibrium equations to obtain the level populations for
393: all atoms and ions. For atom $k$, and all of its associated ions, these are
394: \begin{equation}
395: \sum_{j\ne i}^{N^k_L} n^k_i R_{ij} - \sum_{j\ne i}^{N^k_L} n^k_j R_{ji} = 0 \,,
396: \end{equation}
397: for $i=1,\ldots N^k_L$ where $N^k_L$ is the number of atomic levels included
398: for the $k^{\rm th}$ atom and its ionization stages.
399: Note that these equations must be supplemented by a particle
400: conservation equation of the form
401: \begin{equation}
402: \sum_{i}^{N^k_L} n^k_i = 10^{A_k-12} n_{\rm H}
403: \end{equation}
404: for each atomic species. The elemental
405: abundance, $A_k$, can be found
406: from Table~\ref{tab:abun}.
407:
408: In the case of bound-bound transitions $i\rightarrow j$,
409: $i<j$, the rates have the simple form
410: \begin{equation}
411: R_{ij} = n_{\rm e}\,q_{ij}(T_e)
412: \end{equation}
413: and
414: \begin{equation}
415: R_{ji} = A_{ji}\,P_{\rm esc}(\tau_z) + n_{\rm e}\,q_{ji}(T_e) \,.
416: \end{equation}
417: Here the factors $q_{ij}(T_e)$ and $q_{ji}(T_e)$ represent collisional
418: excitation and de-excitation respectively and are proportional to
419: the Maxwellian-averaged collision strength for $i\,\rightarrow\,j$
420: transition. $A_{ji}$ is the usual Einstein transition probability for
421: spontaneous emission. This form of the statistical equilibrium equations
422: handles radiative transfer in the line via the escape-probability
423: approximation. The escape probability for each grid location was obtained
424: by computing the line-centre optical depth to the nearest vertical edge
425: of the disk (denoted $\tau_z$) and then using this optical depth to
426: estimate the static, single-flight escape probability assuming complete
427: redistribution in the spectral line.
428:
429: %
430: % Added in response to referee query[3] and query[12]
431: %
432: We have assumed that the dominant loss route for
433: photons is perpendicular to the disk because of the exponential density
434: stratification implied by vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. As it is
435: reasonable to assume that the main motion of the disk gas is Keplerian
436: rotation about the central star, the Doppler shifts experienced by photons
437: escaping roughly perpendicular to the disk will be small, and it is appropriate
438: to approximate the escape probability, $P_{\rm esc}(\tau_z)$, by a {\it
439: static\/}, single-flight escape probability, as opposed to employing the
440: Sobolev approximation. This is consistent with the definition of $\tau_z$
441: as the optical along a ray perpendicular to the disk to the nearest edge;
442: $\tau_z$ is not defined in terms of a local velocity gradient as in the
443: Sobolev approximation.
444: %
445:
446: %
447: % Paragraph is modified in response to query[10]
448: %
449: The form of the static, single-flight escape probability appropriate for
450: complete-redistribution over a Doppler profile is
451: \begin{equation}
452: P_{\rm esc}(\tau) = \frac{1} { 4\tau\left(\ln(\tau/\sqrt{\pi})\right)^{1/2} }\,,
453: \end{equation}
454: where $\tau\gg1$ \citep{mil78,can85}. As this result
455: is an asymptotic expansion \citep[essentially in the limit
456: that the scale of variation
457: of the line source function is large compared to the width of the scattering
458: kernel -- see][]{can85}, an ad-hoc correction is needed to handle
459: $\tau\ll1$. Here we have adopted the suggestion of \citet{tie05} where the
460: escape probability is taken to be
461: \begin{equation}
462: P_{\rm esc}(\tau) = \frac{1-e^{-2.34\tau}}{4.68\tau}\,,
463: \end{equation}
464: for $\tau<7$. This function is continuous with the asymptotic result at
465: $\tau=7$ and tends to the limit of $1/2$ as $\tau\rightarrow 0$, a reasonable
466: result if the collisional destruction probability of the line photon upon
467: scattering is not too small.
468:
469: In the case $i\rightarrow j\equiv\kappa$ is a bound-free transition, the
470: photoionization and recombination (spontaneous plus stimulated) rates are given by
471: \begin{equation}
472: R_{i\,\kappa}=4\pi\int_{\nu_o}^{\infty}\,\sigma_{i\kappa}(\nu)\,J_{\nu}\, \frac{d\nu}{h\nu}
473: \end{equation}
474: and
475: \begin{equation}
476: \label{eq:recom}
477: R_{\kappa\,i}=4\pi\left(\frac{n_i}{n_{\kappa}}\right)^{*}
478: \int_{\nu_o}^{\infty} \sigma_{i\kappa}(\nu) \left(\frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2}+J_{\nu}\right)\,\frac{d\nu}{h\nu} \,.
479: \end{equation}
480: Here $(n_i/n_{\kappa})^*$ is the LTE population ratio found from the
481: Saha-Boltzmann equation and it is proportional to the electron density,
482: $n_e$ \citep{mil78}. Dielectronic recombination and autoionization are
483: included by retaining the full resonance structure of the photoionization
484: cross section $\sigma_{i\kappa}(\nu)$.
485:
486: Given the solution for the atomic level populations, a new estimate for
487: the electron density can be made by enforcing charge conservation, and
488: the rates of heating and cooling for the various atomic processes can
489: then be computed. Heating includes photoionization and collisional
490: de-excitation while cooling includes radiative recombination and
491: collisional excitation. Detailed expressions for all of these processes
492: can be found in \cite{ost89}. However, in contrast to \citet{ost89},
493: transitions (and the implied cooling) due to radiative recombination
494: were computed explicitly via equation~(\ref{eq:recom}) for each atomic
495: level; total recombination co-efficients (summed over $n$) were not used.
496:
497: Heating due to viscous dissipation in a Keplerian disk was also included
498: \citep{lee91} but was always found to be negligible.
499:
500: Net cooling due to free-free emission (in the fields of H\,{\sc i}
501: and He\,{\sc ii}) was included via the expression of \citet{ryb79},
502: modified as suggested by \citet{net90} to account for the reduction in the
503: free-free cooling rate as the gas becomes optically thick to free-free
504: radiation,
505: \begin{equation}
506: L_{\rm ff}= 1.4\cdot10^{-27}\,\sqrt{T_e}\,n_e\,
507: \sum_{i=\rm H, He}\,n_i\,Z_i^2\,\overline{g_{ff}}\,e^{-h\nu_{\rm max}/kT_e}\,.
508: \end{equation}
509: Here $Z_i=1$ and the frequency cut-off, $\nu_{\rm max}$, suggested by
510: \citet{net90},
511: is the smallest frequency for which the optical depth to the nearest
512: edge of the disk exceeds one. The Gaunt factor, $\overline{g_{ff}}$,
513: which varies slowly with temperature, was set to a constant value of
514: 1.2 which \citet{ryb79} indicate will approximate the exact result to
515: within 20\%.
516:
517: To find the equilibrium kinetic temperature, $T_e$, at each grid location,
518: heating and cooling were balanced by searching for a zero in
519: the net-cooling rate, $\eta_{\rm C}(T_e)$. The root was initially located via
520: bisection and then refined with the secant method. In the rare case of multiple
521: roots, the stable one satisfying $d\eta_{\rm C}/dT_e>0$ was chosen.
522:
523: The overall flow of the calculation is to start at the inner boundary of
524: the disk, closest to the star at $i=1$. Solutions proceed downward in $Z$,
525: from the top of the disk ($j=n_z$) to the equatorial plane ($j=1)$. This
526: allows the optical depths back to the star and to the nearest edge of
527: the disk to be kept current with the solution level populations.
528:
529: \section{Computations}
530:
531: In this section, we first compare the predictions of our code with known
532: results for $\gamma\,$Cas. Next we explore a wide range of disk parameters
533: for $\gamma\,$Cas and investigate the effect on the temperature structure
534: of the disk of using a solar chemical composition for the gas. We then
535: examine the energy loss in the spectral lines included in the models
536: and compute the near infrared spectral energy distribution. Finally,
537: we examine the computation of the diffuse photoionizing radiation field
538: generated by the disk itself in order to evaluate the use of the OTS
539: approximation for most of the models computed in this work.
540:
541: \subsection{Comparison with Millar \& Marlborough}
542: \label{sec:MM}
543:
544: \citet{mil98} constructed a pure-hydrogen radiative equilibrium model
545: for $\gamma\,$~Cas. \citet{mil99} (MM, hereafter) extended this work
546: to include the OTS approximation for the diffuse radiation field,
547: and it is this temperature distribution which we have chosen for
548: comparison. We adopt the same stellar parameters for $\gamma\,$~Cas as
549: MM, which are reproduced in Table~\ref{tab:gamma_cas_star}. As we use
550: these fundamental parameters for all of the calculations in this work,
551: some additional comment is in order, particularly concerning the adopted
552: stellar effective temperature. \citet{fre05} investigate of the effect
553: of rapid rotation on fundamental parameter determinations of B~stars.
554: They find, by fitting the line spectrum between $4250$ and $4500\;$\AA,
555: ``apparent stellar parameters" for $\gamma\,$Cas (those obtained by
556: a best fit classical, plane-parallel model atmosphere) of $T_{\rm
557: eff} = 26,400\;$K and $\log(g)=3.8$ which are close to the parameters
558: adopted in this work. Nevertheless, they do find significant effects
559: of rotation in their best-fit rotating models which have a {\it parent
560: non-rotating counterpart\/} $T_{\rm eff}$ (see their paper for details)
561: of $\approx\,30,000\;$K. This result suggests that accounting for the
562: rotation of $\gamma\,$Cas in a manner following \citet{fre05} (but using
563: non-LTE stellar atmospheres) would be a useful future improvement in
564: the computation of the direct stellar contribution to the photoionizing
565: radiation field.
566:
567: The fixed density structure for the $\gamma\,$~Cas disk adopted by MM
568: is described by \citet{mar69} and is slightly different from the model
569: described in section~\ref{sec:detail}. MM assume that the disk is in
570: isothermal, hydrostatic equilibrium at only one radial distance from
571: the central star and that the radial drop-off in the equatorial density
572: follows from an assumed (radial) outflow velocity law and the equation
573: of continuity. We have simply adopted the $(R_i,Z_j)$ grid of MM (which
574: is 24 by 20) and their total density at each grid point as input to {\sc
575: bedisk}. We have used a 5-level hydrogen atom plus continuum for this
576: comparison and have also used the OTS approximation (as described previously)
577: for the diffuse field. Despite this, there are still some significant
578: differences between the calculations: our approach uses the optical depths
579: in the OTS approximation and in the line escape probabilities as opposed
580: to the various cases of MM. We use a newer ATLAS stellar atmosphere to
581: predict the photoionizing radiation field from the star and use many
582: more rays from each grid point back to the star. No attempt was made
583: to use identical atomic data: MM included collisional transitions for
584: only transitions $n$ to $n\pm 1$ in hydrogen whereas we have included
585: all collisional rates. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the
586: comparison is a useful check.
587:
588: \begin{deluxetable}{lrl}
589: \tablewidth{0pt}
590: \tablecaption{Stellar Parameters for $\gamma\,$ Cas.\label{tab:gamma_cas_star}}
591: \tablehead{
592: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Unit}
593: }
594: \startdata
595: Spectral Class& B0 IVe & \nodata \\
596: Radius & 10.0 & $R_{\sun}$\\
597: Mass & 17.0 & $M_{\sun}$\\
598: Luminosity & $3.4\,\,10^4$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
599: $T_{\rm eff}$ & 25,000 & K\\
600: $\log(g)$ & 3.50 & $\rm cm\,s^{-2}$~\\
601: Distance$^{a}$& $188^{+22}_{-18}$ & pc \\
602: \enddata
603: \vspace{0.1in}
604: \tablenotetext{a}{Distance from the Hipparcos catalogue \citep{per97}.}
605: \end{deluxetable}
606:
607: {\sc bedisk} predicts a density-weighted average temperature,
608: defined as
609: \begin{equation}
610: \overline{T_\rho} \equiv \frac{1}{M} \int_{\rm Disk}\, T\,\rho\,dV \,,
611: \end{equation}
612: (where $M$ is the total mass of the disk), of $11\,300$~K. This is to be
613: compared to the $14\,500$~K quoted by
614: MM (in their Table~1). This significant difference is simply one of
615: definition: the density-weighted average quoted by MM is actually defined
616: as $(\sum \rho_{ij}\,T_{ij})/\sum \rho_{ij}$ where the sum is over all
617: of the grid points in the calculation. Computing this quantity for the
618: current {\sc bedisk} model yields $13\,900$~K which agrees with the MM
619: result to within 5\%.
620:
621: Figure~\ref{fig:tratio_PM} compares the ratio of the {\sc bedisk}
622: temperature to the MM temperature throughout the entire circumstellar
623: disk. Agreement is generally good; {\sc bedisk} tends to be somewhat
624: cooler near the equatorial plane in the inner portion of the disk, while
625: somewhat hotter towards the upper edge. However, 80\% of the grid points
626: agree to within $\pm20$\%. The largest differences tend to occur along
627: with upper edge of the envelope where the optical depths (to the nearest
628: vertical edge of the disk) are most rapidly changing. The treatment of the
629: escape of line radiation, as noted above, and particularly of how the OTS
630: approximation was implemented (MM applied OTS to the whole disk as opposed
631: to including an optical depth dependence as in equation~\ref{eq:OTS}),
632: are likely the origin of the more significant differences.
633:
634: \begin{figure}
635: \epsscale{1.0}
636: \plotone{f1.eps}
637: \caption{Ratio of the {\sc bedisk} temperature to the MM temperature
638: for $\gamma\,$Cas.\label{fig:tratio_PM}}
639: \vspace{0.1in}
640: \end{figure}
641:
642: \subsection{Effect of Adding Metals on the Thermal Structure}
643:
644: Table~\ref{tab:models} gives the disk parameters for 16 disk
645: models computed to compare with observations of $\gamma$~Cas.
646: These models span a range of nearly two
647: orders of magnitude in density (as obtained by varying $\rho_o$ from
648: $2.5\cdot\,10^{-12}$ to $1.0\cdot\,10^{-10}$ $\rm gm\,cm^{-3}$) with
649: two values assumed for the radial drop-off of the density in the equatorial plane,
650: $R^{-2.5}$ and $R^{-3.5}$. All models assumed
651: $T_o=13\,500\;$K for the isothermal temperature which sets the vertical
652: density scale-height via Eq.~\ref{eq:scaleH}. Also given in the table are the
653: predicted density-weighted temperatures,
654: the disk emission measures (in $\rm cm^{-3}$), defined as
655: \begin{equation}
656: {\rm EM} \equiv \int_{\rm Disk} n_e^2 \,dV \,,
657: \end{equation}
658: and the predicted total H$\alpha$ luminosities (in $\rm ergs\,s^{-1}$).
659: Section~\ref{sec:lum} discusses how the H$\alpha$ luminosity was computed.
660: The parameters of the central star were again those of
661: Table~\ref{tab:gamma_cas_star}.
662:
663: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
664: \tablewidth{0pt}
665: \tablecaption{Model Disk Parameters.\label{tab:models}}
666: \tablehead{
667: \colhead{n} & $\rho_o$ & $\overline{T_\rho}$ & \colhead{$\log\,$EM} &
668: \colhead{$\log\,$H$\alpha$} \\
669: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\rm g\,cm^{-3}$} & \colhead{K} & \colhead{$\rm cm^{-3}$} &
670: \colhead{$\rm erg\,s^{-1}$}
671: }
672: \startdata
673: 2.5 & $2.5\,10^{-12}$ & 14060 & 59.25 & 33.43 \\
674: 2.5 & $5.0\,10^{-12}$ & 12870 & 59.84 & 33.79 \\
675: 2.5 & $7.5\,10^{-12}$ & 12420 & 60.16 & 33.99 \\
676: 2.5 & $1.0\,10^{-11}$ & 12170 & 60.40 & 34.12 \\
677: 2.5 & $2.5\,10^{-11}$ & 11040 & 61.10 & 34.48 \\
678: 2.5 & $5.0\,10^{-11}$ & 9420 & 61.50 & 34.69 \\
679: 2.5 & $7.5\,10^{-11}$ & 8590 & 61.57 & 34.77 \\
680: 2.5 & $1.0\,10^{-10}$ & 8140 & 61.62 & 34.80 \\
681: %
682: 3.5 & $2.5\,10^{-12}$ & 13990 & 58.88 & 32.90 \\
683: 3.5 & $5.0\,10^{-12}$ & 13740 & 59.48 & 33.17 \\
684: 3.5 & $7.5\,10^{-12}$ & 13500 & 59.81 & 33.31 \\
685: 3.5 & $1.0\,10^{-11}$ & 13290 & 60.05 & 33.40 \\
686: 3.5 & $2.5\,10^{-11}$ & 12080 & 60.82 & 33.68 \\
687: 3.5 & $5.0\,10^{-11}$ & 11050 & 61.35 & 33.85 \\
688: 3.5 & $7.5\,10^{-11}$ & 10560 & 61.48 & 33.95 \\
689: 3.5 & $1.0\,10^{-10}$ & 10240 & 61.55 & 34.01 \\
690: \enddata
691: \end{deluxetable}
692:
693: The density-weighted temperatures predicted by the models are plotted
694: in Figure~\ref{fig:denaverage} as a function of $\rho_o$. These results
695: are compared to the predicted density-weighted temperatures for a set
696: of pure hydrogen disks with identical physical parameters. Also shown
697: in the Figure is the observed disk temperature for $\gamma$~Cas of
698: $9500\pm1000$~K as found by \citet{hon00} by fitting the IR Humphrey's
699: bound-free jump at 3.4$\,\mu$m. As expected, denser disks predict lower
700: density-weighted temperatures.
701:
702: The $R^{-2.5}$ models are consistent with the \citet{hon00} result for
703: densities in the range of $3$ to $8\cdot\,10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$. This
704: agrees well with the density estimated by \citet{hon00} using their
705: observations and the disk models of \citet{wat86}. The $R^{-3.5}$
706: models are only just consistent with the \citet{hon00} result for largest
707: densities considered, $\rho_o\approx 10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$
708:
709: The predicted temperature trend as a function of $\rho_o$ has an
710: interesting dependence on the metallicity of the gas. For low density
711: disks, the solar composition disks are considerably cooler than the
712: pure hydrogen models by 1-2000~K. However, the difference decreases for
713: higher disk densities, $\rho_o>2\cdot\,10^{-11}\rm \,g\,cm^{3}$. Indeed,
714: for the $R^{-2.5}$ models, the higher density solar and pure hydrogen
715: disks predict nearly the same density-weighted temperatures. This
716: behaviour can be understood in terms of the heating and cooling avenues
717: introduced by metals. Metals can act to cool the gas due to the escape
718: of collisionally-excited line radiation. However, metals can also
719: help to heat the gas via photoionization. If the optical depths in
720: the hydrogen continua (excluding the Lyman continuum) are low, then
721: the additional heating provided by the photoionization of metals is
722: negligible in comparison to hydrogen. In this case, it is the cooling due
723: to collisionally-excited line radiation that dominates. In a low-density
724: disk, line cooling is further enhanced by the small optical depths
725: (and hence high escape-probabilities) in the lines.
726:
727: At high densities, however, the optical depths in the hydrogen bound-free
728: continua are much larger; photoionization heating due to metals can then
729: become important, particularly as many abundant metals have bound-free
730: thresholds in the short-wavelength region of the Balmer continuum which
731: is near the photospheric flux maximum in B~stars. In this case, metals
732: add both heating and cooling and the net result is a very similar
733: density-weighted temperature to the case of a pure hydrogen plasma.
734: These trends help explain why \citep{mil98} where able to obtain a
735: reasonable density-weighted temperature for $\gamma$~Cas despite using
736: a pure hydrogen envelope.
737:
738: \begin{figure}
739: \epsscale{1.0}
740: \plotone{f2.eps}
741: \caption{Density-weighted disk temperatures for the models
742: of Table~\ref{tab:models}.\label{fig:denaverage}}
743: \vspace{0.1in}
744: \end{figure}
745:
746: Two-dimensional temperature distributions in the disk for
747: several different density $R^{-2.5}$ models are shown in
748: Figure~\ref{fig:2Dtemp}. The inner portion of the disk for $R/R_*<5$
749: is expanded in each case for clarity. These figures clearly show the
750: development of a cool region near and in the equatorial plane for the
751: higher density disks. These denser disks have fairly strong vertical
752: temperature gradients perpendicular to the equatorial plane. Given
753: this, it would seem prudent to re-integrate the equation of hydrostatic
754: equilibrium at each radial distance, accounting for the vertical variation
755: of the gas temperature, and then to iterate the pressure structure along
756: with the thermal solution to produce a disk that is in both radiative and
757: (vertical) hydrostatic equilibrium; we shall present such models in a
758: future work \citep{mcg06}. However, as the focus of the present work is
759: on the thermal structure of the disk, it is convenient to have a fixed
760: density structure so that the thermal effect of the gas metallicity can
761: be unambiguously seen.
762:
763: \begin{figure}
764: \epsscale{1.0}
765: \plotone{f3.eps}
766: \caption{Circumstellar disk temperature as predicted by three $R^{-2.5}$
767: models. The top panel has $\rho_o=1\cdot\,10^{-12}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$,
768: the middle panel, $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-12}$, and the bottom panel,
769: $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}$. Each panel on the right enlarges the inner
770: portion of the disk from the panel on its left.
771: \label{fig:2Dtemp}}
772: \vspace{0.1in}
773: \end{figure}
774:
775: Figure~\ref{fig:add_metals} presents a detailed comparison of the
776: temperature structure predicted by a gas with a realistic
777: solar composition to that of a pure hydrogen model. The figure
778: compares the temperature ratio $T^{\rm Solar}/T^{\rm Pure H}$
779: for two densities, $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}$ and $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-12}\,\rm
780: g\,cm^{-3}$. In both cases, the optically thin gas far above the
781: equatorial plane is cooler with the inclusion of metals. However, in the
782: lower density model, $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-12}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$, the gas in
783: the equatorial plane near the star is hotter for the solar composition
784: gas out to $R/R_*\sim 6$. In the higher density model, the gas near the
785: equatorial plane has nearly the same temperature in the solar and pure
786: hydrogen models. These trends are consistent with the effects noted
787: in the discussion of the density-weighted average disk temperatures.
788:
789: \begin{figure}
790: \epsscale{1.0}
791: \plotone{f4.eps}
792: \caption{Temperature ratio between a full solar composition disk to that
793: of a pure hydrogen disk. Shown in the bottom panel is a model
794: with $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-12}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$, and in the top panel,
795: one with $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$.
796: Both models had an $R^{-2.5}$ density drop-off in the equatorial
797: plane. Each panel on the right enlarges the inner
798: portion of the disk from the panel on its left.
799: \label{fig:add_metals}}
800: \vspace{0.1in}
801: \end{figure}
802:
803: \subsection{Line Luminosities}
804:
805: \label{sec:lum}
806:
807: Figure~\ref{fig:halpha_flux} plots the total energy lost in
808: H$\alpha$ (in $\rm ergs\,s^{-1}$) by the 16 models of Table~\ref{tab:models}.
809: The line luminosity was found by integrating the flux divergence, in the
810: escape probability approximation\footnote{In the escape probability
811: approximation, the net radiative bracket is replaced by the (single-flight)
812: escape probability.},
813: over the volume of the disk, {\it i.e.}
814: \begin{equation}
815: \label{eq:lum}
816: L=h\nu_{ij} A_{ji}\int_{\rm Disk} n_j\,P_{\rm esc}(\tau_{ij}) \, dV \,.
817: \end{equation}
818: For H$\alpha$, $i$ is level $n=2$ of H\,{\sc i} and $j$ is level $n=3$.
819: Also shown in the Figure is the H$\alpha$ luminosity observationally determined
820: by \citet{kas89} and \citet{ste95}. The H$\alpha$ luminosity from $\gamma\,$Cas
821: is known to be variable, but the cited values are typical of the current
822: epoch. There is good agreement with the observed luminosity for
823: $R^{-2.5}$ models with $\rho_o$ between $2.5\cdot\,10^{-11}$
824: and $10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$. This result is
825: consistent with the models that best fit the observed disk temperature
826: of \cite{hon00}. However, the $R^{-3.5}$ models seem inconsistent with the
827: total energy loss in H$\alpha$ for the range of disk densities considered.
828:
829: \begin{figure}
830: \epsscale{1.0}
831: \plotone{f5.eps}
832: \caption{The predicted energy loss in H$\alpha$ from
833: Eq.~\protect\ref{eq:lum} (in $\rm ergs\,s^{-1}$)
834: for the models of Table~\protect\ref{tab:models}. Shown as the shaded rectangle
835: is the observed range of values from \cite{kas89} and \citep{ste95}.
836: \label{fig:halpha_flux}}
837: \vspace{0.1in}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: Figure~\ref{fig:line_flux} shows energy escaping in all of the
841: included radiative transitions for the $R^{-2.5}$ model with
842: $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$. The fluxes are again found by
843: integrating Eq.~\ref{eq:lum} over the disk. It is important to keep in
844: mind that Figure~\ref{fig:line_flux} is not a spectrum (which would be
845: obtained by integrating the transfer equation along a series of rays
846: through the computational domain); it is simply a plot of the energy
847: loss per second in each line acting to cool the gas. Nevertheless,
848: it gives a good indication of the expected strong emission lines in
849: the disk spectrum. For this particular model, 94\% of the energy loss
850: is provided by the lines of H\,{\sc i}. Contributing at the level of
851: $\approx\,1$\% percent are Fe\,{\sc ii}, C\,{\sc ii}, Mg\,{\sc ii}, and
852: He\,{\sc i}. Next to the lines of H\,{\sc i}, the largest energy losses
853: are in the resonance lines $\lambda\,1333.6\,$\AA\ line of C\,{\sc ii}
854: ($\rm 2s^2\,2p\,^2P^o\,-\,2s\,2p^2\,^2D$) and the h and k lines of
855: Mg\,{\sc ii} near $\lambda\,2800\,$\AA. Although it does not possess a
856: single strong line, cooling due to Fe\,{\sc ii} dominates over all of
857: the metals due to its rich spectrum with many collisionally-excited lines.
858: It should be noted that Figure~\ref{fig:line_flux} and the percentage
859: contributons cited above represent a {\it global\/}
860: picture of energy loss integrated over the entire disk. The impact of the
861: heating and cooling contributions of metals can be much larger at
862: individual grid locations as demonstrated by Figure~\ref{fig:add_metals}.
863:
864: \begin{figure}
865: \epsscale{1.0}
866: \plotone{f6.eps}
867: \caption{The energy loss in each radiative transition predicted
868: by the $R^{-2.5}$ disk model with $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}$
869: Only transitions with an energy loss above $10^{30}\rm\,ergs\,s^{-1}$
870: are shown. The symbols representing the various elements are as
871: indicated in the legend. The ionization stage
872: is coded by colour: neutral (black), first ion (blue), second ion (red),
873: third ion (green).
874: \label{fig:line_flux}}
875: \vspace{0.1in}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: \subsection{Predicted IR spectral energy distributions}
879:
880: In this section, we consider the predicted IR continuum energy
881: distribution as emitted {\it perpendicular\/} to the disk\footnote{We
882: shall present detailed synthesis for the infrared hydrogen disk spectrum for arbitrary
883: inclination angles in a future work.}. Such models have
884: a zero inclination angle between the rotation axis and the observer's
885: line of sight. This spectrum is easily found by solving the radiative
886: transfer equation vertically through the disk at each $R_i$. If
887: $I_i\equiv I_{+1,\nu}(R_i)$ is the emergent
888: intensity for the annulus of area $A_i=\pi(R^2_{i+1/2}-R^2_{i-1/2})$
889: then the SED seen by the observer will be
890: \begin{equation}
891: L^{\rm Star+Disk}_{\nu}=I^{*}_{\nu}\,\pi R^{2}_{*} + \sum_{i=1}^{n_{R}}\,I_i A_i\,.
892: \end{equation}
893: Here $R_*$ is the radius of the star, $I^*_{\nu}$ is the specific
894: intensity corresponding to the stellar surface, and $I_i$ is the specific
895: intensity of the $i^{th}$ disk annulus. It is well known that at IR
896: wavelengths, Be stars possess an excess of radiation over that predicted
897: by an appropriate stellar photosphere model \citep{cot87}. This excess
898: comes mainly from free-free emission in the ionized disk\footnote{Note
899: that the exact expression for the free-free Gaunt factor was used for
900: this calculation.}, with a small contribution from free-bound emission
901: shortward (in wavelength) of the ionization edges.
902:
903: The near-IR spectral energy distributions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:IR}
904: for the $R^{-2.5}$ models of Table~\ref{tab:models}. Plotted is the
905: (monochromatic) IR excess expressed in magnitudes,
906: \begin{equation}
907: Z_{\nu}\equiv 2.5 \log\left(\frac{L^{Star+Disk}_{\nu}}{L^{Star}_{\nu}}\right).
908: \end{equation}
909: The discontinuous jumps at wavelengths less than ~$5\,\mu$m in this
910: figure, particularly for higher densities, represent the hydrogen
911: free-bound continua for recombination to $n=4$ ($1.4\,\mu$m) and $n=5$
912: ($2.2\,\mu$m). Unlike (plane-parallel) stellar photospheres which
913: have bound-free edges in absorption (reflecting the inward increase
914: in temperature), circumstellar material exhibits the bound-free edges
915: in emission, reflecting the increase in the gas emissivity due to
916: recombination. Thus the figure indicates a small contribution from
917: free-bound emission to the infrared excess at these wavelengths. We also
918: note that as the disk density is increased, the infrared excess steepens
919: most strongly between the wavelengths of 1 and 5$\;\mu$m.
920:
921: To compare with observations, we first show the $12$ and $25\,\mu$m IRAS
922: IR excesses for $\gamma\,$Cas found by \citet{cot87}. The model that
923: best matches the IRAS IR excess at these wavelengths has a slightly
924: smaller density, $\rho_o\approx 10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$, than the
925: model that best matches the observed average disk temperature and energy
926: loss in H$\alpha$, $\rho_o\approx 3\cdot\,10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$
927: (Figure~\ref{fig:denaverage}). However, there is good evidence
928: that $\gamma\,$Cas is seen at an inclination of $i>\approx\,55^o$
929: \citep{tyc06}, as opposed to being viewed pole-on ($i=0^o$) as assumed
930: by the models. Hence the models have an effective emitting area that is
931: too large and the IR excess is likely overestimated. In addition, the
932: spectra for non-zero inclination angles will reflect the contribution of
933: a different set of rays passing through the disk; the different physical
934: conditions along these rays will lead to differences in the gas opacity
935: and emissivity and hence a different predicted intensity along each ray.
936:
937: We also show in Figure~\ref{fig:IR} the 2.5 to 11.6$\,\mu$m Infrared Space
938: Observatory (ISO) spectrophotometry\footnote{We have extracted this data
939: from the ISO on-line archive. The spectrophotometry is from the PHT-40
940: instrument for observing series TDT~76803401.} for $\gamma\,$Cas. In
941: order to compare the ISO fluxes at the Earth to our photospheric model
942: (to set the reference flux to extract the excess), we require the angular
943: diameter of the star. \citet{tyc05} cite the major axis of the H$\alpha$
944: emitting region of $\gamma\,$Cas of $3.67\pm0.09\,$milli-arcseconds,
945: but this has a large contribution from the circumstellar disk. To
946: resolve this problem, we have chosen an angular diameter such
947: that the ISO data reproduces the $12\,\mu$m IRAS excess. Combining
948: this stellar angular diameter for $\gamma\,$Cas with the range of
949: Hipparcos distances listed in Table~\ref{tab:gamma_cas_star}, we find a
950: required radius for $\gamma\,$Cas of between 6.8 and 8.4 solar radii.
951: While this result in disagreement with the 10 solar radii listed in
952: Table~\ref{tab:gamma_cas_star}, the larger value is within the plausible
953: error range for $\gamma\,$Cas's radius. With this normalization,
954: the ISO observations match reasonably well with the $\rho_o\approx
955: 10^{-11}\,\rm g\,cm^{-3}$ model prediction over the considered wavelength
956: range. The fit is actually worse closer to the normalization point; the
957: shorter wavelength excess, between $2.5<\lambda<5\,\mu$m, is quite well
958: reproduced. Similar caveats to those ending the previous paragraph apply
959: here: a detailed comparison will be made with a model that correctly
960: accounts for the viewing inclination of $\gamma\,$Cas in a future work.
961:
962: \begin{figure}
963: \epsscale{1.0}
964: \plotone{f7.eps}
965: \caption{The IR excess expressed in magnitudes predicted by the
966: $R^{-2.5}$ models of Table~\protect\ref{tab:models}. The square data points at
967: $12$ and $25\,\mu$m are from \protect\citet{cot87}. The open circles are the
968: ISO spectrophotometry.
969: \label{fig:IR}}
970: \vspace{0.1in}
971: \end{figure}
972:
973: \subsection{An Approximate Treatment of the Diffuse Radiation Field}
974: \label{sec:diffuse}
975:
976: While the OTS approximation is simplest treatment of the diffuse
977: radiation field, Figure~\ref{fig:2Dtemp} shows that in the densest disks
978: ($\rho_o\approx 5\cdot\,10^{-11}\rm g\,cm^{-3}$), grid locations near
979: the equatorial plane can become quite cool due to large optical depths
980: back to the central star. However, examining the thermal structure
981: in the Z-direction at such a location typically shows that at heights
982: above and below the equatorial plane, the gas can still be quite hot
983: as it can be directly illuminated by at least a portion of the star.
984: One might expect that the radiation emitted from these hot ``sheaths"
985: might be an important source of secondary photoionizing radiation for
986: the equatorial gas \citep{car05}.
987:
988: In principle,
989: the calculation of $J^{\rm Dif}_{\nu}$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:jnu} requires
990: a solution of the transfer equation in the 2D cylindrical
991: geometry\footnote{A direct implementation of this approach can be found in \citet{car05}
992: who use a Monte Carlo approach to radiative transfer to estimate the
993: diffuse radiation field in the envelope of a somewhat later-type Be star.}.
994: However, to estimate the potential effect of this diffuse field on
995: the current work, we have tried a simpler and approximate approach.
996: We solve, at each $R_i$, the radiative transfer equation perpendicular to
997: the disk in the Z-direction using the method of short-characteristics
998: \citep{ols87}. The mean intensity along this ray is then
999: \begin{equation}
1000: J_{\nu}(Z_j)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{I_{\mu=+1,\nu}(Z_j)+I_{\mu=-1,\nu}(Z_j)\right\} \,.
1001: \end{equation}
1002: For this solution, zero incident radiation is assumed perpendicular to
1003: the disk, We then estimate the diffuse contribution to the photoionizing
1004: radiation field at each $Z_j$ by assigning
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: \label{eq:add_diff}
1007: J^{\rm Dif}_{\nu}(Z_j)=W_{\rm dif}\,J_{\nu}(Z_j) \,,
1008: \end{equation}
1009: Here $W_{\rm dif}$ represents an ad-hoc dilution factor, between zero
1010: and one, for the perpendicular rays. The expectation is that $J^{\rm Dif}_{\nu}$
1011: will potentially be most important in the cool equatorial regions that
1012: develop for higher density disks such as the one illustrated in
1013: the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:2Dtemp}. In such a cool obscured region,
1014: the hot sheaths above and below cover approximately $1/2$ of the available $4\pi$
1015: steradians so a dilution factor of $W_{\rm dif}=0.5$ is a reasonable approximation.
1016: In regions of the disk where the central star is not obscured, the choice of
1017: $W_{\rm dif}$ is irrelevant as $J^{\rm Dir}\gg J^{\rm Dif}$. For this reason,
1018: we have taken $W_{\rm dif}$ to be $1/2$ at all grid locations in the disk.
1019:
1020: Figure~\ref{fig:add_diff} shows the effect of adding such an
1021: approximate treatment of $J^{\rm Dif}$ to the $R^{-2.5}$ disk model with
1022: $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}$, the model which best matched the
1023: observed disk temperature and the total H$\alpha$ luminosity. With the
1024: diffuse field added, the amount of additional heating in the equatorial
1025: plane is fairly small, with only a $10-20$\% increase in the temperature
1026: there. Hence, we feel that the previously computed models are reliable
1027: despite the approximate treatment of the diffuse field through the OTS
1028: approximation.
1029:
1030: Note that this figure is not meant to imply that the effect of the
1031: diffuse field is negligible; in both runs, the on-the-stop (OTS)
1032: approximation, which approximates the local trapping of radiation with
1033: $\lambda<912\,$\AA\ and hence the diffuse photoionizing radiation field
1034: for $\lambda<912\,$\AA\ was employed following Eq.~\ref{eq:OTS} If the
1035: OTS approximation is turned off, there is considerable cooling of the
1036: equatorial regions\footnote{A subtle point is whether a model including
1037: $J^{\rm Dif}$ according to Eq.~\ref{eq:add_diff} should also employ
1038: the OTS approximation. In principle, employing both over counts the
1039: local radiation field in each volume element.} \citep[see also][]{mil99}
1040: and this would mask the effect (illumination of these same regions from
1041: above and below) that we were trying to investigate.
1042:
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: \epsscale{1.0}
1045: \plotone{f8.eps}
1046: \caption{The effect of adding the diffuse contribution of Eq.~\ref{eq:add_diff}
1047: to the temperatures predicted for
1048: the $R^{-2.5}$ disk model with $\rho_o=5\cdot\,10^{-11}\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}$. Plotted is
1049: the temperature ratio of a calculation including Eq.~\ref{eq:add_diff}
1050: to one omitting this contribution.
1051: \label{fig:add_diff}}
1052: \vspace{0.1in}
1053: \end{figure}
1054:
1055: \section{Conclusions}
1056:
1057: For the first time, we have constructed radiative equilibrium models for
1058: the disk of $\gamma\,$Cas using a gas with a solar chemical
1059: composition. We find that a model with a power-law equatorial gas
1060: density of $\rho(R)\approx 3$ to $5\cdot 10^{-11} (R/R_*)^{-2.5}\, \rm
1061: g\,cm^{-3}$, which is in vertical (isothermal) hydrostatic equilibrium,
1062: can reproduce several overall observed disk properties, including its
1063: (density-weighted) average temperature, the energy loss in H$\alpha$,
1064: and the near infrared flux excess.
1065:
1066: Also in this work, we have investigated the differences between our solar
1067: composition radiative equilibrium models and the corresponding set of
1068: pure hydrogen models with the same disk parameters. The effect of the
1069: additional heating and cooling provided by elements heavier than hydrogen
1070: on global measures of the disk structure, such as the density-weighted
1071: average disk temperature or the total energy loss in H$\alpha$, depend
1072: strongly on the parameter $\rho_o$ (the assumed equatorial density near
1073: the stellar surface) which sets the overall density of the disk. For low
1074: disk densities, $\rho_o< ~ 10^{-11}\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}$, the density-weighted
1075: averaged disk temperature is generally 1--2000~K cooler with a solar
1076: composition, due mostly to enhanced collisionally-excited line cooling. At
1077: higher densities, absorption of ionizing radiation in the bound-free
1078: continua of elements heavier than hydrogen provides additional heating
1079: which offsets somewhat the additional line cooling.
1080:
1081: In examining the detailed temperature at each position withing the disk,
1082: differences of up to $\approx\pm\,40$\% are found in comparing the solar
1083: composition models to the pure hydrogen models. While the global energy
1084: loss in H$\alpha$ in the solar and pure hydrogen models is similar, these
1085: significant differences in the disk temperature distribution may manifest
1086: themselves in the detailed spectra. The next step in the comparison
1087: between these two sets of models is to present predicted spectra over
1088: a wide range of wavelengths for a wide range of viewing inclinations.
1089:
1090: The {\sc bedisk} code represents a compromise between computational
1091: efficiency and realism. The code's most notable approximations are the
1092: treatment of the disk diffuse radiation field, the use of (first-order)
1093: static, escape probabilities for the line radiative transfer, the
1094: assumption of a spherical, non-rotating, central star, and the somewhat
1095: limited atomic models. Nevertheless, these approximations allow the code
1096: to efficiently explore a wide region of parameter space for the thermal
1097: structure of the circumstellar disks surrounding hot stars. Future work
1098: will proceed along two fronts: we will use the current version of {\sc
1099: bedisk} to compute a series of Be disk thermal models that will serve
1100: as the basis for detailed spectral synthesis to produce line profiles,
1101: interferometric visibilities, and continuum polarization signatures which
1102: can be directly compared to observations. Along the second front, we shall
1103: improve some of the basic assumptions of the code. Most notably, we will
1104: enforce a vertical hydrostatic equilibrium density structure consistent
1105: with the thermal solution, allow for potential gravitational darkening
1106: (and geometric distortion) of the central star by rapid rotation, and
1107: account for the diffuse photoionizing radiation field from the disk by
1108: a direct solution of the 2-D radiative transfer problem.
1109:
1110: \acknowledgments
1111:
1112: We would like to thank Chris Tycner for many helpful discussions. We
1113: thank Rens Waters for clarifying the IR excess of $\gamma\,$Cas. We
1114: also thank Kyle Lawson, Anna Molak, and Laura Thomson for help as part
1115: of their NSERC Summer Student awards. Finally, we would like to thank
1116: the anonymous referee for a careful reading of the text and providing
1117: many helpful comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the
1118: Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council through
1119: Discovery Grants to TAAS and CEJ.
1120:
1121: \appendix
1122:
1123: \section{The Atomic Data}
1124:
1125: Energy levels for all atoms and ions
1126: were adopted from the NIST Atomic Spectra
1127: Database\footnote{http://units.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html}.
1128: Radiative transition probabilities and photoionization cross
1129: sections were adopted from the Opacity Project Database TOPbase
1130: \footnote{http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/topbase.html}. The photoionization
1131: cross sections, which include complex resonance features due to
1132: autoionization, were smoothed by convolution with a Gaussian down to the
1133: resolution of the ATLAS frequency grid. Thermally-averaged collision
1134: strengths for the electron impact excitation of hydrogen were adopted
1135: from \citet{cal94}, \citet{agg91}, and \citet{cha91}. Thermally-averaged
1136: collisional strengths for the remaining atoms and ions were adopted
1137: from the compilation of \citet{pp95} where available. The Gaunt factor
1138: approximation was used for the remaining dipole-allowed transitions. The
1139: atomic data for iron and its ions were adopted from the extensive model
1140: atoms constructed by \citet{sig03} and \citet{sig04}.
1141:
1142: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1143:
1144: \bibitem[Aggarwal et al.(1991)]{agg91} Aggarwal, K.M., Berrington, K.A., Burker, P.G., \&
1145: Pathak, A.\ 1991 J.\ Phys.\ B: At.\ Mol.\ Opt.\ Phys.\ 24, 1385
1146: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{and89} Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N.\ 1989 Geochim.\ Cosmochim.\
1147: Acta.\ 53, 197
1148: \bibitem[Anders \& Noels(1993)]{and93} Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N.\ 1993 Physica Scripta T47, 133
1149: \bibitem[Callaway(1994)]{cal94} Callaway, J.\ 1994 Atomic Data \& Nuclear Data Tables, 57, 9
1150: \bibitem[Cannon(1985)]{can85} Cannon, C.J.\ 1985 {\it The Transfer of Spectral Line Radiation}
1151: (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)
1152: \bibitem[Carciofi \& Bjorkman(2006)]{car05} Carciofi, A. C., \& Bjorkman, J. E. 2005, \apj, 639, 1081
1153: \bibitem[Chang, Avrett \& Loeser(1991)]{cha91} Chang, E.S., Avrett, E.H., \& Loeser, R.\ 1991
1154: \aap, 247, 580.
1155: %\bibitem[Chesneau et al.(2005)]{che05}Chesneau, O., Meilland, A., Rivinius, T., Stee,P., Jankov,S.,
1156: % Domiciano de Souza, A., Graser,U., Herbst, T., Janot-Pacheco, E.,
1157: % Koehler, R., \& 5 co-authors 2005, \aap, 435, 275
1158: \bibitem[Cot\'{e} \& Waters(1987)]{cot87} Cot\'{e}, J., \& Waters, L. B. F. M. 1987, \aap, 176, 93
1159: \bibitem[Coyne \& Kruszewski(1969)]{coy69} Coyne, G. V., \& Kruszewski, A. 1969, \aj, 74, 528
1160: \bibitem[Cranmer(2005)]{cra05} Cranmer, S. R. 2005, \apj, 634, 585
1161: \bibitem[Dougherty \& Taylor(1992)]{dou92} Dougherty, S. M., \& Taylor, A. R. 1992, Nature, 359, 808
1162: \bibitem[Fremat et al.(2005)]{fre05} Fremat, Y., Zorec, J., Hubert, A.-M., \& Floquet, M.\ 2005 \aap, 440, 305
1163: \bibitem[Hony et al.(2000)]{hon00}Hony, S., Waters, L.B.F.M., Zaal, P.A., de Koter, A., Marlborough, J.M.,
1164: Millar, C.E., Trams, N.R., Morris, P.W., \& de Graauw, Th.\ 2000 \aap, 355, 187
1165: \bibitem[Harmanec et al.(2000)]{har00} Harmanec, P., \& 10 co-authors 2000 \aap, 364, L85
1166: \bibitem[Hubeny, Hummer, \& Lanz(1994)]{hhl94} Hubeny, I., Hummer, D.G., \& Lanz, T.\ 1994 \aap, 282, 151
1167: \bibitem[Jones, Sigut \& Marlborough(2004)]{jon04} Jones, C. E., Sigut, T. A. A., \& Marlborough, J. M. 2004, \mnras, 352, 841
1168: \bibitem[Kastner \& Mazzli(1989)]{kas89}Kastner, J.H., \& Mazzli, P.A.\ 1989 \aap, 210, 295
1169: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993)]{kur93} Kurucz, R.\ F.\ 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM No.\ 13.\ Cambridge, Mass: Smithsonian
1170: Astrophysical Observatory
1171: \bibitem[Lee, Saio, \& Osaki(1991)]{lee91} Lee, Saio, \& Osaki 1991 \mnras, 250, 432
1172: \bibitem[Limber(1969)]{lim69} Limber, D. N. 1969, \apj, 157, 785
1173: \bibitem[Marlborough(1969)]{mar69} Marborough, J.\ M.\ 1969 \apj, 156, 135
1174: \bibitem[McAlister et al.(2005)]{mca05} McAlister, H. A., Brummelaar, T. A., Gies, D. R., Huang, W., Bagnuolo, W. G., Jr.,
1175: Shure, M. A., Sturmann, J., Sturmann, L., Turner, N. H., Taylor, S. F.,
1176: \& 6 co-authors 2005, \apj, 628, 439
1177: \bibitem[McGill, Sigut \& Jones(2006)]{mcg06} McGill, M.\ A.\, Sigut, T.A.A., \& Jones, C.E., 2006 American Astronomical Sociey Meeting 208
1178: \bibitem[Mihalas(1978)]{mil78} Mihalas, D.\ 1978 {\it Stellar Atmospheres} (W.\ H.\ Freeman \& Company: New York)
1179: \bibitem[Millar \& Marlborough(1999)]{mil99} Millar, C. E., \& Marlborough, J. M. 1999, \apj, 516, 276
1180: \bibitem[Millar \& Marlborough(1998)]{mil98} Millar, C. E., \& Marlborough, J. M. 1998, \apj, 494, 715
1181: \bibitem[Miroshnichenko et al.(2002)]{mir02} Miroshnichenko, A. S, Bjorkman, K. S, \& Krugov, V. D. 2002, \pasp, 114, 1226
1182: \bibitem[Moore \& Merrill(1968)]{mor68} Moore, C.\ E., \& Merrill, P.\ W.\ 1968 {\it Partial Grotrian Diagrams of
1183: Astrophysical Interest}, NSRDS-NBS~23
1184: \bibitem[Netzer(1990)]{net90} Netzer, H.\ 1990 {\it Active Galactic Nuclei: SAAS-FEE Advanced Course 20 Lecture
1185: Notes}, R.D. Blandford \& H.\ Netzer editors, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), 57
1186: \bibitem[Olson \& Kunasz(1987)]{ols87} Olson, G.\ L., \& Kunasz, P.\ B.\ 1987 JQSRT, 38, 325
1187: \bibitem[Osterbrock(1989)]{ost89} Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic
1188: Nuclei (Mill Valley: Univ. Sci. Books)
1189: \bibitem[Owocki(2004)]{owo04} Owocki, S. P. 2004, in IAU Symposium 215, Rotation and Mass Ejection: the Launching of Be-Star Disks ed. A. Maeder, \& P. Eenens (San Francisco: ASP), 515
1190: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{per97} Perryman, M.A.C., \& ESA.\ 1997 {\it The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues},
1191: (ESA SP-1200; Noordwijk: ESA)
1192: \bibitem[Poeckert \& Marlborough(1978)]{poe78} Poeckert, R., \& Marlborough, J. M. 1978, \apj, 220, 940, PM
1193: \bibitem[Porter(1999)]{por99} Porter, J. M. 1999, \aap, 348, 512
1194: \bibitem[Porter \& Rivinus(2003)]{por03} Porter, J. M., \& Rivinius, T. 2003, \pasp, 115, 1153
1195: \bibitem[Pradhan \& Peng(1995)]{pp95} Pradhan, A.K., \& Peng, J.\ 1995 in {\it The Analysis of Emission Lines},
1196: Space Telescope Science Symposium Series 8, R.E.\ Williams \& M.\ Livo editors, (Cambridge University Press), 8
1197: \bibitem[Quirrenbach et al.(1997)]{qui97} Quirrenbach, A., Bjorkman, K. S., Bjorkman, J. E.,
1198: Hummel, C. A., Buscher, D. F.,
1199: Armstrong, J. T., Mozurkewich, D., Elias, N. M. II, \& Babler, B. L. 1997, \apj, 479, 477
1200: \bibitem[Quirrenbach et al.(1993)]{qui93} Quirrenbach, A., Hummel, C. A., Buscher, D. F., Armstrong, J. T.,
1201: Mozurkewich, D., \& Elias, N. M. II 1993, \apj, 416, L25
1202: \bibitem[Rybicki \& Lightman(1979)]{ryb79} Rybicki, G.\ B., \& Lightman, A.\ P.\ 1979 {\it Radiative Processes in
1203: Astrophysics} (John Wiley \& Sons: New York)
1204: \bibitem[Sigut(1996)]{sig96} Sigut, T.A.A 1996, \apj, 473, 452
1205: \bibitem[Sigut \& Pradhan(2003)]{sig03} Sigut, T.A.A, \& Pradhan, A.K.\ 2003, \apjs, 145,15
1206: \bibitem[Sigut, Pradhan \& Nahar(2004)]{sig04} Sigut, T.A.A, Pradhan, A.K., \& Nahar, S.\ N.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 81
1207: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2004)]{smi04}Smith, Myron A., Cohen, David H., Gu, Ming Feng, Robinson, Richard D., Evans,
1208: Nancy Remage, \& Schran, Prudence G.2004, \apj, 600,972
1209: \bibitem[Stee et al.(1995)]{ste95} Stee, P., de Araujo, F. X., Vakili, F., Mourard, D. Arnold, L., Bonneau, D.,
1210: Morand, F., \& Tallon-Bosc, I. 1995, \aap, 300, 219
1211: \bibitem[Struve(1931)]{str31} Struve, O. 1931, \apj, 73, 94
1212: \bibitem[Tielens(2005)]{tie05} Tielens, A.\ G.\ G.\ M.\ {\it The Physics and Chemistry
1213: of the Interstellar Medium}, Cambridge University Press
1214: \bibitem[Townsend et al.(2004)]{tow04} Townsend, R. H. D., Owocki, S. P., \& Howarth, I. D. 2004 \mnras, 350, 189
1215: \bibitem[Tycner et al.(2005)]{tyc05} Tycner, Christopher, Lester, John B., Hajian, Arsen R., Armstrong, J. T.,
1216: Benson, J. A., Gilbreath, G. C., Hutter, D. J., Pauls, T. A., \& White N. M 2005, \apj, 624, 359
1217: \bibitem[Tycner et al.(2006)]{tyc06} Tycner, Christopher, Gilbreath, G. C., Zavala, R. T., Armstrong, J. T.,
1218: Benson, J. A., Hajian, Arsen R., Hutter, D. J., Jones, C. E., Pauls, T. A., \& White, N. M. 2006, \aj, 131, 2710
1219: \bibitem[Wade \& Rucinski(1985)]{wad85} Wade, R.A., \& Rucinski, S.M.\ 1985 \aap, 60, 471
1220: \bibitem[Waters(1986)]{wat86} Waters, L. B. F. M. 1986 \aap, 162, 121
1221: \bibitem[Waters et al.(1987)]{wat87} Waters, L. B. F. M., Cote, J., \& Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 1987, \aap, 185, 206
1222: \bibitem[Waters \& Marlborough(1992)]{wat92}Waters, L. B. F. M., \& Marlborough, J.\ M.\ 1992
1223: \aap 256, 195
1224: \bibitem[Wood et al.(1997)]{woo97} Wood K., Bjorkman K. S., \& Bjorkman J. E. 1997, \apj, 477, 926
1225:
1226: \end{thebibliography}
1227:
1228: \end{document}
1229: