1: %\documentclass{aastex}

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

3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

4: 

5: \usepackage{natbib}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{wasysym}

8: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

9: 

10: \def\lapp{\ifmmode\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}\else$\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}$\fi}

11: \def\gapp{\ifmmode\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}\else$\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}$\fi}

12: 

13: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

14: \newcommand{\myemail}{hessels@physics.mcgill.ca}

15: \newcommand{\miiia}{PSR~J1342+2822A}

16: \newcommand{\miiib}{PSR~J1342+2822B}

17: \newcommand{\miiic}{PSR~J1342+2822C}

18: \newcommand{\miiid}{PSR~J1342+2822D}

19: \newcommand{\mva}{PSR~B1516+02A}

20: \newcommand{\mvb}{PSR~B1516+02B}

21: \newcommand{\mvc}{PSR~J1518+0204C}

22: \newcommand{\mvd}{PSR~J1518+0204D}

23: \newcommand{\mve}{PSR~J1518+0204E}

24: \newcommand{\mxiiia}{PSR~B1639+36A}

25: \newcommand{\mxiiib}{PSR~B1639+36B}

26: \newcommand{\mxiiic}{PSR~J1641+3627C}

27: \newcommand{\mxiiid}{PSR~J1641+3627D}

28: \newcommand{\mxiiie}{PSR~J1641+3627E}

29: \newcommand{\mxva}{PSR~B2127+11A}

30: \newcommand{\mxvb}{PSR~B2127+11B}

31: \newcommand{\mxvc}{PSR~B2127+11C}

32: \newcommand{\mxvd}{PSR~B2127+11D}

33: \newcommand{\mxve}{PSR~B2127+11E}

34: \newcommand{\mxvf}{PSR~B2127+11F}

35: \newcommand{\mxvg}{PSR~B2127+11G}

36: \newcommand{\mxvh}{PSR~B2127+11H}

37: \newcommand{\mliiia}{B1310+18}

38: \newcommand{\mlxxia}{PSR~J1954+1847}

39: \newcommand{\nvia}{PSR~J1905+0154A}

40: \newcommand{\nvib}{PSR~J1905+0154B}

41: \newcommand{\nsixa}{PSR~B1908+00}

42: \newcommand{\nsixb}{PSR~J1911+0101B}

43: \newcommand{\terad}{PSR~J1748$-$2446ad}

44: \newcommand{\msun}{\ifmmode\mbox{M}_{\odot}\else$\mbox{M}_{\odot}$\fi}

45: \newcommand{\lsun}{\ifmmode\mbox{L}_{\odot}\else$\mbox{L}_{\odot}$\fi}

46: \newcommand{\rsun}{\ifmmode\mbox{R}_{\odot}\else$\mbox{R}_{\odot}$\fi}

47: \newcommand{\degrees}{\ifmmode^{\circ}\else$^{\circ}$\fi}

48: \newcommand{\amin}{\ifmmode^{\prime}\else$^{\prime}$\fi}

49: \newcommand{\asec}{\ifmmode^{\prime\prime}\else$^{\prime\prime}$\fi}

50: 

51: %\slugcomment{Draft Arecibo Globular Cluster Paper}

52: 

53: \shorttitle{MSPs in GCs with Arecibo}

54: \shortauthors{Hessels et al.}

55: 

56: \begin{document}

57: 

58: \title{A 1.4-GHz Arecibo Survey for Pulsars in Globular Clusters}

59: 

60: \author{J.~W.~T. Hessels$^{1,*}$, S.~M. Ransom$^2$, 

61: I.~H. Stairs$^3$, V.~M. Kaspi$^1$, and P.~C.~C. Freire$^4$}

62: \affil{$^1$Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, QC

63:   H3A 2T8, Canada; hessels@physics.mcgill.ca}

64: \affil{$^2$National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 520 Edgemont Road,

65: Charlottesville, VA 22903}

66: \affil{$^3$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British

67: Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada}

68: \affil{$^4$NAIC, Arecibo Observatory, HC03, Box 53995, Arecibo, PR 00612}

69: \affil{$^*$Current Address: Astronomical Institute ``Anton Pannekoek'',

70: University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands}

71: 

72: \begin{abstract}

73: We have surveyed all 22 known Galactic globular clusters observable with the

74: Arecibo radio telescope and within 70\,kpc of the Sun for radio pulsations

75: at $\sim 1.4$\,GHz. Data were taken with the Wideband Arecibo Pulsar

76: Processor, which provided the large bandwidth and high time and frequency

77: resolution needed to detect fast-spinning, faint pulsars.  We have also

78: employed advanced search techniques to maintain sensitivity to short orbital

79: period binaries. These searches have discovered 11 new millisecond pulsars

80: and 2 promising candidates in 5 clusters, almost doubling the population of

81: pulsars in the Arecibo-visible globular clusters. Ten of these new pulsars

82: are in binary systems, and 3 are eclipsing.  This survey has discovered

83: significantly more very fast-spinning pulsars ($P_{\rm spin} \lesssim

84: 4$\,ms) and short orbital period systems ($P_{\rm orb} \lesssim 6$\,hr) than

85: previous surveys of the same clusters.  We discuss some properties of these

86: systems, as well as some characteristics of the globular cluster pulsar

87: population in general, particularly its luminosity distribution.

88: \end{abstract}

89: 

90: \keywords{globular clusters: general --- pulsars: general --- binaries: general 

91: --- radio continuum: stars --- stars: neutron}

92: 

93: \section{Introduction}

94: 

95: Currently, there are approximately 130 known pulsars in globular clusters

96: (GCs)\footnote{A catalog of GC pulsars is maintained by P.~C.~C. Freire at

97: http://www.naic.edu/$\sim$pfreire/GCpsr.html.}, of which about 60\% are

98: observed to be in binary systems.\footnote{Note however that, because binary

99: pulsars are more difficult to detect than isolated pulsars, the observed

100: binary fraction is a lower limit on the intrinsic binary fraction of the

101: population.} Roughly two thirds of all the pulsars known in GCs have been

102: discovered in only the last seven years by surveys

103: \citep[e.g.][]{pdm+03,rhs+05b,hrs+06} using low-temperature receivers

104: ($T_{\rm rec} \lapp 35$\,K) at central observing frequencies between

105: $\nu_{\rm center} = 1-$2\,GHz, large bandwidth and high time and

106: frequency-resolution backends (e.g. the Wideband Arecibo Pulsar Processor,

107: Dowd, Sisk, \& Hagen 2000\nocite{dsh00}, and the GBT Pulsar Spigot, Kaplan

108: et al. 2005\nocite{kel+05}), advanced search techniques for binaries

109: \citep*[e.g.][]{rem02,rce03,cha03}, and copious amounts of processing time on

110: dedicated computer clusters.  Though a few non-recycled pulsars have been

111: found in GCs \citep[e.g. PSR~B1718$-$19 in NGC~6342,][]{lbhb93}, almost all

112: known GC pulsars are MSPs. In fact, the 150 known GCs\footnote{An online 

113: catalog of Milky Way GCs \citep{har96} is maintained at

114: http://physun.physics.mcmaster.ca/Globular.html.} orbiting the Milky Way

115: contain roughly three orders of magnitude more observed millisecond pulsars

116: (MSPs) per unit mass than the Galactic plane, which contains approximately

117: 60 known MSPs.  GCs have proven to be the most fruitful place to look for

118: MSPs partly because of the enormous stellar densities in their cores, which

119: exceed those in the Galactic plane by up to six orders of magnitude. These

120: conditions promote many different formation processes that create binary

121: systems in which a neutron star can be spun-up, or ``recycled''

122: \citep{acrs82,rs82}, through the accretion of matter from its companion star

123: \citep[see][the most up-to-date general overview of pulsars in GCs, for a

124: review of the formation and evolutionary processes at work in the cores of

125: GCs]{cr05}.  Furthermore, the cores of GCs, where most of the MSPs reside,

126: typically have radii less than an arcminute, small enough to be covered by a

127: single telescope pointing. This affords the possibility of making single,

128: deep multi-hour integrations for multiple faint MSPs in GCs, something that

129: is not feasible in large area surveys of the field.

130: 

131: Some clusters contain many pulsars: Terzan~5 and 47~Tucanae harbor 33 and 22

132: known pulsars, respectively.  Together, they contain $43$\% of the

133: total known GC pulsar population \citep{clf+00,rhs+05b,hrs+06}. Finding

134: numerous pulsars in a single cluster allows interesting studies of the

135: cluster itself, in addition to the individual pulsars contained therein.

136: Such studies have included the detection of intra-cluster ionized gas

137: \citep{fkl+01}, high mass-to-light ratios \citep{dpf+02}, and hints at the

138: cluster's dynamical history \citep{pdm+03}. However, many clusters still

139: contain no known pulsars at all, despite sensitive searches \citep{cr05}. In

140: some cases, this may simply be because pulsars are generally intrinsically

141: weak objects and GCs are often distant (approximately 90\% of the GCs

142: orbiting the Milky Way are $> 5$\,kpc from the Sun). Interstellar

143: scattering, which broadens pulsations because of multi-path propagation, can

144: also be a major obstacle, especially for MSPs in clusters at low Galactic

145: latitudes.  At low radio frequencies ($\lesssim 500$\,MHz), scattering can

146: completely wash out the signal of fast-spinning pulsars. 

147: 

148: While GCs are clearly the most profitable targets for finding MSPs, these

149: searches remain non-trivial.  First, the requisite short sampling times ($<

150: 100$\,$\mu$s), high frequency resolution ($< 0.5$\,MHz channels), long

151: integrations (few hours), and large bandwidth ($> 100$\,MHz) of these data

152: can make data acquisition and storage formidable (data rates $\sim

153: 30-$100\,GB/hr).  Recent surveys with relatively good sensitivity to binary

154: pulsars have revealed that the majority of GC MSPs are in binaries. The

155: pulsed signal from these binary pulsars is smeared in Fourier space by their

156: orbital motion, and thus even a bright pulsar can go undetected if nothing

157: is done to correct for this modulation over the course of a long

158: observation. Advanced and computationally intensive techniques, which

159: partially search orbital parameter space, are required to recover the

160: majority of the lost signal. The extra effort required to find binaries is

161: well justified however, as some of the most exotic pulsar binaries known

162: have been found in GCs.  For instance, PSR~B1620$-$26 in the cluster M4 is

163: in a hierarchical triple system with a white dwarf and a 1$-$3\,${\rm

164: M}_{\rm Jup}$ planet, the only planet known in a GC \citep{tacl99,st05};

165: PSR~J0514$-$4002 in NGC~1851, with an eccentricity of 0.89, is one of the

166: most eccentric binary pulsars known \citep{fgri04}; PSR~B2127+11C in M15 is

167: a rare double neutron star binary \citep{agk+90}; \terad\ in Terzan~5 is the

168: fastest-spinning neutron star known \citep{hrs+06}; and a few MSPs with

169: possible main-sequence companions have been found \citep[e.g.

170: PSR~J1740$-$5340,][similar systems have not been found in the Galactic

171: plane]{dpm+01}.  Other exotic binaries, perhaps even an MSP-MSP binary or a

172: MSP-black-hole binary, may have effective formation channels only in GCs

173: \citep*[but see][]{spn04}.

174: 

175: Here we present searches for radio pulsations from 22 GCs, using Arecibo at

176: central observing frequencies between 1.1$-$1.6\,GHz.  Roughly half of these

177: clusters have been searched previously with Arecibo at 430\,MHz

178: \citep{and93,wak+89a,wkm+89b}. The highly successful \citet{and93} survey

179: found 11 of the 15 pulsars known in these clusters prior to the survey

180: presented here.  Our searches have uncovered 11 new MSPs and 2 promising

181: candidates in five clusters: M3, M5, M13, M71, and NGC~6749. Acceleration

182: searches were crucial in finding all but 2 of these systems.  Ten of the new

183: pulsars are in binaries, 3 of which are eclipsing, with orbital periods of

184: only a few hours.  For comparison, no eclipsing systems were known in these

185: clusters prior to our survey and only 5 of the 15 previously known pulsars

186: were in binaries.  Of the pulsars presented here, 9 out of 11 have $P_{\rm

187: spin} < 4$\,ms.  Only 2 of the 15 previously known pulsars in these clusters

188: have $P_{\rm spin} < 4$\,ms, clearly demonstrating the improved sensitivity

189: of this survey over past surveys to the fastest MSPs.   In \S2 we describe the

190: targets, observational setup, and sensitivity of the survey. In \S3 we

191: outline the search procedure and analysis pipeline. In \S4 we present the

192: results of the survey.  In the discussion of \S5, we comment on the

193: characteristics of the GC pulsar population in general, particularly its

194: luminosity distribution.  In \S6, we conclude.

195: 

196: \section{Observations}

197: 

198: \subsection{Targets}

199: 

200: We observed every known Galactic GC visible from Arecibo\footnote{The

201: declination range visible from Arecibo is approximately $-1^{\circ}$ to

202: $+38^{\circ}$.} and within 70\,kpc of the Sun without any selection bias

203: towards larger or denser clusters. The sample of 22 GCs is listed in

204: Table~\ref{gcs.tab}, along with basic and derived cluster parameters

205: \citep[][unless otherwise indicated, all GC quantities used in this paper

206: are from the 2003 February revision of the catalog]{har96}.  The numbers of

207: known isolated and binary pulsars in each cluster are indicated, with

208: figures in parentheses denoting the number of pulsars found by this survey.

209: For clusters containing known pulsars, the average dispersion measure (DM)

210: of the pulsars is indicated, as well as their spread in DM, which is in

211: parentheses (for clusters where two or more pulsars have been found). For

212: clusters with no known pulsar, the DM is also unknown; the values listed are

213: derived from the \citet{cl02spec} ``NE2001'' model for the distribution of

214: free electrons in the Galaxy, using the \citet{har96} position and distance

215: to the cluster.  

216: 

217: \subsection{Data Acquisition}

218: 

219: Each cluster was observed at least twice for the full time it is visible

220: with Arecibo (Table~\ref{gcs.tab}).  The clusters were observed in one of

221: two campaigns in the summers of 2001 and 2002 using the Gregorian L-band

222: Wide receiver\footnote{For the initial searches, we used the original

223: ``L-Wide'' receiver installed after the Arecibo upgrade in the 1990s.  This

224: is not the L-band Wide receiver currently available at Arecibo, which was

225: installed in 2003 February and was used for most of our timing observations.

226: Though having design differences, these two receivers have comparable

227: sensitivity.} ($T_{\rm rec} \sim 35$\,K). Depending on the known or

228: predicted DM of the cluster, the central observing frequency was either

229: 1175\,MHz (DM $\lesssim 100$\,pc cm$^{-3}$) or 1475\,MHz (DM $\gtrsim

230: 100$\,pc cm$^{-3}$). Our observations were made using the Wideband Arecibo

231: Pulsar Processor \citep[WAPP, see][for details]{dsh00}, a digital

232: auto-correlator with configurable sampling time (3 or 9-level samples) and

233: number of lags. Generally, 3-level samples were autocorrelated with 256

234: lags, accumulated every 64-$\mu$s, and summed in polarization before being

235: written to the WAPP disk array as 16-bit numbers.  For the few clusters with

236: known or predicted DMs greater than 100\,pc cm$^{-3}$, we used 128-$\mu$s

237: sampling and 512 lags.  These configurations were chosen in order to

238: minimize dispersive pulse smearing and to take full advantage of the WAPP's

239: maximum sustainable data rate at the time of the observations (8\,MB/s, or

240: $\sim 30$\,GB/hr). Data were transferred to DLT magnetic tape for offline

241: analysis and archiving.  These observations resulted in about 4\,TB of data

242: on about 100 tapes.

243: 

244: At the time of our original cluster search observations, only one WAPP

245: backend was available, providing 100\,MHz of bandwidth. In more recent

246: observations of M3, M5, M13, M71, and NGC~6749 (after December 2002), which

247: were made as part of the timing observations of the new discoveries, we used

248: three of the four available WAPP backends, each with 100\,MHz of bandwidth

249: centered at 1170, 1420 and 1520\,MHz.  The frequency gap between the lower

250: and upper bands was to avoid persistent and intense radio frequency

251: interference (RFI) in the frequency ranges 1220$-$1360\,MHz and $>

252: 1570$\,MHz.  Using the PRESTO\footnote{See

253: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/$\sim$sransom/presto.} pulsar software suite, these

254: data were partially dedispersed into a reduced number of subbands (generally

255: 16 or 32 subbands) at the average DM of the cluster pulsars before

256: further timing or search analysis. This process affords an

257: order-of-magnitude reduction in data size (enabling transfer of these data

258: over the internet from Puerto Rico to Canada), while still providing the

259: possibility of creating dedispersed time series at a variety of DMs around

260: the average DM of the cluster.  These data were also searched for new

261: pulsars, in the manner described in \S3.

262: 

263: \subsection{Search Sensitivity}

264: 

265: We can estimate the typical minimum flux density to which our searches

266: were sensitive, as a

267: function of the radiometer noise and observed pulsar duty cycle, using the

268: equation 

269: \begin{equation}

270: S_{\rm min} = \frac{\sigma \xi T_{\rm sys}}{G\sqrt{n \Delta \nu T_{\rm obs}}}

271: \left(\frac{w_{\rm obs}}{P_{\rm spin}-w_{\rm obs}}\right)^{1/2}

272: \label{sens.eqn}

273: \end{equation}

274: \citep[following][]{dtws85}.  The minimum signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of a

275: search candidate is indicated by $\sigma$, and is taken to be 10 here

276: (although when candidate lists were short, due to a lack of RFI, we

277: investigated candidates below this threshold).  $\xi$ is a factor that

278: incorporates both losses due to the 3-level quantization of the signal and

279: other systemic effects.  Zero lag and van Vleck corrections \citep[see][and

280: references therein]{lk04} have been applied to our data.  We use a value

281: $\xi = 1.2$ to quantify the loss in sensitivity compared with infinite

282: quantization.  $T_{\rm sys}$ is the equivalent temperature of the observing

283: system and sky (approximately 40\,K toward our sources, which are

284: predominantly at high Galactic latitudes). $G$ is the telescope gain, which

285: is a function of zenith angle, and is taken to have an average value of

286: 10.5\,K/Jy.  For clusters that are only visible at zenith angles $\gtrsim

287: 16^{\circ}$, the gain (and hence the sensitivity) is reduced by 5$-$15\%.

288: This is the case for the clusters which are closest to the declination limit

289: of the Arecibo-visible sky: M2, M5, M13, Pal~5, Pal~15, NGC~6535, NGC~6749, and

290: NGC~6760. $n$ is the number of orthogonal polarizations that have been summed

291: ($n = 2$ here).  $\Delta \nu$ is the bandwidth of the backend, taken to be

292: 100\,MHz here. For clusters where subsequent timing observations were also

293: performed (M3, M5, M13, M71, and NGC~6749), we were able to search a larger

294: bandwidth ($\sim 250$\,MHz) by combining multiple WAPPs.  $T_{\rm obs}$ is

295: the integration time, which varies between clusters from 0.6$-$2.8\,hr

296: depending on the declination of the source, but is set to 2\,hr for the

297: purposes of these sensitivity calculations. $w_{\rm obs}$ is the observed

298: pulse width, which is a function of the intrinsic pulse width $w_{\rm int}$

299: and other effects that smear the observed pulse profile

300: (Equation~\ref{obswidth.eqn}). $P_{\rm spin}$ is the pulsar spin period.

301:  

302: When the DM of a cluster is not known, one must construct hundreds of trial

303: time series at a wide range of DMs, each of which must be searched.  Even

304: for clusters with known DMs, the pulsars have a spread in DM, $\Delta \rm{DM}$,

305: and several trial DMs must be searched in order to maintain maximum

306: sensitivity. $\Delta \rm{DM}$ increases roughly linearly with DM, and

307: typically $\Delta \rm{DM} / \rm{DM}$ is a few percent \citep{fhn+05}.  

308: 

309: The observed pulse width, $w_{\rm obs}$ in Equation~\ref{sens.eqn}, is

310: always equal to or larger than the pulsar's intrinsic pulse width $w_{\rm

311: int}$.  Broadening is due to the finite time sampling of the data recorder,

312: $t_{\rm samp}$, dispersive smearing across individual frequency channels,

313: $t_{\rm DM}$, smearing due to the deviation of a pulsar's true DM from the

314: nominal DM of the time series used for searching or folding, $t_{\Delta {\rm

315: DM}}$, and interstellar scattering, $t_{\rm scatt}$.  One can express the

316: observed width as the sum in quadrature of these terms:

317: 

318: \begin{equation}

319: {w_{\rm obs}}^2 = {w_{\rm int}}^2 + {t_{\rm samp}}^2 + {t_{\rm DM}}^2 + {t_{\Delta {\rm

320: DM}}}^2 + {t_{\rm scatt}}^2,

321: \label{obswidth.eqn}

322: \end{equation}

323: 

324: \noindent where the dispersive smearing (assuming the channel bandwidth

325: $\Delta\nu_{\rm chan} \ll \nu_{\rm center}$) across an individual

326: channel is given by

327: 

328: \begin{equation}

329: t_{\rm DM} = 8.3\left(\frac{{\rm DM}}{{\rm

330: pc~cm^{-3}}}\right)\left(\frac{\Delta\nu_{\rm chan}}{{\rm MHz}}\right)\left(\frac{\nu_{\rm center}}{{\rm GHz}}\right)^{-3}\mu{\rm s},

331: \end{equation}

332: 

333: \noindent the smearing due to an incorrect DM in the time series is

334: 

335: \begin{equation}

336: t_{\Delta{\rm DM}} = 4.1\left[\left(\frac{\nu_{\rm low}}{{\rm GHz}}\right)^{-2} -

337: \left(\frac{\nu_{\rm high}}{{\rm GHz}}\right)^{-2}\right] \left(\frac{\Delta{\rm

338: DM}}{{\rm pc~cm^{-3}}}\right){\rm ms},

339: \end{equation}

340: 

341: \noindent (where $\nu_{\rm low}$ and $\nu_{\rm high}$ are the low and high

342: frequency edges of the bandwidth respectively), and the scattering

343: ($t_{scatt}$ is in ms) can be estimated by the empirical formula

344: \citep{bcc+04}

345: 

346: \begin{equation}

347: %Cordes and Lazio 03 version

348: %{\rm log}_{10}(t_{\rm scatt}) = -3.59 + 0.129~{\rm log}_{10}({\rm DM}) +

349: %1.02~({\rm log}_{10}({\rm DM}))^{2.0} -

350: %4.4~{\rm log}_{10}\left(\frac{\nu_{\rm center}}{{\rm GHz}}\right)\,\rm{\mu s}.

351: {\rm log}_{10}(t_{\rm scatt}) = -6.46 + 0.154~{\rm log}_{10}({\rm DM}) +

352: 1.07~({\rm log}_{10}({\rm DM}))^{2} -

353: 3.86~{\rm log}_{10}\left(\frac{\nu_{\rm center}}{{\rm GHz}}\right).

354: \label{scatt.eqn}

355: \end{equation}

356: 

357: For these data at 1.4\,GHz, $t_{\rm DM} = 30-$120\,$\mu$s for DMs

358: 25$-$200\,pc cm$^{-3}$ (using $\Delta\nu_{\rm chan}$ = 100/256\,MHz for DM

359: $< 100$\,pc cm$^{-3}$ and $\Delta\nu_{\rm chan}$ = 100/512\,MHz for DM $>

360: 100$\,pc cm$^{-3}$). In searches where the cluster DM was not known, we

361: created dedispersed time series with DMs spaced by 1.0\,pc cm$^{-3}$. For

362: clusters with known DMs, we typically used a spacing of 0.5\,pc cm$^{-3}$

363: or finer.  Hence, the maximum DM deviation between a pulsar's true DM and

364: that assumed in making the trial time series is 0.5\,pc cm$^{-3}$, resulting

365: in a maximum smearing $t_{\Delta {\rm DM}} = 150$\,$\mu$s.  We have estimated

366: $t_{\rm scatt}$ using Equation~\ref{scatt.eqn} \citep{bcc+04}, which predicts

367: the scattering time based on the known (or predicted) DM and the observing

368: frequency. $t_{\rm scatt}$ varies from source to source, but given the

369: relatively high observing frequency of these data and the high Galactic

370: latitudes of most of the sources observed here (most of which have

371: relatively low known or predicted DMs), it does not significantly increase

372: the smearing already present in the data.

373: 

374: Figure~\ref{sensitivity.fig} shows the search sensitivity determined from

375: Equations~1$-$5 as a function of DM and period.\footnote{The degradation in

376: sensitivity to binary pulsars caused by their orbital motion is {\it not}

377: included in these estimates.  We discuss our sensitivity to binary pulsars

378: in \S5.1.} We compare the sensitivity of our survey with that of the only

379: other major survey of these clusters with Arecibo \citep{and93}.  As the

380: \citet{and93} survey was conducted at 430\,MHz, we use a typical pulsar

381: spectral index of $-1.8$ \citep{mkkw00spec} as well as a flatter spectral

382: index of $-1.3$ to scale that survey to 1400\,MHz, so that the sensitivities

383: of both surveys can be more directly compared.\footnote{\citet{mkkw00spec}

384: find a mean value for spectral index, $\alpha$, of $-1.8 \pm 0.2$.  It has

385: been shown by a number of authors \citep[e.g.][]{kxl+98,tbms98} that the

386: mean spectral indices of MSPs and un-recycled pulsars are consistent with

387: each other. Though radio pulsars, both MSPs and un-recycled, generally have

388: steep, power-law spectra, the observed range of spectral indices in the

389: pulsar population is large: $0 \gtrsim \alpha \gtrsim -4$.} For low-DM

390: pulsars with spin periods $\gtrsim 10$\,ms and a standard spectral index

391: ($\alpha = -1.8$), the \citet{and93} survey had a similar sensitivity to

392: ours. However, for pulsars spinning faster than this, especially those at

393: high DMs and with relatively flat spectral indices, our survey provides a

394: significant increase in sensitivity. For example, we were roughly 3$-$6

395: times more sensitive to a 2-ms pulsar at a DM of 100\,pc cm$^{-3}$, assuming

396: $-1.8 < \alpha < -1.3$.

397: 

398: Our searches are likely the deepest searches for GC pulsars yet undertaken.

399: Though recent searches with Parkes \citep[e.g.][]{clf+00} and GBT

400: \citep[e.g.][]{rhs+05b} benefit from larger recordable bandwidth and longer

401: possible source tracking times, Arecibo's much larger gain still more than

402: compensates for these (Table~\ref{surveys_comp.tab}).  Comparing raw gains,

403: maximum tracking times, and recordable bandwidths, simple scaling using

404: Equation 1 and a spectral index of $-1.8$ to compare different observing

405: frequencies, shows that, with the currently available data-recorders,

406: Arecibo has a raw sensitivity $4 \times$ greater than Parkes and $2 \times$

407: greater than the GBT for an isolated pulsar.  For binary pulsars, where

408: blind search sensitivity doesn't improve as $T_{\rm obs}^{1/2}$ (see \S3.2 and

409: 5.1.1.), and longer tracking times provide less benefit, Arecibo is more

410: sensitive by an additional factor of roughly 2.

411: 

412: \section{Analysis}

413: 

414: \subsection{Radio Frequency Interference Excision}

415: 

416: Periodicities due to terrestrial radio frequency interference (RFI) can

417: swamp search candidate lists.  Ultimately this reduces a survey's

418: sensitivity by increasing the number of false positives.  First, strong

419: bursts of interference, principally from airport and military radars, were

420: removed in the time domain by clipping samples found to be further than

421: 6\,$\sigma$ from the mean in the ${\rm DM} = 0$\,pc cm$^{-3}$ time series.

422: Secondly, we created time-frequency masks and applied them to all data

423: before searching. These masks remove certain channels during specific time

424: intervals when either the maximum Fourier power, standard deviation, or mean

425: of the data surpass statistically determined thresholds. This method was

426: very useful at excising strong narrow-band and transient RFI from the data

427: before searching and typically only $\lapp 10$\% of the data were masked.

428: Lastly, we removed known ``birdies'' (weak but highly periodic broadband

429: interference and bright known pulsars) from the power spectrum by setting

430: the powers in these narrow frequency intervals to zero. We found that using

431: these techniques and observing in the relatively RFI-clean frequency ranges

432: of 1120$-$1220\,MHz and 1370$-$1570\,MHz kept the size of our candidate

433: lists manageable, while minimizing the risk of rejecting potentially

434: interesting candidates.

435: 

436: \subsection{Search Techniques}

437: 

438: In a standard Fourier-based search, which identifies pulsar harmonics above

439: a certain threshold, binary pulsars are strongly selected against because of

440: orbital modulation, which smears the signal power over many bins in

441: frequency space.  As the majority of MSPs in GCs are in binary systems, 

442: sometimes with orbital periods comparable to or shorter than the observation

443: length, it is crucial to use more sophisticated techniques. 

444: 

445: Our primary search method is a Fourier-based matched filtering technique

446: \citep{rem02} which assumes that the pulsar's orbit can be described by a

447: constant acceleration (i.e. constant frequency derivative) over the course

448: of the observation.  This technique is a frequency-domain version of a

449: previously used constant acceleration technique \citep{mk84,agk+90,clf+00}

450: in which the time series is quadratically stretched or compressed before it

451: is Fourier transformed, in order to simulate different accelerations.  The

452: advantage of the Fourier-based technique used here is that it is

453: computationally more efficient than the equivalent time-domain-based method,

454: and provides even sampling of frequency derivative space. This method is

455: typically most sensitive to binaries where the orbital period is $\gapp 10\times$

456: the integration time of the observation, although very bright pulsars with

457: orbital periods much shorter than this can often be detected \citep{jk91}.

458: As our Arecibo observations were typically from 1$-$2.5\,hr in length, for

459: full tracks this search method is most sensitive to orbital periods $\gapp

460: 10-$25\,hr. Using the same technique, we also searched overlapping

461: subsections of the data sets (which were typically about one third the total

462: observation length), in order to be sensitive to larger accelerations and

463: tighter binaries ($P_{\rm orb} \gtrsim 3-$10\,hr), as well as eclipsing

464: systems.

465: 

466: To search for binaries with orbital periods a factor of $\sim 2$ or more

467: shorter than the observation time, we used a ``phase modulation'' search

468: \citep{rce03,jrs+02}. This method makes use of the change in phase of the

469: pulsations from a binary pulsar and the ``comb'' pattern created by such a

470: signal in the Fourier power spectrum.  By taking Fast Fourier Transforms

471: (FFTs) of short subsections of the power spectrum from the full observation,

472: one can detect the sidebands, which are evenly spaced at the orbital period

473: and centered on the true frequency of the pulsar.  This method is

474: appropriate for binary pulsars with orbital periods less than half the

475: observation length, and increases in sensitivity as the ratio $T_{\rm

476: obs}/P_{\rm orb}$ increases.  Given the 1$-$2.5\,hr integration times used

477: in this survey, this technique was sensitive to an area of orbital parameter

478: space in which no binary radio MSPs have yet been observed.

479: 

480: \subsection{Data Analysis Pipeline}

481: 

482: Here we summarize the data analysis pipeline applied to the observations of

483: each cluster.  The routines used in the pipeline are part of the PRESTO

484: pulsar search and analysis package.  First, we generated an RFI mask from

485: the raw data (as described in \S3.1). Applying this mask, a DM = 0\,pc

486: cm$^{-3}$, topocentric time series was created and the corresponding power

487: spectrum was examined by eye for periodic interference.  We added the worst

488: of the interference to the ``birdie list'' of frequency intervals to be

489: subsequently removed from the Fourier transform.  Again applying the RFI

490: mask, we then dedispersed the data at a number of trial DMs using DM steps

491: $\leq 1$\,pc cm$^{-3}$, clipping samples found to be greater than

492: 6\,$\sigma$ from the mean in the DM = 0\,pc cm$^{-3}$ time series.  The time

493: series were transformed to the solar-system barycenter during dedispersion,

494: which allowed us to compare directly candidate periods from separate

495: observations.  This was very useful for distinguishing likely pulsar

496: periodicities from the RFI background, which can vary greatly between

497: observations.  For clusters with known pulsars, we dedispersed at a range of

498: trial DMs equal to at least 10\% of the cluster's average DM.  For clusters

499: with no known pulsars, we created time series at a range of DMs centered

500: around the predicted DM of the cluster \citep{cl02spec}, given its Galactic

501: coordinates and distance in the \citet{har96} catalog.  We assumed at least

502: a 100\% error in the predicted DM value when choosing a DM search range.

503: For example, for a cluster with a predicted DM of 100\,pc cm$^{-3}$, we

504: searched dedispersed time series with ${\rm DM} = 0-$200\,pc cm$^{-3}$.  The

505: dedispersion and subsequent analysis of the time series was conducted in

506: parallel using multiple processors on a 52-node dual-processor Linux cluster

507: called ``The Borg'', located at McGill University and constructed by our

508: group specifically for pulsar searches. Once the dedispersion was complete,

509: the time series were Fourier-transformed. Our analysis did not restrict the

510: number of samples in the time series to be a power of two.\footnote{Some

511: minimal padding was added to the data-sets however, so that the number of

512: samples could be factored into primes where the maximum factor size was

513: $\leq 13$.} We then set the frequency intervals of the birdie list to zero

514: in the power spectra before searching the power spectra with both the

515: phase-modulation and matched-filtering techniques described in \S3.2.  

516: 

517: As most pulsars have relatively short duty cycles, with spectral power

518: divided between numerous harmonics, we summed harmonics in our matched-filter

519: search to increase sensitivity to such signals.  For each candidate signal,

520: sums of 1, 2, 4, and 8 harmonics were tried and the optimum combination was

521: determined.  In these searches, we looked for signals where the highest of

522: the harmonics used in summing drifted by up to $z_{\rm max}$ = 170 bins in

523: the Fourier domain. Higher order harmonics will drift by $N_{\rm harm}$

524: times more bins than the fundamental, where $N_{\rm harm} = 1$ for the

525: fundamental, $N_{\rm harm} = 2$ for the second harmonic, etc. If, for

526: example, 8 harmonics were summed in the identification of a particular

527: candidate period, then the maximum number of bins the fundamental could

528: drift by during the observation and still be detectable by our search would

529: be 170/8. Conversely, for signals where the fundamental drifted by more than

530: 170/2 bins during the observation, we were sensitive to at most one

531: harmonic. The maximum number of bins a signal is allowed to drift

532: corresponds to a maximum line-of-sight acceleration of $a_{\rm max} = z_{\rm

533: max} c P_{\rm spin} T^{-2}_{\rm obs} N^{-1}_{\rm harm} \simeq 4 P_{\rm spin,ms}

534:  T^{-2}_{\rm obs,h} N^{-1}_{\rm harm}$\,m s$^{-2}$, where $P_{\rm spin,ms}$ and

535: $T_{\rm obs,h}$ are the spin period in milliseconds and the observation

536: time in hours and $N_{\rm harm}$ is the highest order harmonic used in

537: summing. Overlapping subsections of the observation, corresponding to about

538: a third of the total observation length, were also searched using the

539: matched-filtering technique and $z_{\rm max}$ = 170 bins, in order to look

540: for more highly accelerated pulsars. 

541: 

542: The resulting candidate lists from the matched-filtering search were

543: generally short enough that they could easily be examined by eye, although

544: we also parsed candidate lists with a script that automatically folded

545: candidates above an equivalent gaussian significance threshold of 7.

546: Interesting candidates were folded using the estimated DM, period, and

547: period derivative from the search and these parameters were optimized by the

548: folding software to maximize the S/N ratio of the folded

549: profile.  The output plot from such a fold was used to determine whether a

550: given candidate warranted further attention (see sample discovery plot and

551: description in Figure~\ref{discplot.fig}).  To identify potentially

552: interesting candidates from the phase-modulation searches, we compared the

553: search outputs from the different observing epochs of each cluster. The

554: criteria for a promising phase-modulation candidate was a signal with a

555: significance $> 10\sigma$ that did not peak in significance at DM $= 0$\,pc

556: cm$^{-3}$, had an orbital period $> 600$\,s, and appeared, by virtue of a

557: similar orbital period, in the candidate lists of at least two observing

558: epochs. 

559: 

560: \section{Results}

561: 

562: \subsection{Redetections}

563: 

564: Table~\ref{prev_pulsars.tab} lists the 15 previously known pulsars in our

565: survey clusters.  The majority of these pulsars were easily detected by our

566: search pipeline (Table~\ref{prev_pulsars.tab}).  In fact, because many of

567: these sources are relatively bright, masking these periodicities and their

568: many significant harmonics was an important factor in reducing the length of

569: candidate lists.  The only previously known pulsars not detected in our

570: searches are M15F, G, and H.\footnote{Note however that M15F was easily

571: detected in complementary searches we made using the WAPP at 327\,MHz (see

572: \S4.2.2).} Although these are all isolated pulsars, and are well within

573: the $\sim 1.5^{\prime}$ half-power radius of the 1.4-GHz Arecibo main beam,

574: our non-detections are not very surprising: these are the dimmest pulsars in

575: M15, and were all found in searches of multiple, combined observing epochs

576: \citep{and93}. Assuming standard spectral indices ($\alpha = -1.8$), they

577: have flux densities right at the limit of our search sensitivity.

578: 

579: \subsection{New MSPs}

580: 

581: We have discovered 11 MSPs and 2 promising candidates in 5 clusters. Three

582: of the clusters with new pulsars (M3, M71, and NGC~6749) contained no known

583: pulsars prior to our survey.  All of the pulsars discovered in this survey

584: were found using the matched-filtering acceleration search technique, and

585: all but the newly-found isolated pulsar M13C (\mxiiic) and the

586: long-orbital-period binary M3D (\miiid) required a non-zero trial frequency

587: derivative (acceleration) in order to be detectable.  Given the criteria

588: outlined in \S3.3, no interesting candidates were identified by the

589: phase-modulation search. The spin periods of the new pulsars have a narrow

590: range 2.4$-$5.4\,ms. For comparison, the previously known pulsars in these

591: clusters have spin periods in the range 3.5$-$111\,ms, with only 2 pulsars

592: having $P_{\rm spin} < 4$\,ms. All but one of the new pulsars is in a binary

593: system, with orbital periods ranging from $2.1$\,hr up to $129$\,d.

594: Although none of the previously known binaries in these GCs show eclipses, 3

595: of the new pulsars found here eclipse. The basic characteristics of these

596: pulsars are summarized in Table~\ref{pulsars.tab}. Integrated pulse

597: profiles, which are often the sum of numerous observations, are shown in

598: Figure~\ref{profiles.fig}.

599: 

600: We have conducted monthly timing observations of these discoveries over the

601: course of approximately two years using Arecibo and multiple WAPP backends.

602: In fact, M3D (\miiid), M5E (\mve), and M13E (\mxiiie) were all discovered in

603: searches of timing data because of fortuitous scintillation.  The timing

604: results for the M5 and M71 pulsars will be presented by Stairs et al. (2008,

605: in preparation) and the timing of the M13 pulsars will be presented by

606: Ransom et al. (2008, in preparation).

607: 

608: \subsubsection{M3 (NGC~5272)}

609: 

610: We have found the first three, and likely four, pulsars known in M3. All of

611: these pulsars were detected in observations in which interstellar

612: scintillation increased their flux to a detectable level and they are not

613: consistently detectable with Arecibo.  They have DMs within 0.3\,pc

614: cm$^{-3}$ of each other, with an average DM of 26.4\,pc cm$^{-3}$.  This

615: compares very well with the 23\,pc cm$^{-3}$ DM predicted by the NE2001

616: model \citep{cl02spec}.  On these grounds alone, there is little doubt that

617: these pulsars are members of M3. M3A (\miiia) is a 2.54-ms binary which has

618: only been detected three times, on MJDs 52491, 52492 and 52770 (we list the

619: number of detections of each new pulsar in Table~\ref{pulsars.tab}).  Due to

620: this paucity of detections, we do not currently know the orbital parameters

621: for this pulsar, although its orbital period is likely on the order of a

622: day. We also cannot derive a precise position for this pulsar, though we

623: note that, since the half-power radius of the Arecibo 1.4-GHz main beam is

624: $\sim 1.5^{\prime}$, it is likely no further than this from the cluster

625: center. M3B (\miiib) is a 2.39-ms binary in a 34.0-hr orbit with a

626: 0.2\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion, which, in analogy to other systems

627: with similar orbital parameters, may be a low-mass helium white dwarf. It is

628: the most consistently detectable pulsar in M3, and is visible at least

629: faintly in roughly half of our observations.  On some occasions M3B has

630: shown very large increases in flux (up to a flux density at 1400\,MHz

631: $S_{1400} \sim 0.1$\,mJy), presumably due to diffractive scintillation.  We

632: have derived a phase-connected timing solution for M3B

633: (Table~\ref{M3pulsars.tab}) using the {\tt TEMPO} pulsar timing

634: package\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/tempo} and

635: standard pulsar timing techniques.  This solution places it $8.3^{\prime

636: \prime}$ (0.25 core radii) from the center of the cluster.  Using this

637: projected position and the simple cluster model outlined in \citet{fhn+05},

638: we can derive the maximum contribution to the observed period derivative

639: from acceleration in the cluster's gravitational potential.  In this model,

640: we find $|a_{\rm max}/c|P_{\rm spin} = 1.6 \times 10^{-20}$\,s/s, which is

641: comparable to M3B's observed period derivative. From this we place an upper

642: limit on M3B's {\it intrinsic} period derivative and corresponding lower

643: limits on its characteristic age and dipole magnetic field

644: (Table~\ref{M3pulsars.tab}).

645: %The NE2001 model predicts a

646: %scintillation time scale of 1300\,s (at 1-GHz observing frequency and

647: %assuming a 100\,km s$^{-1}$ transverse velocity) and a scintillation

648: %bandwidth of 3\,MHz (also at 1-GHz observing frequency), given the 10.4\,kpc

649: %distance to M3.  These are significantly smaller than the observation time

650: %and bandwidth we used, confirming that scintillation is important for this

651: %cluster. 

652: 

653: M3D has a spin period of 5.44\,ms and an orbital period $\sim 129$\,d.

654: Though the detections of M3D are too sparse to derive a phase-connected

655: timing solution for this pulsar, by inserting arbitrary phase jumps between

656: observing epochs we have been able to derive accurate orbital parameters,

657: and a reasonably precise position (Table~\ref{M3pulsars.tab}). M3D's orbital

658: period is much longer than the typical orbital period of GC MSPs, most of

659: which have $P_{\rm orb} < 3$\,d, and may suggest a non-standard

660: evolutionary history for the system. PSR~B1310+18 in M53 \citep[$P_{\rm orb}

661: \sim 256$\,d,][]{kapw91}, PSR~B1620$-$26 in M4 \citep[$P_{\rm orb} \sim

662: 191$\,d,][]{lbb+88}, and PSR~J1748$-$2446E in Terzan~5 \citep[$P_{\rm orb}

663: \sim 60$\,d,][]{rhs+05b} are the only other GC MSPs known to have orbital

664: periods longer than 50\,d. Binaries with orbital periods $10 \lapp P_{\rm

665: orb} \lapp 1000$\,d may be efficiently formed by exchange interactions

666: involving an isolated neutron star and ``hard'' primordial binaries

667: \citep{hmg+92,sp93}.  \citet{cr05} point out that pulsars with long orbital

668: periods ($> 100$\,d) tend to reside in low-density clusters, i.e.

669: $\rho_\circ < 4$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$.  As M3 has a central density

670: $\rho_\circ = 3.51$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$, M3D follows this trend.

671: M3D also has a significant eccentricity, $e = 0.075$.  This is significantly

672: larger than expected from a single-stage stable-mass transfer episode from a

673: red-giant \citep{phi92b}, further pointing to an unusual evolution for this

674: system.

675: %Cut?

676: %However, such wide binaries also have large

677: %interaction cross-sections and may easily be disrupted in the high-density

678: %cores of GCs.

679: 

680: We also have one very good candidate (denoted M3C in Table~\ref{pulsars.tab}

681: because it was found before M3D and has been presented as such in previous

682: references, e.g. \citet{rhs+05a}) with a spin period of 2.17\,ms that has

683: been seen only once (presumably due to scintillation) with a S/N of $\sim 6$

684: during a $\sim 3000$-s portion of an observation with the Green Bank

685: Telescope (GBT), but never in any of our Arecibo data.  During this single

686: detection, the candidate showed a period drift of $1.82(3) \times

687: 10^{-11}$\,s/s, corresponding to a line-of-sight acceleration $a_l =

688: 2.5$\,m/s$^{-2}$, indicating that, if it is real, this pulsar is in a binary

689: system.

690: %Note: Pdot = a_l P_o / c

691: These GBT data were

692: taken with the Berkeley-Caltech Pulsar Machine (BCPM) as part of a parallel

693: survey by our group for pulsars in GCs visible with the GBT \citep[see][for

694: more details on these survey observations]{rsb+04,rhs+05a}.

695: 

696: A deep radio synthesis image of M3 made at 1.4\,GHz with the VLA

697: \citep{kgwm90} revealed a $S_{1400} \sim 180$\,$\mu$Jy source

698: $7.4^{\prime \prime}$ from the optical center of the cluster.  This source

699: does not coincide with the positions of M3B or M3D. In principle, the

700: \citet{kgwm90} radio source could be associated with M3A, M3C, or another

701: unknown pulsar in the cluster.  However, it seems too bright to be M3A or

702: M3C, and unless it is particularly fast-spinning ($P_{\rm spin} \lesssim

703: 1$\,ms) or highly accelerated by a companion star, its flux density should

704: have made it easily detectable in our searches.  It is of course also

705: possible that the source is not associated with M3.

706: %A timing position is needed in

707: %order to test the association. We have tried setting the position of M3B

708: %in our timing model to that of the \citet{kgwm90} source, but still find

709: %that the detections are too infrequent to allow for phase connection.

710: Three 10-ks observations of the cluster with {\it Chandra} ACIS-S taken by

711: Grindlay et al. (ObsIDs 4542, 4543, and 4544) reveal no obvious X-ray

712: counterpart to the \citet{kgwm90} radio source.  There are however two

713: obvious point sources within the half-mass radius of the cluster.  One of

714: these sources is coincident with the supersoft X-ray source 1E 1339.8+2837

715: \citep*{dag99}.  The other is not coincident with the positions of either

716: M3B or M3D.

717: %, which is likely a

718: %XXX.  The spectrum of the other point source suggest it is a XXX.

719: 

720: \subsubsection{M5 (NGC~5904)}

721: 

722: In M5, we have found three new pulsars in addition to the isolated 5.55-ms

723: pulsar M5A (\mva) and the binary 7.95-ms pulsar M5B (\mvb) found by

724: \citet{wak+89a}, bringing the total population of this cluster to five. M5C

725: (\mvc), with a spin period of 2.48\,ms, is in a 2.1-hr orbit with a

726: 0.04\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion.  It shows regular eclipses for $\sim

727: 15$\% of its orbit as well as eclipse delays at eclipse ingress and egress,

728: which can be up to $\sim 0.2$\,ms and are presumably due to dispersive

729: delays as the pulsar passes through the ionized wind of its companion. M5C

730: is part of the growing class \citep{fre05} of $\sim 10$ eclipsing GC

731: binaries with orbital periods of only a few hours and very low mass

732: companions ($M_c \lapp 0.1$\,\msun ).  It is positionally coincident with a

733: soft X-ray counterpart seen in a 45-ks {\it Chandra} ACIS-S observation of

734: the cluster (Stairs et al. 2008, in preparation).  M5D (\mvd), a binary

735: 2.99-ms pulsar, was originally discovered in Arecibo data taken by our group

736: at 327\,MHz \citep[see also][]{mf03}, but it has also been seen at 1.4\,GHz

737: on numerous occasions because of scintillation.  These 327-MHz data were

738: obtained using the Gregorian 327-MHz receiver and the WAPP as part of a

739: smaller set of search observations conducted at lower frequency on the

740: clusters M3, M5, M13, and M15.  M5D is in a 29.3\,hr orbit with a

741: 0.20\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion.  M5E, a binary 3.18-ms pulsar, was

742: discovered in a search of our regular timing observations of M5 and was

743: visible because of scintillation.  M5E has an orbital period of 26.3\,hr and

744: a 0.15\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion. It has a complex pulse profile and

745: close to a 100\% duty cycle (Figure~\ref{profiles.fig}).

746: 

747: \subsubsection{M13 (NGC~6205)}

748: 

749: In M13, we have found three new pulsars in addition to the isolated 10.4-ms

750: pulsar M13A (\mxiiia) and the binary 3.53-ms pulsar M13B (\mxiiib) found by

751: \citet{kapw91} and \citet{and93}, bringing the total population of this

752: cluster to five. The pulsars in this cluster show 2$-10\times$ changes in

753: flux density because of scintillation on time scales shorter than an hour.

754: M13C has a spin period of 3.72\,ms and is the only isolated pulsar

755: discovered in this survey.  M13D (\mxiiid) is a 3.12-ms binary with a

756: 14.2-hr orbital period and a 0.18\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion. M13E, a

757: binary 2.49-ms pulsar, has been detected in only two observations, likely

758: because of favorable scintillation.  It is highly accelerated and appears to

759: be eclipsed for part of each of these two observations.  We estimate that

760: the orbital period is approximately $2.8 \pm 0.2$\,hr, which is consistent

761: with the interpretation that it is similar to M5C.  The short orbital period

762: and likely eclipses of this system make it difficult to blindly detect in a

763: search.  In analogy to other eclipsing MSPs, it is also likely that M13E

764: will be visible as an X-ray source.  Two roughly 30-ks {\it Chandra}

765: observations of M13 were taken in March 2006, and may reveal an X-ray source

766: coincident with this pulsar, or one of the others known in M13.

767: 

768: \subsubsection{M71 (NGC~6838)}

769: 

770: In M71, we have found M71A (\mlxxia), the first and only pulsar known in

771: this cluster.  M71A's DM of 117 pc cm$^{-3}$ is reasonably close to the

772: $86$\,pc cm$^{-3}$ predicted by the NE2001 Galactic electron model

773: \citep{cl02spec}.  It is also located $\sim 0.6$ core radii from the optical

774: center of the cluster (see Stairs et al. 2008, in preparation), leaving

775: little doubt it is associated with M71.  M71A is a 4.89-ms pulsar in a

776: 4.2-hr orbit with a 0.03\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion.  It shows regular

777: eclipses for $\sim 20$\% of its orbit, though no eclipse delays are seen at

778: ingress or egress.  A discussion of its identification with an X-ray

779: counterpart will be published elsewhere. The low density and relative

780: proximity of M71 (d = 4.0\,kpc) make optical follow-up observations of M71A

781: viable. The relatively high DM towards this cluster means diffractive

782: scintillation has a small effect on the flux density of M71A. A stack search

783: combining four contiguous days of data on this cluster revealed no new

784: pulsars; searches combining more data sets will be undertaken.

785: %The lack of visible eclipse delays is likely due to *** XXX ***.

786: 

787: \subsubsection{NGC~6749 (Berkeley~42)}

788: 

789: Lastly, we have found the first known pulsar in NGC~6749, as well as another

790: promising pulsar candidate in this cluster.  NGC~6749 has the lowest

791: concentration ($c = {\rm log}_{10}(r_t/r_c)$) and the third lowest central

792: luminosity density (tied with M13) of any GC with a known pulsar. NGC~6749A

793: is a 3.19-ms binary pulsar with an orbital period of 19.5\,hr and a

794: 0.090\,\msun\ (minimum mass) companion.  Though there is no evidence for

795: eclipses in the system, we cannot rule them out, as orbital coverage around

796: superior conjunction is poor. The DM of NGC~6749A (\nvia) is 194 pc

797: cm$^{-3}$, which is significantly lower than the 438\,pc cm$^{-3}$ DM

798: predicted by the NE2001 model \citep{cl02spec}.  Due to the sparseness of

799: measured arrival times at some epochs, we have only been able to derive a

800: {\it partially} phase-connected timing solution for this pulsar

801: (Table~\ref{M3pulsars.tab}), which places the pulsar $0.51 \pm 0.38

802: ^{\prime}$ ($\sim 0.7$ core radii) from the center of the cluster. Thus, an

803: association between this pulsar and NGC~6749 is quite

804: secure\footnote{NGC~6749 sits in the Galactic plane at a latitude of

805: $-2.2^{\circ}$.  Using the number of observed field MSPs in the Galactic

806: plane to roughly estimate the angular density of observable MSPs, we use

807: this number and the angular distance of NGC~6749A from the cluster center to

808: estimate a chance association probability of $\sim 10^{-8}$.}, and the DM

809: discrepancy could easily be due to uncertainties in the NE2001 model, or

810: perhaps an overestimation of the cluster's distance.  

811: 

812: NGC~6749B (\nvib) is a candidate 4.97-ms binary pulsar that has been seen

813: only once, in data from MJD~52921. Although it is quite faint -- the

814: detection has a S/N of $\sim 5$ -- the signal shows a clear peak in DM at

815: roughly 192\,pc cm$^{-3}$.  The similarity in DM with NGC~6749A bolsters

816: this candidate's identification as a real pulsar and member of NGC~6749.  

817: In the one 5000-s observation where this candidate was seen, it showed a

818: period drift of $-1.53(2) \times 10^{-11}$\,s/s, corresponding to a

819: line-of-sight acceleration $a_l = -0.9$\,m s$^{-2}$, and indicating that, if

820: this is a real pulsar, it is in a binary system.

821: 

822: \section{Discussion}

823: 

824: %MAIN TOPICS:

825: %1) What is the intrinsic orbital period dist?

826: %2) What is the intrinsic spin period dist?

827: %3) What GC have MSPs?

828: %4) How do the populations of MSPs differ between

829: %   clusters and between GCs and the Plane?

830: 

831: \subsection{Survey Limitations}

832: 

833: In this section, we discuss the limitations of this survey due to a number

834: of observational and analytical biases. Before we do, it also bears

835: reminding the reader that the number of pulsars we can find is also limited

836: in a more fundamental way by the clusters' efficiency at creating them. From

837: theoretical expectation and mounting observational evidence, it is becoming

838: clear that cluster density has an important role to play in creating MSPs in

839: a GC.  Currently, no cluster with a central luminosity density of

840: $\rho_{\circ} < 3$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$ contains a known pulsar.

841: Conversely, Terzan~5 and 47~Tuc have central densities of $\rho_{\circ} =

842: 5.06$ and $4.81$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$ respectively and have the

843: largest known populations. We have surveyed all 22 GCs visible from Arecibo

844: and within 70\,kpc without any bias against observing low-density clusters.

845: Unfortunately, from the point of view of wanting to find as many new pulsars

846: as possible, these clusters are on average not very dense compared with

847: clusters in the Galactic bulge, outside of Arecibo's field of view.  Of the

848: 22 clusters in our survey, 8 have $\rho_{\circ} <

849: 3$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$ and still contain no known pulsar. This is not

850: a great surprise.  Of the remaining 14 clusters, which have densities in a

851: range where one might expect to find pulsars, 8 have known pulsars.  The

852: absence of any known pulsar in the remaining 6 survey clusters with

853: $\rho_{\circ} > 3$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$ can be mostly explained by

854: their large distances (see also \S5.1.2).

855: 

856: \subsubsection{Sensitivity to Fast and Binary Pulsars}

857: 

858: The fastest-spinning pulsar known is \terad\ in Terzan~5, with a spin period

859: of 1.396\,ms \citep{hrs+06} and the shortest known orbital period of any

860: binary MSP is 1.6\,hr \citep[PSR~J0024$-$7204R in 47~Tucanae,][]{clf+00}.

861: Here we discuss the sensitivity of this survey to very-fast-spinning pulsars

862: ($P_{\rm spin} \sim 0.5-$3.0\,ms) and/or pulsars in very tight orbits

863: ($P_{\rm orb} \sim 0.5-$6.0\,hr).  The discovery of such systems is hampered

864: by a number of selection effects \citep{jk91,rce03}, which bias the

865: observed spin and orbital period distributions to longer periods. We discuss

866: the extent to which the observed spin period distribution of the total

867: population of MSPs has been affected by selection effects in \S5.2.  

868: 

869: We have characterized the sensitivity of this survey, as a function of

870: period and DM, in \S2.3 and compare it to the sensitivity of the

871: \citet{and93} survey (Figure~\ref{sensitivity.fig}).  Though the survey's

872: sensitivity to slow pulsars ($P_{\rm spin} \gtrsim 10$\,ms in this case) is

873: shown to be flat, there is undoubtedly some extra, unmodeled reduction in

874: sensitivity to very slow ($P_{\rm spin} \gtrsim 0.5$\,s) pulsars because of

875: RFI and red-noise. We note however that very few slow pulsars are known in

876: the GC system and we do not a priori expect such systems in the clusters we

877: have surveyed because they are generally found in higher-density clusters

878: \citep{cr05}.

879: 

880: For DM = 30\,pc cm$^{-3}$, our sensitivity to a 1-ms pulsar is degraded by a

881: factor of roughly $1.5$ compared with a 4-ms pulsar.  This degradation in

882: sensitivity is a strong function of DM and increases to a factor of $\sim

883: 2.5$ at a DM of 200\,pc cm$^{-3}$. Some of the MSPs we have discovered in

884: this survey were just barely detectable by our processing (e.g. NGC~6749A

885: and M3D).  We can thus not rule out the existence of pulsars with $P_{\rm

886: spin} \lesssim 1.5$\,ms in our survey data, if they have fluxes comparable

887: to the dimmest sources we have discovered.  However, a ``reasonably bright''

888: ($S_{1400} > 50$\,$\mu$Jy), {\it isolated} 1-ms pulsar would very likely

889: have been detected.  We discuss the {\it luminosity} limits achieved for

890: individual clusters, which depend largely on the cluster distance, in the

891: next section.  Even higher time and frequency resolution data are required

892: to maintain as flat a sensitivity response as possible out to spin periods

893: below $\sim 1$\,ms.  This should be a goal of future surveys and is feasible

894: given the current state of computer technology.

895: 

896: The shortest spin period found in this survey was 2.4\,ms (M3B).

897: Furthermore, 5 of the 11 pulsars found here have spin periods between

898: 2$-$3\,ms, significantly lower than the median period of the observed

899: population of GC MSPs, which is $4.7$\,ms (see Figure~\ref{spinfdist.fig},

900: left, for a spin period histogram of all known GC pulsars). For comparison,

901: the fastest-spinning pulsar known in these clusters prior to this survey is

902: M13B, with a spin period of 3.5\,ms.  This demonstrates the increased

903: sensitivity of this survey to fast-spinning pulsars, compared with previous

904: surveys, and suggests that the observed spin-period distribution of GC

905: pulsars is still artificially biased towards longer spin periods.  This is

906: unsurprising if one compares the sensitivity curves of this survey with

907: those of \citet{and93}, as in Figure~\ref{sensitivity.fig}.

908: 

909: Our sensitivity to short orbital periods is difficult to quantify precisely.

910: We compare the sensitivity of a coherent search of the data (i.e. one in

911: which the orbital modulation of the pulsar signal can be completely

912: corrected, and in which the sensitivity is proportional to

913: $T^{-1/2}_{\rm obs}$) to that of our acceleration search technique, using

914: the simulations of \citet{rce03}, which were made using the same search

915: technique and software. These simulations assume a pulsar spin period of

916: 2\,ms and a companion mass of 0.1\,\msun.  We see that for a 2-hr binary

917: period and a 0.5-hr observation duration that the sensitivity afforded by an

918: acceleration search is roughly half that of the coherent sensitivity.  A

919: 0.5-hr observation duration is typical of the length used in our short

920: subsection searches, and thus for all clusters we had good sensitivity to orbital

921: periods down to a few hours.  Specifically for the survey clusters with

922: known pulsars (where the DM is thus also known), we searched a larger variety

923: of short subsections of the total observation length, down to integration times

924: as short as roughly 10 minutes.  For these clusters, we were sensitive to

925: even more compact systems and higher accelerations (assuming the pulsar's

926: flux is high enough to show up in such short integrations).

927: 

928: As explained in \S3.3, in our matched-filter acceleration technique we

929: looked for signals where the highest order harmonic used in summing drifted

930: by up to $z_{\rm max} = 170$ bins, corresponding to a maximum line-of-sight

931: acceleration of $a_{\rm max} \simeq 4 P_{\rm spin,ms} T^{-2}_{\rm obs,h}

932: N^{-1}_{\rm harm}$\,m s$^{-2}$.  For comparison, we note that \citet{clf+00} were

933: sensitive to a maximum acceleration of $< |30|$\,m s$^{-2}$ in their

934: searches of 47~Tucanae (where 0.3-h integration subsections were used) and

935: that PSR~B1744$-$24A in Terzan~5 has a maximum line-of-sight acceleration of

936: 33\,m s$^{-2}$ \citep{ljm+90spec}.  For $P_{\rm spin} = 2$\,ms and $T_{\rm obs}

937: = 0.5$\,h, which is typical of the integration times used in our

938: short-subsection searches, we reach a limiting acceleration of 32\,m

939: s$^{-2}$ (note however that this limit applies only to the fundamental and

940: not to sums including higher-order harmonics).  For clusters where we

941: searched numerous timing observations, $z_{\rm max} = 500$ bins was

942: sometimes used, providing an additional factor of three range in

943: acceleration space.  Such high accelerations are worth exploring in order to

944: maintain sensitivity to not only the accelerated fundamental of a pulsar

945: signal but also its harmonics, which are needed to detect faint pulsars.

946: Though no new pulsars were found in these searches, we note that the pulsars

947: M13E and M71A were only detected with $1-2$ harmonics in our initial $z_{\rm

948: max} = 170$ searches and would have been more easily identified in a $z_{\rm

949: max} = 500$ search.  Re-searching the data presented here with $z_{\rm max} =

950: 1000$ has the potential to discover compact binaries that were previously missed.

951: 

952: The most extreme orbital systems we found in this survey were M5C, M13E, and

953: M71A, with orbital periods between $\sim 2-$4\,hr and minimum companion

954: masses between $\sim 0.02-$0.1\,\msun. As 10 of 11 pulsars found here are in

955: binary systems, this survey did a good job of detecting the binaries that

956: were missed by \citet{and93} and other previous searches of these

957: % From Anderson Thesis:

958: % M15A,B readily detected in normal Fourier techniques

959: % M15C found in acceleration search

960: % M15D,E incoherent stack search

961: % M15F,G,H coherent multi-day search

962: clusters.\footnote{However, we note that five of the eight pulsars found in

963: M15 by \citet{and93} are especially faint, isolated pulsars discovered in 

964: searches of multiple M15 data sets.  M15D and E were found in incoherent

965: stack searches of multiple observations, while M15F, G, and H were found in

966: coherent multi-day transforms. These searches are {\it much} less sensitive

967: to binary systems.}  With the exception of the long orbital period binary

968: M3D, all the binaries presented here required the acceleration search

969: technique in order to be detected. The fact that we found only 1 isolated

970: pulsar suggests that previous surveys already found the vast majority of the

971: reasonably bright isolated pulsars in these clusters.

972: 

973: %From Camilo \& Rasio Aspen Proc:

974: %``It is clear by comparison with otherwise equivalent pulsars in the

975: %Galactic disk that even the ``small'' eccentricities of most GC binaries

976: %are unusually large - a clear sign of stellar interactions either during

977: %or post formation''

978: 

979: %Cluster binaries have shorter orbital periods than those in the field.

980: 

981: %Johnston \& Kulkarni 1991 \citep{jk91}

982: 

983: %Camilo et al. 2000 run simulations for 47Tuc

984: 

985: \subsubsection{Sensitivity to the Weakest Pulsars}

986: 

987: %Important to remember that GCs are relatively far away, and that we

988: %see only the brightest portion of the luminosity distribution.

989: %Is our Smin low enough to detect the dimnest pulsars seen in Ter5?

990: %Are we starting to see a cutoff in the luminosity distribution?

991: 

992: Of the 22 clusters we have searched for pulsations, 14 still contain no

993: known pulsar, although all of these (with the exception of M2) are $>

994: 15$\,kpc from the Sun and/or have very high predicted DMs ($> 150$\,pc

995: cm$^{-3}$).  We have estimated the maximum luminosity of any undiscovered

996: pulsars in the clusters we have searched, using the distance to the cluster,

997: its DM (or predicted DM), and the sensitivity calculations of \S2.3.  These

998: upper limits are given in Table~\ref{gcs.tab}, and apply most directly to

999: isolated pulsars.  For comparison, the weakest-known pulsars in Terzan~5

1000: have 1400-MHz luminosities\footnote{This is a ``pseudo'' luminosity, defined

1001: as $L_{1400} \equiv S_{1400} d^{2}$.} $L_{1400} \sim 2$\,mJy

1002: kpc$^2$, and the weakest in 47~Tucanae are $L_{1400} \sim 1$\,mJy

1003: kpc$^2$. Furthermore, there are indications that the {\it intrinsic} lower

1004: limit for the MSPs in 47~Tucanae is $L^{min}_{1400} \approx 0.4$\,mJy kpc$^2$

1005: \citep{mdca04}. Because of their large distances, such weak pulsars are not

1006: excluded in any of the clusters we have searched here. For most of our

1007: clusters, the luminosity limits only exclude pulsars whose luminosity is

1008: comparable to the brightest MSPs known in the GC system ($L_{1400} \gtrsim

1009: 5$\,mJy kpc$^2$). Significantly more sensitive observing systems (using,

1010: for example, the Square Kilometer Array) will be required to fully probe the

1011: pulsar populations of these clusters down to the proposed low-luminosity

1012: cutoff.

1013: 

1014: \subsubsection{Spatial Coverage}

1015: 

1016: Here we investigate whether our single-pointing observations provided

1017: adequate spatial coverage to discover the bulk of the visible pulsars in our

1018: survey clusters.  The vast majority of GC pulsars are found close to the

1019: centers of their clusters due to mass-segregation of the massive neutron

1020: stars.  Of the GC pulsars with measured angular distance from their host

1021: cluster's center, $r$, roughly 90\% are at $r/r_c < 3$ \citep[see

1022: e.g.][]{cr05}, where $r_c$ is the cluster's core radius (these are listed

1023: for each of our survey clusters in Table~\ref{gcs.tab}).  Pulsars further

1024: from their cluster center ($r/r_c \gtrsim 5$) are found predominantly in

1025: high-density ($\rho_{\circ} \gtrsim 4.5$\,log$_{10}$~\lsun/pc$^{3}$)

1026: clusters \citep{cr05}. Only one of our clusters, M15, has such a high

1027: density, and thus we do not a priori expect that such sources exist in our

1028: other survey clusters.

1029: 

1030: The radius of the Arecibo beam at 1.4\,GHz is roughly $1.5^{\prime}$.  Thus,

1031: for the 12 clusters we surveyed with $r_c < 0.5^{\prime}$, almost all of the

1032: cluster's pulsars should have fallen within our beam.  Furthermore, the beam

1033: radius of the 430-MHz \citet{and93} survey, which observed 11 of the same

1034: sources (see Table~\ref{gcs.tab}), was $5^{\prime}$, and would likely have

1035: detected some sources further from the cluster centers, if they existed. 

1036: For the 6 clusters we surveyed with $r_c < 1.0^{\prime}$, the coverage was

1037: still very good, though perhaps 20\% of the pulsar population fell

1038: outside the Arecibo beam. There remain 4 survey clusters whose $r_c$ is

1039: comparable to the beam half-power radius or larger: NGC~5053 ($r_c =

1040: 1.98^{\prime}$), NGC~5466 ($r_c = 1.64^{\prime}$), Pal~5 ($r_c =

1041: 3.25^{\prime}$), and Pal~15 ($r_c = 1.25^{\prime}$).  In these clusters,

1042: perhaps only half of the pulsar population fell within the Arecibo beam. In

1043: general however, we conclude that it is unlikely that a significant number

1044: of pulsars were missed in this survey because of spatial coverage.

1045: 

1046: \subsection{MSP Spin Frequency Distribution}

1047: 

1048: %Based on a population of 22 field MSPs, Cordes and Chernoff 1997 find:

1049: %Pmin > 1ms at 95% confidence and Pmin > 0.65ms @ 99% confidence

1050: %dN/dP propto P^-2.0

1051: %pseudoluminosity dist prop to L^-2.0+/-0.2

1052: %luminosity cutoff L >= 1.1 mJy kpc^2 (@ 400MHz???)

1053: 

1054: %See Lorimer et al. 1996: 

1055: 

1056: %What is the intrinsic period dist?  47Tuc seems to have a deficit

1057: %below 2ms.  Ter5 seems to have a deficit below 1.5ms.  For our survey,

1058: %sensitivity to isolated pulsars starts to drop around 3\,ms, especially

1059: %at higher DMs.

1060: 

1061: %Aspen Proc. Chakrabarty et al. : ``Recent radio pulsar surveys, in which 

1062: %selection effects are accounted for, are independently finding similar

1063: %evidence for a maximum spin frequency around 700 Hz, as reported at this

1064: %eeting (McLaughlin et al., in this volume; Camilo \& Rasio, in this volume).''

1065: %---> Maura finds a lower limit of 1.2ms from 11 pulsars found in AO drift

1066: %surveys

1067: %---> 

1068: 

1069: If one includes both the known MSPs in the field and those in GCs, the {\it

1070: observed} distribution of radio pulsar spin frequencies above 200\,Hz

1071: roughly follows a power-law relationship with an index of $-3$, i.e. $N_{\rm

1072: psr} \propto {\nu_{\rm spin}}^{-3}$ (Figure~\ref{spinfdist.fig}, right). We do not

1073: suggest that the underlying spin-frequency distribution is a power-law, or that

1074: a physical motivation for this choice exists, we merely use this functional

1075: form to quantify the sharp observed drop in the number of known pulsars as $\nu_{\rm

1076: spin}$ increases.  Considering the combined spin frequencies of MSPs in the

1077: field and in GCs is potentially problematic, as the frequency distributions

1078: of MSPs in the field and those in GCs could well be intrinsically different.

1079: Furthermore, the spin-frequency distribution between GC MSP populations may also

1080: vary (e.g. there is some indication that Terzan~5 has a wider range of spin

1081: frequencies than 47~Tucanae).  Nonetheless, for the purposes of discussing the

1082: effect of observational bias on the observed spin frequency distribution, we

1083: will consider the MSP population as a whole.

1084: 

1085: There is no significant correlation currently observed between the radio

1086: luminosity of MSPs and their spin frequency.  Because all other conceivable

1087: observational biases (e.g. scattering, dispersive smearing,

1088: self-obscuration) {\it increase} the difficulty in detecting the fastest

1089: pulsars, the observed spin-frequency distribution above 200\,Hz places a

1090: limit on the steepness of the intrinsic spin frequency distribution at these

1091: frequencies (i.e. if $N_{\rm psr} \propto {\nu_{\rm spin}}^{-\alpha}$, then

1092: ${\alpha}_{\rm true} < {\alpha}_{\rm obs}$). 

1093: %\citet{cha05} \citep[see

1094: %also][]{cmm+03} notes that the observed spin-frequency distribution of

1095: %accreting LMXBs showing bursts (the ``nuclear-powered'' pulsars) is

1096: %statistically consistent with a flat distribution between 270$-$619\,Hz, and a

1097: %cut-off at 730\,Hz.  Given that LXMBs are the most likely progenitors of the

1098: %MSPs, do MSPs also have a roughly flat spin-frequency distribution up to

1099: %some cut-off frequency?

1100: We now consider the observational biases that contribute to the

1101: observed spin-frequency distribution of MSPs.  First, we see from

1102: Equation~\ref{sens.eqn} that the minimum detectable flux density depends on

1103: spin frequency because pulse smearing due to scattering and DM has a greater

1104: relative effect for fast pulsars.  This accounts for part of the slope in

1105: the observed spin-frequency distribution.  Second, as there is no indication

1106: that orbital period is strongly correlated with spin frequency, it is unlikely

1107: that many of the fastest MSPs are being missed because they are

1108: preferentially in the most compact orbits. However, the number of bins

1109: through which a binary-modulated pulsar signal will drift in the Fourier

1110: domain is directly proportional to its spin frequency. In other words, for

1111: the same orbital period, it is more difficult to detect a 1-ms pulsar than a

1112: 5-ms pulsar in an acceleration search, because the 1-ms pulsar (and its

1113: harmonics) will drift by a factor of 5 times more Fourier bins.  Harmonics

1114: that drift by many bins are more susceptible to non-linear frequency drift

1115: terms (reducing their detectability) and may drift beyond the maximum number

1116: of bins probed by the search ($z_{\rm max}$). Thus, binary motion also

1117: accounts for part of the slope in the observed spin-frequency distribution,

1118: although this effect is difficult to quantify.  Finally, because it is

1119: plausible that eclipse fraction increases with $\dot{E} = 4 {\pi}^2 I \nu

1120: \dot{\nu} \propto B_{\rm surf}^2 \nu^4$ (assuming that the pulsar spindown

1121: is dominated by magnetic dipole radiation), fast-spinning pulsars in binary

1122: systems may be preferentially obscured by the material their strong winds

1123: ablate from their companions \citep{tav91,hrs+06}.

1124: 

1125: Given the multitude of observational biases against detecting the

1126: fastest-spinning radio pulsars, it is difficult to identify what portion of

1127: the observed spin-frequency distribution is instrinsic to the population.

1128: Perhaps the best way to investigate this problem is by performing Monte

1129: Carlo simulations of various trial underlying populations and then searching

1130: these until one converges on the observed population. Terzan~5 and

1131: 47~Tucanae present excellent samples on which to perform such simulations,

1132: although one would have to be careful in generalizing the results to MSPs in

1133: the field or in other GCs.  If the distribution of radio pulsar spin

1134: frequencies is even approximately like that of the LMXBs, which is roughly

1135: consistent with being flat over the observed range of 270$-$619\,Hz

1136: \citep{cmm+03}, then we have still only discovered a very

1137: small fraction of the fastest-spinning radio pulsars. Mapping the

1138: distribution at the fastest spin frequencies depends crucially on finding

1139: these pulsars.

1140: 

1141: %Remove

1142: %Radio surveys for rotation-powered pulsars will always be limited by

1143: %scattering, but there is still room for higher time and frequency resolution

1144: %backends (or coherent dedispersion) to improve sensitivity to the

1145: %fastest-spinning pulsars. Surveys at higher observing frequencies than used

1146: %here \cite[i.e. $> 1.5$\,GHz, e.g.][]{rhs+05b,rhs+05c} mitigate the effects

1147: %of scattering, which scales as $\nu^{-4}_{\rm obs}$, and inter-channel

1148: %dispersive smearing, which scales as $\nu^{-3}_{\rm obs}$.  Unfortunately,

1149: %higher observing frequencies also require very large observing bandwidth to

1150: %compensate for the typically steep spectral indices of pulsars.  X-ray

1151: %surveys are also potentially interesting, as they do not suffer from the

1152: %adverse effects of dispersion or scattering (although there is absorption of

1153: %soft X-rays by intervening matter).  However, currently only one of the

1154: %radio MSPs in GCs (PSR~B1821$-$24A) is also detected as an X-ray pulsar.

1155: %Furthermore, the strong bias against detecting binaries can be mitigated by

1156: %the development of increasingly sophisticated (and computationally

1157: %intensive) search techniques that more completely correct for the pulsar's

1158: %binary motion. Another advantage of future instruments, which will have

1159: %greater instantaneous sensitivity, is that one may find faint pulsars in

1160: %increasingly short data sets, where binary motion has less time to smear the

1161: %signal.

1162: 

1163: \subsection{Pulsar Luminosities}

1164: 

1165: %Camilo \& Rasio: ``It is not straightforward to determine the luminosity

1166: %function of the pulsars in 47 Tuc because of their large-amplitude

1167: %scintillations''  From 14 pulsars, they find dlogN = -dlogL (e.g.

1168: %McConnell et al. 2004).

1169: 

1170: %Camilo \& Rasio: ``Many surveys have a luminosity limit L1400 > 10 mJy kpc2,

1171: %while the maximum luminosity for pulsars in 18 GCs is ~10mJy kpc2 (exceptions

1172: %are the much brighter ..).  It seems therefore that in many cases at radio

1173: %wavelengths that we are still only probing the tip of the iceberg.''

1174: 

1175: %Anderson maximum likelihood analysis is very sensitive to the Lmin

1176: %that is used.

1177: 

1178: %Cordes & Chernoff 97: ``..we currently regard the similarity between

1179: %long-period and MSP luminosity distributions as fortuitous''

1180: 

1181: %****Cordes & Chernoff 97: ``An analysis of GC MSP populations should

1182: %probably use a treatment similar to this paper's but applied to cluster-only

1183: %data.

1184: 

1185: %Cordes & Chernoff 97: ``On evolutionary grounds, many properties of disk

1186: %and GC MSPs might be expected to differ (e.g. distributions of luminosity,

1187: %spin period, orbital period, and velocity)''

1188: 

1189: %Cordes & Chernoff 97: ``Some observations suggest a weak positive correlation

1190: %(Lundgren,Zepka & Cordes 1995) between orbital and spin period''

1191: 

1192: %Lyne et al. 1998 (Parkes Southern Pulsar Survey) find a dlogN=-dlogL

1193: % relationship based on 21 MSPs, but have to make _very_ large corrections

1194: % for observational bias and beaming.

1195: 

1196: In Table~\ref{pulsars.tab}, we list the 1.4-GHz flux densities of the

1197: pulsars discovered in this survey, as well as those of the previously

1198: known pulsars in these clusters.\footnote{We provide only upper limits,

1199: determined from the raw sensitivity of the survey, on the flux

1200: densities of the candidate pulsars M3C and NGC~6749B.}  These were

1201: derived from the observed pulse profiles by integrating the pulse and

1202: scaling this flux using the off-pulse root mean square and the

1203: radiometer equation.  For the mostly non-scintillating pulsars M71A

1204: and NGC~6749A, we estimate that the fractional uncertainty on their

1205: flux is roughly 30\%.  For the pulsars found in M3, M5, and M13,

1206: scintillation can have a strong effect on the observed flux of the

1207: pulsars as a function of time, making it more difficult to estimate

1208: the underlying intrinsic brightness of these sources.  For these

1209: pulsars, we have used an approach similar to that used by

1210: \citet{clf+00}: we fit the observed fluxes -- using half the survey

1211: sensitivity limit as the flux in the case of non-detections -- to an

1212: exponential distribution, whose median value we take as the intrinsic

1213: flux.  This approach worked well for many of the scintillating pulsars

1214: in M3, M5, and M13, which were detected in the majority of our many

1215: ($\gtrsim 50$) timing observations of these clusters.  For these

1216: pulsars, we estimate that the fractional uncertainty on their quoted

1217: flux density is 50\%.  The exceptions were M3A, M5E, and M13E, where

1218: the scarcity of detections made determining the intrinsic flux density

1219: more uncertain.  The quoted flux densities of these sources have a

1220: higher fractional uncertainty of roughly 70\%.

1221: %Furthermore, we derive the following 1400-MHz flux densities for the previously known

1222: %pulsars in M5 and M13: \mva: 0.12\,mJy, \mvb: 0.025\,mJy, \mxiiia:

1223: %0.14\,mJy, and \mxiiib: 0.022\,mJy.

1224: 

1225: The luminosity distribution of MSPs, both in the field and in GCs, has

1226: been difficult to constrain precisely because of the relatively small

1227: number of known MSPs and the observational biases against finding

1228: faint, fast, and binary pulsars. Furthermore, individual estimates of

1229: pulsar luminosity can suffer from large systematic errors because the

1230: distance is incorrect.  This is especially difficult in the field,

1231: where most distances are estimated from the DM, but is less of an

1232: issue for pulsars associated with GCs, whose distances are known

1233: comparatively precisely.  In this section, we take advantage of the

1234: many new pulsar discoveries that have been recently made in GCs.  We

1235: combine the luminosities of the pulsars currently known in M5, M13,

1236: M15, M28, NGC~6440, NGC~6441, 47~Tucanae, and Terzan~5 (see

1237: Table~\ref{lum_sample.tab}) and consider the resulting luminosity

1238: distribution of GC MSPs.  These specific GCs were chosen because they

1239: contain at least 4 pulsars each.  The clusters M3, M62, NGC~6624, and

1240: NGC~6752, which are the only other clusters with at least 4 known

1241: pulsars, were excluded from the analysis because reliable fluxes were

1242: not available for all the known pulsars in these clusters.

1243: 

1244: In Figure~\ref{luminosities.fig}, we plot the 1.4-GHz cumulative

1245: luminosity distribution of 41 isolated (top left), 41 binary (top

1246: right), and all 82 pulsars in our sample combined (bottom).  In the

1247: majority of cases, specific spectral indices were not available, and

1248: luminosities were scaled to 1.4\,GHz (where necessary) assuming a

1249: pulsar spectral index of $\alpha = -1.8$ \citep{mkkw00spec}.  Unless

1250: otherwise indicated, the \citet{har96} catalog distance to the host GC

1251: was used to convert 1400-MHz flux density $S_{1400}$ to pseudo

1252: luminosity $L_{1400} \equiv S_{1400} d^{2}$ (see

1253: Table~\ref{lum_sample.tab}). The M5 and M13 luminosities are from the

1254: observations made in this survey. The Terzan~5 luminosities come from

1255: \citet{rhs+05b} and subsequent analysis of the more recently found

1256: pulsars in this cluster.  We assumed a distance of 8.7\,kpc to

1257: Terzan~5 \citep{clge02}.  The 47~Tucanae fluxes are from

1258: \citet{clf+00} and we use a distance of 4.5\,kpc \citep{zro+01} to

1259: convert these to luminosities.  The luminosities of pulsars in M28,

1260: NGC~6440, and NGC~6441 come from recent 1950-MHz discoveries and

1261: timing observations made by our group with the GBT \citep[][these

1262: discoveries are currently being prepared for publication as B\'egin et

1263: al. and Freire et al.]{rhs+05c,beg06}.

1264: 

1265: We fit ${\rm log}_{10}(N > L)$ versus ${\rm log}_{10}(L)$ to a line, using

1266: the square-root of ${\rm log}_{10}(N > L)$ as the uncertainties. These

1267: best-fit slopes are shown as solid lines in Figure~\ref{luminosities.fig}.

1268: No corrections have been made for any observational bias \citep[as has been

1269: done for field MSPs in][]{lml+98,cc97}.  For all isolated and binary pulsars

1270: combined, the best-fit slope is $-0.77 \pm 0.03$.  Below $1.5$\,mJy kpc$^2$

1271: the observed distribution turns over, and thus we used a minimum luminosity

1272: cut-off of $L^{\rm min}_{1400} = 1.5$\,mJy kpc$^2$ for fitting purposes.

1273: Only the 70 pulsars in our sample above this luminosity limit were included

1274: in the fit.  In combining luminosities from numerous clusters, we have

1275: assumed that the luminosity function does not vary significantly between

1276: clusters. We note that, when the same analysis is applied separately to the

1277: pulsar populations of the individual GCs in our sample, the slope is in each

1278: case consistent with that derived from all clusters in our sample combined

1279: (though the error on the slope is of course large for clusters with few

1280: known pulsars).  This supports the assumption that the radio luminosity

1281: distribution of GC pulsars is universal. As 40\% of the sample pulsars are

1282: in Terzan~5, it is important to ask how much the assumed distance to the

1283: cluster affects the combined luminosity distribution. We find that the

1284: distance to Terzan~5 can change by up to 30\%\footnote{This

1285: encompasses the range of published distances to Terzan~5, including the

1286: newest derived distance of $5.5 \pm 0.9$\,kpc from \citet{obb+07}.} without

1287: significantly altering the slope derived from all the different cluster

1288: pulsars combined.  Furthermore, 56\% of the pulsars in our sample are

1289: contained in either Terzan~5 or 47~Tuc.  These two clusters thus have a

1290: large influence on the derived luminosity law, and it will be important to

1291: revisit these calculations when larger pulsar populations are known in other

1292: clusters as well.

1293: 

1294: There are clearly ripples in the combined distribution, suggesting unmodeled

1295: effects, possibly due entirely to observational biases.  When the population

1296: is separated into isolated and binary pulsars, it is clear that these

1297: effects come predominantly from the binary pulsars. This is perhaps

1298: unsurprising, as the observational biases inherent in detecting such systems

1299: are significantly higher than for the isolated pulsars.  Considering only

1300: the 37 isolated pulsars in our sample above $L^{\rm min}_{1400}$, we find a

1301: much smoother distribution, with a best-fit slope $-0.90 \pm 0.07$.

1302: Conversely, the cumulative distribution of the 33 binaries above $L^{\rm

1303: min}_{1400}$ is relatively poorly fit by a single slope of $-0.63 \pm 0.06$.

1304: We note that while the slope derived by fitting the isolated pulsars is

1305: relativity insensitive to the value of $L^{\rm min}_{1400}$ (as long as it

1306: is not well below $1.5$\,mJy kpc$^2$), the slope derived from the binary

1307: pulsars varies significantly as $L^{\rm min}_{1400}$ is changed. 

1308: 

1309: %If the luminosities of the

1310: %binary pulsars also follow a single power law, then it appears that there

1311: %are roughly three pulsars with $L_{1400} \grtsim 20$\,mJy kpc$^2$ missing

1312: %from our sample.  Such pulsar should be easier to discover because of their

1313: %brightness, unless they are preferentially subject to self-obscuration by a

1314: %bloated companion (e.g. Terzan5~A).  Another possibility is that the

1315: %brightest pulsars also have the highest spin-down luminosity and hence

1316: %ablate their companion more rapidly and become isolated.  This is

1317: %speculative however, as it has not been shown that radio luminosity scales

1318: %with spin-down luminosity and the rate of companion ablation also depends on

1319: %other factors, such as orbital separation. 

1320: 

1321: Given the much lower bias against detecting isolated pulsars, we suggest

1322: that the slope derived from fitting only isolated pulsars is the most

1323: reliable. This distribution is somewhat flatter, though still barely

1324: consistent with the d ${\rm log}_{10}(N)$ = $-$ d ${\rm log}_{10}(L)$

1325: relation found for non-recycled field pulsars and MSPs \citep*[consider for

1326: instance][]{lmt85,lml+98,cc97}. It is also roughly consistent with the

1327: recently derived luminosity law of \citet{lfl+06}, who find d ${\rm

1328: log}_{10}(N) \sim -0.8$ d ${\rm log}_{10}(L)$ using a sample of 1008 normal

1329: (non-millisecond) pulsars. As the population of known GC MSPs continues to

1330: increase, we will be better able to constrain the luminosity distribution. 

1331: However, until the next large advance in telescope collecting area, it will

1332: be hard to constrain the luminosity function of GC MSPs below 1\,mJy kpc$^2$,

1333: because of the relatively large distances to GCs and selection effects,

1334: which are worse for weak pulsars.

1335: 

1336: We note that 70\% of our sample pulsars, those in M15, M28, NGC~6440,

1337: NGC~6441, and Terzan~5, can be characterized as not strongly scintillating

1338: (Table~\ref{lum_sample.tab}).  Thus, as the majority of the pulsars in the

1339: sample don't scintillate significantly, and those that do have been given

1340: special attention, we don't believe that scintillation is strongly biasing our

1341: distribution.  When we consider only the 31 not strongly scintillating,

1342: isolated pulsars above our luminosity cutoff, we find a best-fit slope of

1343: $-0.86 \pm 0.08$, consistent with that derived from all our isolated sample

1344: pulsars.  We note further that since the known MSPs in the plane have mostly

1345: very low DMs ($\sim 80$\% have DM$ < 50$\,pc cm$^{-3}$) and are observed for

1346: shorter amounts of time (which means less averaging over strong

1347: scintillation epochs), scintillation is potentially a larger pitfall in

1348: analyzing the luminosities of those sources.

1349: 

1350: As the flux densities used in this analysis were obtained at either

1351: 0.43\,GHz, 1.4\,GHz, or 2.0\,GHz (see Table~\ref{lum_sample.tab}) we have

1352: also investigated the uncertainty introduced by the error on the mean

1353: spectral index used to scale these fluxes.  The nominal error on the $-1.8$

1354: mean spectral index we have used is 0.2 \citep{mkkw00spec}. We have re-run

1355: our fitting of isolated pulsars using a spectral index of -1.6 and -2.0 and

1356: find slopes of $-0.92 \pm 0.07$ and $-0.89 \pm 0.07$ respectively for

1357: isolated pulsars.  Thus, uncertainty in the average spectral index of these

1358: pulsars does not have a large effect on the derived luminosity distribution.

1359: 

1360: %Notes on Bailes et al. 1997

1361: %

1362: %KS test shows that the isolated and binary luminosity dists are different

1363: %at the 99.5% level.

1364: %Distance estimates are from TC93

1365: %Lum at 400MHz

1366: %They say that uncertainty in distance makes certain quantities hard

1367: %to compare between iso and bin MSPs{\ldots}  why not also lums, which

1368: %depend on d^2?

1369: %''Either there is a selection effect or the int lum of iso MSPs are

1370: %lower on average than bins

1371: %''We are therefore left with the possibility that some fraction of the

1372: %solitary MSPs form by a completely diff mech from that of bin MSPs

1373: 

1374: %Note on Lommen et al. 2006

1375: %

1376: %Find a diff in scale height between iso and bin MSPs

1377: %Find no diff in vels

1378: %Scale height diff due to diff in lums?

1379: %Most distances from NE2001 (CL01)

1380: %Confirm the Bailes et al. result with an updated catalog

1381: %Also, the median dist of iso is 510pc, while that of bin is 1155pc,

1382: %also suggests that the iso MSPs must be less luminous.

1383: %Lum diff between iso and bin also suggested by

1384: %Kramer et al. 1998, Hobbs et al. 2004

1385: 

1386: Lastly, we have statistically compared the luminosity distributions of

1387: isolated and binary GC pulsars, using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test

1388: \citep[e.g.][]{pft86}.  We find that the two populations are statistically

1389: different with only 34\% confidence. In other words, there is currently no

1390: evidence that the observed luminosity distributions of isolated and binary

1391: GC pulsars are significantly different.  This can also be seen by plotting

1392: the best-fit slope from the distribution of isolated GC pulsars over the

1393: distribution of binaries (dashed-line in Figure~\ref{luminosities.fig}, top

1394: right).  This lack of difference has also been recently demonstrated for the

1395: MSPs in the Galactic plane by \citet{lmcs07}, who argue that previous claims

1396: \citep{bjb+97spec,lkn+06} of a statistical difference between the luminosities

1397: of the two populations were due to small number statistics and observational

1398: biases.

1399: 

1400: %Superceded

1401: %This

1402: %lack of obvious difference contrasts with what has been found for isolated

1403: %and binary MSPs in the Galactic plane, where \citet{bjb+97spec} show, also on

1404: %the basis of a KS test, that the observed luminosity functions of the two

1405: %populations differ with 99.5\% confidence.\footnote{This result has been

1406: %confirmed with a more recent catalog of field MSPs by \citet{lkn+06}.}

1407: %The lack of observed difference in the luminosity distributions of isolated

1408: %and binary pulsars in GCs may be due to collisions and exchange interactions

1409: %in the dense core of the cluster, which could wash out luminosity

1410: %differences due to purely the formation of the original MSP.  Alternately,

1411: %it may be possible that the observed difference between the luminosities of

1412: %isolated and binary MSPs in the field is due to selection effects against

1413: %finding dim binaries.

1414: 

1415: \section{Conclusions}

1416: 

1417: We have used the Arecibo radio telescope at $\sim 1.4$\,GHz to search 22 GCs

1418: for pulsars.  These searches are among the deepest searches ever undertaken

1419: for such objects, and employed the most sensitive algorithms available to

1420: find Doppler-shifted binary pulsar signals.  Our survey discovered 11 MSPs,

1421: almost doubling the known population in these GCs.  8 of these new pulsars

1422: are in binary systems, and 3 show eclipses. We find a significantly higher

1423: proportion of binaries, eclipsing systems, and pulsars with very short spin

1424: periods ($P_{\rm spin} < 4$\,ms) than previous searches of these clusters.

1425: We consider the luminosity distribution of GC pulsars and find that these

1426: follow a form d ${\rm log}_{10}(N)$ = $-0.90 \pm 0.07$ d ${\rm

1427: log}_{10}(L)$.  We find no evidence for a difference in the luminosity

1428: distributions of isolated and binary GC pulsars.

1429: 

1430: \acknowledgements

1431: 

1432: J.W.T.H. thanks NSERC for a PGS-D fellowship, which was tenured during this

1433: research.  I.H.S. holds an NSERC UFA and is supported by an NSERC Discovery

1434: Grant. V.M.K. is a Canada Research Chair, and acknowledges support from an

1435: NSERC Discovery Grant and Steacie Supplement, CIAR, and from the FQRNT. We

1436: sincerely acknowledge Arun Venkataraman, Jeff Hagen, and Bill Sisk of the

1437: Arecibo Observatory for their fantastic help with data management and

1438: maintenance of the WAPPs.  We also thank Dunc Lorimer for his valuable

1439: guidance in our early days of WAPP use and Fernando Camilo, our referee, who

1440: provided detailed comments and suggestions which improved our original

1441: manuscript.  V.M.K., J.W.T.H., and S.M.R. are very grateful to the Canada

1442: Foundation for Innovation for the New Opportunities Grant that funded

1443: construction of ``The Borg'', the computer cluster that was essential for

1444: our analysis, and to Paul Mercure for helping to maintain this system. The

1445: Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center,

1446: which is operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with

1447: the National Science Foundation. 

1448: 

1449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1450: % Bibliography %

1451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1452: 

1453: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1454: %\bibliography{journals1,modrefs,psrrefs,AOGC_refs}

1455: 

1456: \begin{thebibliography}{65}

1457: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[{Alpar {et~al.}(1982)Alpar, Cheng, Ruderman, \& Shaham}]{acrs82}

1460: Alpar, M.~A., Cheng, A.~F., Ruderman, M.~A., \& Shaham, J. 1982, Nature, 300,

1461:   728

1462: 

1463: \bibitem[{{Anderson}(1993)}]{and93}

1464: {Anderson}, S.~B. 1993, Ph.D.~Thesis, Caltech

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[{Anderson {et~al.}(1990)Anderson, Gorham, Kulkarni, Prince, \&

1467:   Wolszczan}]{agk+90}

1468: Anderson, S.~B., Gorham, P.~W., Kulkarni, S.~R., Prince, T.~A., \& Wolszczan,

1469:   A. 1990, Nature, 346, 42

1470: 

1471: \bibitem[{{Bailes} {et~al.}(1997){Bailes}, {Johnston}, {Bell}, {Lorimer},

1472:   {Stappers}, {Manchester}, {Lyne}, {Nicastro}, {D'Amico}, \&

1473:   {Gaensler}}]{bjb+97spec}

1474: {Bailes}, M., {Johnston}, S., {Bell}, J.~F., {Lorimer}, D.~R., {Stappers},

1475:   B.~W., {Manchester}, R.~N., {Lyne}, A.~G., {Nicastro}, L., {D'Amico}, N., \&

1476:   {Gaensler}, B.~M. 1997, \apj, 481, 386

1477: 

1478: \bibitem[{{B\'egin}(2006)}]{beg06}

1479: {B\'egin}, S. 2006, M.Sc.~Thesis, UBC

1480: 

1481: \bibitem[{{Bhat} {et~al.}(2004){Bhat}, {Cordes}, {Camilo}, {Nice}, \&

1482:   {Lorimer}}]{bcc+04}

1483: {Bhat}, N.~D.~R., {Cordes}, J.~M., {Camilo}, F., {Nice}, D.~J., \& {Lorimer},

1484:   D.~R. 2004, \apj, 605, 759

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[{{Camilo} {et~al.}(2000){Camilo}, {Lorimer}, {Freire}, {Lyne}, \&

1487:   {Manchester}}]{clf+00}

1488: {Camilo}, F., {Lorimer}, D.~R., {Freire}, P., {Lyne}, A.~G., \& {Manchester},

1489:   R.~N. 2000, ApJ, 535, 975

1490: 

1491: \bibitem[{{Camilo} \& {Rasio}(2005)}]{cr05}

1492: {Camilo}, F. \& {Rasio}, F.~A. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific

1493:   Conference Series, Vol. 328, Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F.~A. {Rasio} \& I.~H.

1494:   {Stairs}, 147

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[{{Chakrabarty} {et~al.}(2003){Chakrabarty}, {Morgan}, {Muno},

1497:   {Galloway}, {Wijnands}, {van der Klis}, \& {Markwardt}}]{cmm+03}

1498: {Chakrabarty}, D., {Morgan}, E.~H., {Muno}, M.~P., {Galloway}, D.~K.,

1499:   {Wijnands}, R., {van der Klis}, M., \& {Markwardt}, C.~B. 2003, Nature, 424,

1500:   42

1501: 

1502: \bibitem[{{Chandler}(2003)}]{cha03}

1503: {Chandler}, A.~M. 2003, Ph.D.~Thesis, Caltech

1504: 

1505: \bibitem[{{Cohn} {et~al.}(2002){Cohn}, {Lugger}, {Grindlay}, \&

1506:   {Edmonds}}]{clge02}

1507: {Cohn}, H.~N., {Lugger}, P.~M., {Grindlay}, J.~E., \& {Edmonds}, P.~D. 2002,

1508:   ApJ, 571, 818

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[{Cordes \& Chernoff(1997)}]{cc97}

1511: Cordes, J.~M. \& Chernoff, D.~F. 1997, ApJ, 482, 971

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[{{Cordes} \& {Lazio}(2002)}]{cl02spec}

1514: {Cordes}, J.~M. \& {Lazio}, T.~J.~W. 2002, (astro-ph/0207156)

1515: 

1516: \bibitem[{{D'Amico} {et~al.}(2002){D'Amico}, {Possenti}, {Fici}, {Manchester},

1517:   {Lyne}, {Camilo}, \& {Sarkissian}}]{dpf+02}

1518: {D'Amico}, N., {Possenti}, A., {Fici}, L., {Manchester}, R.~N., {Lyne}, A.~G.,

1519:   {Camilo}, F., \& {Sarkissian}, J. 2002, ApJ, 570, L89

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[{{D'Amico} {et~al.}(2001){D'Amico}, {Possenti}, {Manchester},

1522:   {Sarkissian}, {Lyne}, \& {Camilo}}]{dpm+01}

1523: {D'Amico}, N., {Possenti}, A., {Manchester}, R.~N., {Sarkissian}, J., {Lyne},

1524:   A.~G., \& {Camilo}, F. 2001, ApJ, 561, L89

1525: 

1526: \bibitem[{Dewey {et~al.}(1985)Dewey, Taylor, Weisberg, \& Stokes}]{dtws85}

1527: Dewey, R.~J., Taylor, J.~H., Weisberg, J.~M., \& Stokes, G.~H. 1985, ApJ, 294,

1528:   L25

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[{{Dotani} {et~al.}(1999){Dotani}, {Asai}, \& {Greiner}}]{dag99}

1531: {Dotani}, T., {Asai}, K., \& {Greiner}, J. 1999, \pasj, 51, 519

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[{{Dowd} {et~al.}(2000){Dowd}, {Sisk}, \& {Hagen}}]{dsh00}

1534: {Dowd}, A., {Sisk}, W., \& {Hagen}, J. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. 202: IAU Colloq.

1535:   177: Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond, 275

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[{{Freire} {et~al.}(2004){Freire}, {Gupta}, {Ransom}, \&

1538:   {Ishwara-Chandra}}]{fgri04}

1539: {Freire}, P.~C., {Gupta}, Y., {Ransom}, S.~M., \& {Ishwara-Chandra}, C.~H.

1540:   2004, ApJL, 606, L53

1541: 

1542: \bibitem[{Freire {et~al.}(2001)Freire, Kramer, Lyne, Camilo, Manchester, \&

1543:   D'Amico}]{fkl+01}

1544: Freire, P.~C., Kramer, M., Lyne, A.~G., Camilo, F., Manchester, R.~N., \&

1545:   D'Amico, N. 2001, ApJ, 557, L105

1546: 

1547: \bibitem[{{Freire}(2005)}]{fre05}

1548: {Freire}, P.~C.~C. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 328: Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F.~A.

1549:   {Rasio} \& I.~H. {Stairs}, 405

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[{{Freire} {et~al.}(2005){Freire}, {Hessels}, {Nice}, {Ransom},

1552:   {Lorimer}, \& {Stairs}}]{fhn+05}

1553: {Freire}, P.~C.~C., {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., {Nice}, D.~J., {Ransom}, S.~M.,

1554:   {Lorimer}, D.~R., \& {Stairs}, I.~H. 2005, ApJ, 621, 959

1555: 

1556: \bibitem[{Harris(1996)}]{har96}

1557: Harris, W.~E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

1558: 

1559: \bibitem[{{Hessels} {et~al.}(2006){Hessels}, {Ransom}, {Stairs}, {Freire},

1560:   {Kaspi}, \& {Camilo}}]{hrs+06}

1561: {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., {Ransom}, S.~M., {Stairs}, I.~H., {Freire}, P.~C.~C.,

1562:   {Kaspi}, V.~M., \& {Camilo}, F. 2006, Science, 311, 1901

1563: 

1564: \bibitem[{Hut {et~al.}(1992)Hut, McMillan, Goodman, Mateo, Phinney, Pryor,

1565:   Richer, Verbunt, \& Weinberg}]{hmg+92}

1566: Hut, P., McMillan, S., Goodman, J., Mateo, M., Phinney, E.~S., Pryor, C.,

1567:   Richer, H.~B., Verbunt, F., \& Weinberg, M. 1992, PASP, 104, 981

1568: 

1569: \bibitem[{Johnston \& Kulkarni(1991)}]{jk91}

1570: Johnston, H.~M. \& Kulkarni, S.~R. 1991, ApJ, 368, 504

1571: 

1572: \bibitem[{{Jouteux} {et~al.}(2002){Jouteux}, {Ramachandran}, {Stappers},

1573:   {Jonker}, \& {van der Klis}}]{jrs+02}

1574: {Jouteux}, S., {Ramachandran}, R., {Stappers}, B.~W., {Jonker}, P.~G., \& {van

1575:   der Klis}, M. 2002, \aap, 384, 532

1576: 

1577: \bibitem[{{Kaplan} {et~al.}(2005){Kaplan}, {Escoffier}, {Lacasse}, {O'Neil},

1578:   {Ford}, {Ransom}, {Anderson}, {Cordes}, {Lazio}, \& {Kulkarni}}]{kel+05}

1579: {Kaplan}, D.~L., {Escoffier}, R.~P., {Lacasse}, R.~J., {O'Neil}, K., {Ford},

1580:   J.~M., {Ransom}, S.~M., {Anderson}, S.~B., {Cordes}, J.~M., {Lazio},

1581:   T.~J.~W., \& {Kulkarni}, S.~R. 2005, \pasp, 117, 643

1582: 

1583: \bibitem[{Kramer {et~al.}(1998)Kramer, Xilouris, Lorimer, Doroshenko, Jessner,

1584:   Wielebinski, Wolszczan, \& Camilo}]{kxl+98}

1585: Kramer, M., Xilouris, K.~M., Lorimer, D.~R., Doroshenko, O., Jessner, A.,

1586:   Wielebinski, R., Wolszczan, A., \& Camilo, F. 1998, ApJ, 501, 270

1587: 

1588: \bibitem[{Kulkarni {et~al.}(1990)Kulkarni, Goss, Wolszczan, \&

1589:   Middleditch}]{kgwm90}

1590: Kulkarni, S., Goss, W., Wolszczan, A., \& Middleditch, J. 1990, ApJ, 363, L5

1591: 

1592: \bibitem[{Kulkarni {et~al.}(1991)Kulkarni, Anderson, Prince, \&

1593:   Wolszczan}]{kapw91}

1594: Kulkarni, S.~R., Anderson, S.~B., Prince, T.~A., \& Wolszczan, A. 1991, Nature,

1595:   349, 47

1596: 

1597: \bibitem[{{Lommen} {et~al.}(2006){Lommen}, {Kipphorn}, {Nice}, {Splaver},

1598:   {Stairs}, \& {Backer}}]{lkn+06}

1599: {Lommen}, A.~N., {Kipphorn}, R.~A., {Nice}, D.~J., {Splaver}, E.~M., {Stairs},

1600:   I.~H., \& {Backer}, D.~C. 2006, \apj, 642, 1012

1601: 

1602: \bibitem[{{Lorimer} {et~al.}(2006){Lorimer}, {Faulkner}, {Lyne}, {Manchester},

1603:   {Kramer}, {McLaughlin}, {Hobbs}, {Possenti}, {Stairs}, {Camilo}, {Burgay},

1604:   {D'Amico}, {Corongiu}, \& {Crawford}}]{lfl+06}

1605: {Lorimer}, D.~R., {Faulkner}, A.~J., {Lyne}, A.~G., {Manchester}, R.~N.,

1606:   {Kramer}, M., {McLaughlin}, M.~A., {Hobbs}, G., {Possenti}, A., {Stairs},

1607:   I.~H., {Camilo}, F., {Burgay}, M., {D'Amico}, N., {Corongiu}, A., \&

1608:   {Crawford}, F. 2006, \mnras, 372, 777

1609: 

1610: \bibitem[{{Lorimer} \& {Kramer}(2004)}]{lk04}

1611: {Lorimer}, D.~R. \& {Kramer}, M. 2004, {Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy}

1612:   (Cambridge observing handbooks for research astronomers, Vol.~4.~Cambridge,

1613:   UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

1614: 

1615: \bibitem[{{Lorimer} {et~al.}(2007){Lorimer}, {McLaughlin}, {Champion}, \&

1616:   {Stairs}}]{lmcs07}

1617: {Lorimer}, D.~R., {McLaughlin}, M.~A., {Champion}, D.~J., \& {Stairs}, I.~H.

1618:   2007, astro-ph/0705.0685

1619: 

1620: \bibitem[{Lyne {et~al.}(1988)Lyne, Biggs, Brinklow, Ashworth, \&

1621:   McKenna}]{lbb+88}

1622: Lyne, A.~G., Biggs, J.~D., Brinklow, A., Ashworth, M., \& McKenna, J. 1988,

1623:   Nature, 332, 45

1624: 

1625: \bibitem[{Lyne {et~al.}(1993)Lyne, Biggs, Harrison, \& Bailes}]{lbhb93}

1626: Lyne, A.~G., Biggs, J.~D., Harrison, P.~A., \& Bailes, M. 1993, Nature, 361, 47

1627: 

1628: \bibitem[{{Lyne} {et~al.}(1990){Lyne}, {Johnston}, {Manchester},

1629:   {Staveley-Smith}, \& {D'Amico}}]{ljm+90spec}

1630: {Lyne}, A.~G., {Johnston}, S., {Manchester}, R.~N., {Staveley-Smith}, L., \&

1631:   {D'Amico}, N. 1990, \nat, 347, 650

1632: 

1633: \bibitem[{Lyne {et~al.}(1998)Lyne, Manchester, Lorimer, Bailes, D'Amico,

1634:   Tauris, Johnston, Bell, \& Nicastro}]{lml+98}

1635: Lyne, A.~G., Manchester, R.~N., Lorimer, D.~R., Bailes, M., D'Amico, N.,

1636:   Tauris, T.~M., Johnston, S., Bell, J.~F., \& Nicastro, L. 1998, MNRAS, 295,

1637:   743

1638: 

1639: \bibitem[{Lyne {et~al.}(1985)Lyne, Manchester, \& Taylor}]{lmt85}

1640: Lyne, A.~G., Manchester, R.~N., \& Taylor, J.~H. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 613

1641: 

1642: \bibitem[{{Maron} {et~al.}(2000){Maron}, {Kijak}, {Kramer}, \&

1643:   {Wielebinski}}]{mkkw00spec}

1644: {Maron}, O., {Kijak}, J., {Kramer}, M., \& {Wielebinski}, R. 2000, \aaps, 147,

1645:   195

1646: 

1647: \bibitem[{{McConnell} {et~al.}(2004){McConnell}, {Deshpande}, {Connors}, \&

1648:   {Ables}}]{mdca04}

1649: {McConnell}, D., {Deshpande}, A.~A., {Connors}, T., \& {Ables}, J.~G. 2004,

1650:   MNRAS, 348, 1409

1651: 

1652: \bibitem[{Middleditch \& Kristian(1984)}]{mk84}

1653: Middleditch, J. \& Kristian, J. 1984, ApJ, 279, 157

1654: 

1655: \bibitem[{{Mott} \& {Freire}(2003)}]{mf03}

1656: {Mott}, A.~J. \& {Freire}, P.~C. 2003, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

1657:   Society, 1292

1658: 

1659: \bibitem[{{Ortolani} {et~al.}(2007){Ortolani}, {Barbuy}, {Bica}, {Zoccali}, \&

1660:   {Renzini}}]{obb+07}

1661: {Ortolani}, S., {Barbuy}, B., {Bica}, E., {Zoccali}, M., \& {Renzini}, A. 2007,

1662:   (astro-ph/0705.4030)

1663: 

1664: \bibitem[{Phinney(1992)}]{phi92b}

1665: Phinney, E.~S. 1992, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A, 341, 39

1666: 

1667: \bibitem[{{Possenti} {et~al.}(2003){Possenti}, {D'Amico}, {Manchester},

1668:   {Camilo}, {Lyne}, {Sarkissian}, \& {Corongiu}}]{pdm+03}

1669: {Possenti}, A., {D'Amico}, N., {Manchester}, R.~N., {Camilo}, F., {Lyne},

1670:   A.~G., {Sarkissian}, J., \& {Corongiu}, A. 2003, ApJ, 599, 475

1671: 

1672: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1986){Press}, {Flannery}, \& {Teukolsky}}]{pft86}

1673: {Press}, W.~H., {Flannery}, B.~P., \& {Teukolsky}, S.~A. 1986, {Numerical

1674:   Recipes. The Art of Scientific Computing} (Cambridge: University Press, 1986)

1675: 

1676: \bibitem[{Radhakrishnan \& Srinivasan(1982)}]{rs82}

1677: Radhakrishnan, V. \& Srinivasan, G. 1982, Curr. Sci., 51, 1096

1678: 

1679: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2003){Ransom}, {Cordes}, \& {Eikenberry}}]{rce03}

1680: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Cordes}, J.~M., \& {Eikenberry}, S.~S. 2003, ApJ, 589, 911

1681: 

1682: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2002){Ransom}, {Eikenberry}, \&

1683:   {Middleditch}}]{rem02}

1684: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Eikenberry}, S.~S., \& {Middleditch}, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788

1685: 

1686: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Ransom}, {Hessels}, {Stairs},

1687:   {Freire}, {Camilo}, {Kaspi}, \& {Kaplan}}]{rhs+05b}

1688: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., {Stairs}, I.~H., {Freire}, P.~C.~C.,

1689:   {Camilo}, F., {Kaspi}, V.~M., \& {Kaplan}, D.~L. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, Science,

1690:   307, 892

1691: 

1692: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Ransom}, {Hessels}, {Stairs},

1693:   {Freire}, {Kaspi}, \& {Camilo}}]{rhs+05c}

1694: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., {Stairs}, I.~H., {Freire}, P.~C.~C.,

1695:   {Kaspi}, V.~M., \& {Camilo}, F. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, American Astronomical

1696:   Society Meeting Abstracts, 207

1697: 

1698: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{c}}){Ransom}, {Hessels}, {Stairs},

1699:   {Kaspi}, {Freire}, \& {Backer}}]{rhs+05a}

1700: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., {Stairs}, I.~H., {Kaspi}, V.~M.,

1701:   {Freire}, P.~C.~C., \& {Backer}, D.~C. 2005{\natexlab{c}}, in ASP Conf. Ser.

1702:   328: Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F.~A. {Rasio} \& I.~H. {Stairs}, 199

1703: 

1704: \bibitem[{{Ransom} {et~al.}(2004){Ransom}, {Stairs}, {Backer}, {Greenhill},

1705:   {Bassa}, {Hessels}, \& {Kaspi}}]{rsb+04}

1706: {Ransom}, S.~M., {Stairs}, I.~H., {Backer}, D.~C., {Greenhill}, L.~J., {Bassa},

1707:   C.~G., {Hessels}, J.~W.~T., \& {Kaspi}, V.~M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 328

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[{{Sigurdsson} \& {Phinney}(1993)}]{sp93}

1710: {Sigurdsson}, S. \& {Phinney}, E.~S. 1993, ApJ, 415, 631

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[{{Sigurdsson} \& {Thorsett}(2005)}]{st05}

1713: {Sigurdsson}, S. \& {Thorsett}, S.~E. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 328: Binary Radio

1714:   Pulsars, ed. F.~A. {Rasio} \& I.~H. {Stairs}, 213

1715: 

1716: \bibitem[{{Sipior} {et~al.}(2004){Sipior}, {Portegies Zwart}, \&

1717:   {Nelemans}}]{spn04}

1718: {Sipior}, M.~S., {Portegies Zwart}, S., \& {Nelemans}, G. 2004, \mnras, 354,

1719:   L49

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[{{Standish}(1998)}]{stan98}

1722: {Standish}, E.~M. 1998, Interoffice Memo. 312.F-98-048. Pasadena: JPL

1723: 

1724: \bibitem[{Tavani(1991)}]{tav91}

1725: Tavani, M. 1991, Nature, 351, 39

1726: 

1727: \bibitem[{{Thorsett} {et~al.}(1999){Thorsett}, {Arzoumanian}, {Camilo}, \&

1728:   {Lyne}}]{tacl99}

1729: {Thorsett}, S.~E., {Arzoumanian}, Z., {Camilo}, F., \& {Lyne}, A.~G. 1999, ApJ,

1730:   523, 763

1731: 

1732: \bibitem[{Toscano {et~al.}(1998)Toscano, Bailes, Manchester, \&

1733:   Sandhu}]{tbms98}

1734: Toscano, M., Bailes, M., Manchester, R., \& Sandhu, J. 1998, ApJ, 506, 863

1735: 

1736: \bibitem[{{Wolszczan} {et~al.}(1989{\natexlab{a}}){Wolszczan}, {Anderson},

1737:   {Kulkarni}, \& {Prince}}]{wak+89a}

1738: {Wolszczan}, A., {Anderson}, S., {Kulkarni}, S., \& {Prince}, T.

1739:   1989{\natexlab{a}}, IAU Circ., 4880, 1

1740: 

1741: \bibitem[{{Wolszczan} {et~al.}(1989{\natexlab{b}}){Wolszczan}, {Kulkarni},

1742:   {Middleditch}, {Backer}, {Fruchter}, \& {Dewey}}]{wkm+89b}

1743: {Wolszczan}, A., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Middleditch}, J., {Backer}, D.~C.,

1744:   {Fruchter}, A.~S., \& {Dewey}, R.~J. 1989{\natexlab{b}}, Nature, 337, 531

1745: 

1746: \bibitem[{{Zoccali} {et~al.}(2001){Zoccali}, {Renzini}, {Ortolani},

1747:   {Bragaglia}, {Bohlin}, {Carretta}, {Ferraro}, {Gilmozzi}, {Holberg},

1748:   {Marconi}, {Rich}, \& {Wesemael}}]{zro+01}

1749: {Zoccali}, M., {Renzini}, A., {Ortolani}, S., {Bragaglia}, A., {Bohlin}, R.,

1750:   {Carretta}, E., {Ferraro}, F.~R., {Gilmozzi}, R., {Holberg}, J.~B.,

1751:   {Marconi}, G., {Rich}, R.~M., \& {Wesemael}, F. 2001, ApJ, 553, 733

1752: 

1753: \end{thebibliography}

1754: 

1755: %%%%%%%%%%

1756: % TABLES %

1757: %%%%%%%%%%

1758: 

1759: %TABLE: Survey Source List and Observations

1760: \newpage

1761: 

1762: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccccccc}

1763: \rotate

1764: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1765: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1766: \tablecolumns{8}

1767: \tablewidth{0pc}

1768: \tablecaption{Survey Source List and Observations\label{gcs.tab}}

1769: \tablehead{

1770: %Header first line

1771: \colhead{Catalog ID} 

1772: & \colhead{Other} 

1773: & \colhead{Distance}

1774: & \colhead{$r_c$\tablenotemark{a}}

1775: & \colhead{$\rho_{\circ}$\tablenotemark{b}}

1776: & \colhead{Concentration\tablenotemark{c}}

1777: & \colhead{DM($\Delta$DM)\tablenotemark{d}} 

1778: & \colhead{Predicted DM\tablenotemark{d}} 

1779: & \colhead{Time Visible\tablenotemark{e}}

1780: & \colhead{Isolated\tablenotemark{f}} 

1781: & \colhead{Binary\tablenotemark{f}}  

1782: & \colhead{Lum. Limit\tablenotemark{g}} 

1783: \\

1784: %Header second line

1785: & \colhead{Name}

1786: & \colhead{(kpc)}   

1787: & \colhead{(arcmin)}   

1788: & \colhead{(${\rm log}_{10}$ \lsun/pc$^{3}$)}

1789: & \colhead{(${\rm log}_{10}$ $r_t/r_c$)}

1790: & \colhead{(pc cm$^{-3}$)} 

1791: & \colhead{(pc cm$^{-3}$)} 

1792: & \colhead{(hrs)}

1793: & \colhead{Pulsars} 

1794: & \colhead{Pulsars}

1795: & \colhead{(mJy kpc$^2$)}

1796: }

1797: \startdata

1798: 

1799: NGC~4147$^*$ & \nodata & 19   & 0.10 & 3.48    & 1.80 & \nodata    &  24  & 2.8 & \nodata & \nodata & 6.8\\

1800: NGC~5024$^*$ & M53     & 18   & 0.36 & 3.05    & 1.78 & 24         &  25  & 2.8 & \nodata & 1       & 6.1\\

1801: NGC~5053     & \nodata & 16   & 1.98 & 0.53    & 0.84 & \nodata    &  25  & 2.7 & \nodata & \nodata & 5.0\\

1802: NGC~5272$^*$ & M3      & 10   & 0.55 & 3.51    & 1.84 & 26.4(0.3)  &  23  & 2.5 & \nodata & 4(4)    & 2.1\\

1803: NGC~5466     & \nodata & 16   & 1.64 & 0.88    & 1.32 & \nodata    &  22  & 2.4 & \nodata & \nodata & 5.7\\

1804: NGC~5904$^*$ & M5      & 7.5  & 0.42 & 3.91    & 1.83 & 29.5(0.8)  &  32  & 1.5 & 1 & 4(3)    & 1.4\\

1805: NGC~6205$^*$ & M13     & 7.7  & 0.78 & 3.33    & 1.51 & 30.2(1.1)  &  38  & 1.2 & 2(1)  & 3(2)    & 1.7\\

1806: NGC~6426$^*$ & \nodata & 21   & 0.26 & 2.35    & 1.70 & \nodata    & 121  & 1.7 & \nodata & \nodata & 11\\

1807: NGC~6535$^*$ & \nodata & 6.8  & 0.42 & 2.69    & 1.30 & \nodata    & 172  & 0.8 & \nodata & \nodata & 1.9\\

1808: NGC~6749     & Be42    & 7.9  & 0.77 & 3.33    & 0.83 & 193(2)     & 438  & 1.5 & \nodata & 2(2)    & 2.0\\

1809: NGC~6760$^*$ & \nodata & 7.4  & 0.33 & 3.84    & 1.59 & 200(6)     & 257  & 1.3 & 1       & 1       & 2.0\\

1810: NGC~6779     & M56     & 10   & 0.37 & 3.26    & 1.37 & \nodata    & 163  & 2.3 & \nodata & \nodata & 2.5\\

1811: NGC~6838     & M71     & 4.0  & 0.63 & 3.04    & 1.15 & 117        & 86   & 2.8 & \nodata & 1(1)  & 0.3\\

1812: NGC~6934$^*$ & \nodata & 16   & 0.25 & 3.43    & 1.53 & \nodata    & 83   & 2.2 & \nodata & \nodata & 6.6\\

1813: NGC~7006$^*$ & \nodata & 42   & 0.24 & 2.46    & 1.42 & \nodata    & 74   & 2.7 & \nodata & \nodata & 34\\

1814: NGC~7078$^*$ & M15     & 10   & 0.07 & 5.38    & 2.50 & 66.9(2.2)  & 68   & 2.6 &  7 & 1       & 2.1\\

1815: NGC~7089     & M2      & 12   & 0.34 & 3.90    & 1.80 & \nodata    & 46   & 0.6 & \nodata & \nodata & 5.3\\

1816: Pal~2        & \nodata & 28   & 0.24 & 3.76    & 1.45 & \nodata    & 136  & 2.3 & \nodata & \nodata & 18\\

1817: Pal~5        & \nodata & 23   & 3.25 & $-$0.81 & 0.70 & \nodata    & 34   & 0.9 & \nodata & \nodata & 17\\

1818: Pal~10       & \nodata & 5.9  & 0.81 & 3.50    & 0.58 & \nodata    & 166  & 2.8 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.8\\

1819: Pal~13       & \nodata & 26   & 0.65 & 0.40    & 0.68 & \nodata    & 38   & 2.6 & \nodata & \nodata & 14\\

1820: Pal~15       & \nodata & 45   & 1.25 & $-$0.27 & 0.60 & \nodata    & 77   & 0.7 & \nodata & \nodata & 76\\

1821: \enddata

1822: \vspace{-0.5cm}

1823: \tablecomments{Clusters marked with an asterisk (*) were also searched by

1824: \citet{and93} with Arecibo at 430\,MHz.  \citet{and93} also searched

1825: NGC~6218 (M12, no pulsars found), which is not visible using the Arecibo

1826: Gregorian dome.  All previously known pulsars were found by \citet{and93},

1827: with the exceptions of PSR~J1911+0101B \citep[][in NGC~6760]{fhn+05},

1828: PSRs~B1516+02A and B \citep[][in M5]{wak+89a}, and PSR~B2127+11A \citep[][in

1829: M15]{wkm+89b}.} 

1830: \tablenotetext{a}{The core radius of the cluster.  For comparison, the

1831: half-power radius of the Arecibo 1.4-GHz beam is $\sim 1.5^{\prime}$.}

1832: \tablenotetext{b}{The logarithm of the central luminosity density of the cluster.}

1833: \tablenotetext{c}{The logarithm of the ratio of the tidal radius to the core radius of the

1834: cluster.} 

1835: \tablenotetext{d}{Predicted

1836: values of DM are based on the \citet{cl02spec} electron density model of the Galaxy.

1837: There is no formal uncertainty on these values, and the predicted DM

1838: can sometimes differ from the true value by a factor of two or more.  The

1839: predicted DM is also provided for clusters with known pulsars, and this

1840: shows the characteristic discrepancy between the values.  In some cases, the

1841: predicted DM agrees very well with the DM of pulsars in the cluster.  This

1842: is because these pulsars have been used to scale the model itself.  For

1843: clusters with more than one known pulsar, $\Delta {\rm DM}$ indicates the

1844: observed spread in DM.}

1845: \tablenotetext{e}{Time visible with the Arecibo telescope, which can only

1846: track sources while they are within $20^{\circ}$ of the zenith.}

1847: \tablenotetext{f}{Values in parentheses indicate the number of pulsars in

1848: the cluster that were found in this survey.  The numbers for NGC~5272 (M3)

1849: and NGC~6749 include one cadidate pulsar (yet to be confirmed) each.}

1850: \tablenotetext{g}{Approximate upper limit on the pseudo-luminosity at

1851: 1400\,MHz ($L_{1400} = S_{1400} d^{2}$) of an undiscovered pulsar in the

1852: cluster.  This assumes that the pulsar has a spin period $\gtrsim 1$\,ms and

1853: is isolated.}

1854: \end{deluxetable}

1855: 

1856: %TABLE: Comparison of observing systems at Arecibo, Parkes, and GBT

1857: \newpage

1858: 

1859: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

1860: \tablecolumns{5}

1861: \tablewidth{0pc}

1862: \tablecaption{Comparison of Recent GC Pulsar Surveys\label{surveys_comp.tab}}

1863: \tablehead{

1864: %Header first line

1865: \colhead{Telescope} 

1866: & \colhead{Gain} 

1867: & \colhead{Bandwidth} 

1868: & \colhead{Int. Time} 

1869: & \colhead{Obs. Freq.} 

1870: \\

1871: %Header second line

1872: & \colhead{(K/Jy)} 

1873: & \colhead{(MHz)} 

1874: & \colhead{(hr)} 

1875: & \colhead{(GHz)} 

1876: }

1877: \startdata

1878: %Using \phantom to align decimals

1879: Arecibo & 10.5 & 100 & 2 & 1.4 \\

1880: Parkes  & \phantom{1}0.7 & 288 & 8 & 1.4 \\

1881: GBT     & \phantom{1}2.0 & 600 & 8 & 2.0 \\

1882: \enddata

1883: \tablecomments{Arecibo parameters are for the survey described here.  Parkes

1884: parameters are for the Multibeam Filterbank system, used in a number of recent 

1885: GC searches there \citep[e.g.][]{clf+00}.  GBT parameters are for surveys using 

1886: the Pulsar Spigot \citep[e.g.][]{rhs+05b}.}

1887: \end{deluxetable}

1888: 

1889: %TABLE: Previously Known Pulsars

1890: \newpage

1891: 

1892: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccccc}

1893: \rotate

1894: \tablecolumns{6}

1895: \tablewidth{0pc}

1896: \tablecaption{Previously Known Pulsars\label{prev_pulsars.tab}}

1897: \tablehead{

1898: %Header first line

1899: \colhead{Name} 

1900: & \colhead{Period} 

1901: & \colhead{Isolated (I) or} 

1902: & \colhead{Redetected?} 

1903: \\

1904: %Header second line

1905: \colhead{Informal / Formal} 

1906: & \colhead{(ms)} 

1907: & \colhead{Binary (B)} 

1908: & \colhead{(Y/N)} 

1909: }

1910: \startdata

1911: %Using \phantom to align decimals

1912: M5A / \mva        & \phantom{11}5.554 & I & Y   \\

1913: M5B / \mvb        & \phantom{11}7.947 & B & Y   \\

1914: M13A / \mxiiia    & \phantom{1}10.378 & I & Y   \\

1915: M13B / \mxiiib    & \phantom{11}3.528 & B & Y   \\

1916: M15A / \mxva      & 110.665 & I & Y   \\

1917: M15B / \mxvb      & \phantom{1}56.133 & I & Y   \\

1918: M15C / \mxvc      & \phantom{1}30.529 & B & Y   \\

1919: M15D / \mxvd      & \phantom{11}4.803 & I & Y   \\

1920: M15E / \mxve      & \phantom{11}4.651 & I & Y   \\

1921: M15F / \mxvf      & \phantom{11}4.027 & I & N\tablenotemark{a} \\

1922: M15G / \mxvg      & \phantom{1}37.660 & I & N   \\

1923: M15H / \mxvh      & \phantom{11}6.743 & I & N   \\

1924: M53A / \mliiia    & \phantom{1}33.163 & B & Y   \\

1925: NGC~6760A / \nsixa & \phantom{11}3.619 & B & Y   \\

1926: NGC~6760B / \nsixb & \phantom{11}5.384 & I & Y   \\

1927: \enddata

1928: \tablenotetext{a}{Detected in 327-MHz WAPP data, see \S4.2.2.}

1929: \end{deluxetable}

1930: 

1931: %TABLE: Pulsars and Their Basic Parameters

1932: \newpage

1933: 

1934: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}

1935: \rotate

1936: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1937: \tablecolumns{10}

1938: \tablewidth{0pc}

1939: \tablecaption{Pulsars and Their Basic Parameters\label{pulsars.tab}}

1940: \tablehead{

1941: %Header first line

1942: \colhead{Name\tablenotemark{a}} 

1943: & \colhead{Period} 

1944: & \colhead{DM} 

1945: & \colhead{$P_{\rm orbit}$} 

1946: & \colhead{$a_1 \sin (i)/c$}

1947: & \colhead{Min $M_2$\tablenotemark{b}}

1948: & \colhead{$w_{50}$\tablenotemark{c}}

1949: & \colhead{Flux Density\tablenotemark{d}}

1950: & \colhead{Number}

1951: & \colhead{Span}

1952: \\

1953: %Header second line

1954: \colhead{Informal / Formal}

1955: & \colhead{(ms)} 

1956: & \colhead{(pc cm$^{-3}$)} 

1957: & \colhead{(hr)} 

1958: & \colhead{(lt-s)} 

1959: & \colhead{(\msun)}

1960: & \colhead{(\%)}

1961: & \colhead{($\mu$Jy)}

1962: & \colhead{Det./Obs.}

1963: & \colhead{(MJD)}

1964: }

1965: \startdata

1966: M3A / \miiia                          & \phantom{1}2.545 & 26.5 & Unk. & Unk. & Unk. & 9.3 & 7 & 3/78 & 52491$-$52770\\

1967: M3B / \miiib                          & \phantom{1}2.389 & 26.2 & 34.0 & 1.88  & 0.21 & 8.2 & 14 & 16/78 & 52485$-$53335\\

1968: M3C\tablenotemark{e} / \miiic         & \phantom{1}2.166 & 26.5 & Unk. & Unk. & Unk. & 11 & $\lesssim 6$ & 1/78 & 52337\\

1969: M3D / \miiid                          & \phantom{1}5.443 & 26.3 & 129\,d & 38.5 & 0.21 & 9.2 & 10 & 12/78 & 52768$-$53149\\

1970: {\it M5A\tablenotemark{f} / \mva}     & \phantom{1}5.554 & 30.1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 6.7 & 120 \\

1971: {\it M5B / \mvb}                      & \phantom{1}7.947 & 29.5 & 165 & 3.05  & 0.11 & 20 & 25 \\

1972: M5C\tablenotemark{g} / \mvc           & \phantom{1}2.484 & 29.3 & 2.08 & 0.0573 & 0.038 & 6.2 & 39 & 59/60 & 52087$-$53422\\

1973: M5D / \mvd                            & \phantom{1}2.988 & 29.3 & 29.3 & 1.60 & 0.20 & 18 & 8 & 24/60 & 52090$-$53335\\

1974: M5E / \mve                            & \phantom{1}3.182 & 29.3 & 26.3 & 1.15 & 0.15 & 7.9 & 10 & 12/60 & 52705$-$53399\\

1975: {\it M13A\tablenotemark{f} / \mxiiia} & 10.378 & 30.4 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 11 & 140 \\

1976: {\it M13B / \mxiiib}                  & \phantom{1}3.528 & 29.5 & 30.2 & 1.39 & 0.16 & 13 & 22 \\

1977: M13C\tablenotemark{f} / \mxiiic       & \phantom{1}3.722 & 30.1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 5.5 & 30 & 60/67 & 52087$-$53422\\

1978: M13D / \mxiiid                        & \phantom{1}3.118 & 30.6 & 14.2 & 0.924 & 0.18 & 6.6 & 24 & 63/67 & 52087$-$53422\\

1979: M13E\tablenotemark{g} / \mxiiie       & \phantom{1}2.487 & 30.3 & $2.8 \pm 0.2 $ & $0.037 \pm 0.004$ & 0.02 & 6.0 & 10 & 2/67 & 52892,52833\\

1980: M71A\tablenotemark{g} / \mlxxia       & \phantom{1}4.888 & 117  & 4.24 & 0.0782 & 0.032 & 10 & 59 & 53/53 & 52082$-$53422\\

1981: NGC~6749A / \nvia                      & \phantom{1}3.193 & 194  & 19.5 & 0.588 & 0.090 & 16 & 23 & 17/17 & 52494$-$53 \\

1982: NGC~6749B\tablenotemark{e} / \nvib     & \phantom{1}4.968 & 192  & Unk. & Unk.  & Unk. & 7.8 & $\lesssim 6$ & 1/17 & 52921\\

1983: \enddata

1984: \tablecomments{Unless otherwise indicated, errors on quantities are

1985: well below the level of the least significant figure quoted.}

1986: \tablenotetext{a}{Italicized names are those of the previously known pulsars in clusters

1987: where new pulsars have been found.}

1988: \tablenotetext{b}{Assuming a pulsar mass ($M_1$) of 1.4\,\msun\ and orbital inclination $i = 90^{\circ}$.}

1989: \tablenotetext{c}{For profiles with multiple components, the width of the

1990: highest peak is given.  As all the profiles suffer from residual dispersive

1991: smearing, these values represent upper limits on the intrinsic pulse width at this

1992: observing frequency.}

1993: \tablenotetext{d}{Flux density at 1400\,MHz.  The approximate fractional uncertainty 

1994: ranges from $30-70$\% depending on whether the source stronly scintillates and, if so, 

1995: how often it was detected (see \S5.3).}

1996: \tablenotetext{e}{Unconfirmed candidate pulsar.}

1997: \tablenotetext{f}{Isolated.}

1998: \tablenotetext{g}{Eclipses.}

1999: \end{deluxetable}

2000: 

2001: %M3B & NGC6749A Timing Solutiona

2002: \newpage

2003: 

2004: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

2005: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2006: \tablecolumns{4}

2007: \tablewidth{0pc}

2008: \tablecaption{Timing Solutions\tablenotemark{*}~~for M3B, M3D, and NGC~6749A \label{M3pulsars.tab}}

2009: \tablehead{ \colhead{} & \colhead{\miiib} & \colhead{\miiid} & \colhead{\nvia} }

2010: \startdata

2011: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Observation and data reduction parameters}\\

2012: \hline

2013: Period Epoch (MJD)   & 52770 & 52770 & 52770 \\

2014: Start time (MJD)     & 52763 & 52768 & 53070 \\

2015: End time (MJD)       & 53542 & 53476 & 54210 \\

2016: \# of TOAs  & 161 & 83 & 77 \\

2017: TOA rms ($\mu$s) & 9.1 & 24 & 38 \\

2018: \hline

2019: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Timing parameters}\\

2020: \hline

2021: $\alpha$\tablenotemark{a}& $13^{\rm h}42^{\rm m}11\fs 0871(1)$ & $13^{\rm

2022: h}42^{\rm m}10\fs 2(6)$ & $19^{\rm h}05^{\rm m}15\fs 4(4)$ \\

2023: $\delta$ & $+28^\circ 22\arcmin 40\farcs 141(2)$ & $+28^\circ 22\arcmin

2024: 36(14)^{\prime \prime}$ & $+01^\circ 54\arcmin 33(22)^{\prime \prime}$ \\

2025: $P$ (ms)        & 2.389420757786(1) & 5.44297516(6) & 3.19294082(1) \\

2026: $\dot{P}_{\rm obs}$ (10$^{-20}$) & 1.858(4) & $-$ & $-$ \\

2027: DM ($\rm cm^{-3}\,pc$) & 26.148(2) & 26.34(2) & 193.692(8) \\

2028: $P_b$(days)\tablenotemark{b} & 1.417352298(2) & 128.752(5) & 0.81255243(2) \\

2029: $T_{\rm asc}$ (MJD) & 52485.9679712(6) & 52655.38(4) & 52493.83300(4) \\

2030: $x$ (s)         & 1.875655(2) & 38.524(4) & 0.58862(2) \\

2031: $e$             & $-$ & 0.0753(5) & $-$ \\

2032: \hline

2033: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Derived parameters}\\

2034: \hline

2035: $\theta_{\perp}$ (\arcmin) & 0.14 & 0.23(12) & 0.51(38) \\

2036: %$a_{z \rm C}$ (m\,s$^{-2}$) & $<\,-2.6\,\times\,10^{-10}$ & $<+\,1.6\,\times\,10^{-10}$ \\

2037: $\dot{P}_{\rm int}$ & $<\,3.4\,\times\,10^{-20}$ & $-$ & $-$ \\

2038: $\tau_c$ (Gyr) & $>\,1.1$ & $-$ & $-$ \\

2039: $B_0$ (gauss) & $<\,8.2\,\times\,10^7$ & $-$ & $-$ \\

2040: $f\,(\rm M_{\odot})$ & 0.003526842(6) & 0.0037031(8) & 0.00033132(7) \\

2041: $m_c$$(\rm M_{\odot})$\tablenotemark{c} & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.090 \\

2042: \enddata

2043: \tablenotetext{*}{Note that the solutions presented for M3D and NGC~6749A are {\it not}

2044: completely phase-connected solutions.  Due to sparse sampling, arbitrary phase jumps were used

2045: between some observing epochs (see \S4.2.1).}

2046: \tablenotetext{a}{The uncertainties indicated for all parameters

2047: are twice the formal values given by {\tt TEMPO}.

2048: We have used the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's DE405 planetary ephemeris

2049: \citep{stan98} to derive these solutions.}

2050: \tablenotetext{b}{The orbital parameters are: orbital

2051: period ($P_b$), time of passage through the ascending node ($T_{\rm

2052:   asc}$), semi-major axis of the orbit of the pulsar, projected along

2053: the line-of-sight, divided by the speed of light ($x$) and orbital

2054: eccentricity ($e$). Since the latter quantity is too small to be

2055: measured, we can not estimate the longitude of the periastron relative

2056: to ascending node ($\omega$). All other parameters are as described in

2057: the text.}

2058: \tablenotetext{c}{To calculate the minimum companion mass $m_c$, we assumed an

2059: inclination angle $i=90^\circ$ and a pulsar mass of

2060: 1.4~M$_{\odot}$.}

2061: \end{deluxetable}

2062: 

2063: 

2064: %TABLE: Sample of pulsars used for luminosity distribution

2065: \newpage

2066: 

2067: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

2068: \tablecolumns{6}

2069: \tablewidth{0pc}

2070: \tablecaption{Sample of Pulsars Used for Luminosity Distribution\label{lum_sample.tab}}

2071: \tablehead{

2072: %Header first line

2073: \colhead{Cluster} 

2074: & \colhead{Distance} 

2075: & \colhead{DM} 

2076: & \colhead{\# Pulsars} 

2077: & \colhead{Obs. Freq.}

2078: & \colhead{Scintillating?} 

2079: \\

2080: %Header second line

2081: & \colhead{(kpc)} 

2082: & \colhead{(pc cm$^{-3}$)} 

2083: & \colhead{} 

2084: & \colhead{(GHz)}

2085: & \colhead{(Y/N)} 

2086: }

2087: \startdata

2088: M5       & 7.5  & 29.5  & 5  & 1.4 & Y \\

2089: M13      & 7.7  & 30.2  & 5  & 1.4 & Y \\

2090: M15      & 10.3 & 66.9  & 8  & 0.4 & N \\

2091: M28      & 5.6  & 120.5 & 8  & 2.0 & N \\

2092: NGC~6440 & 8.4  & 223.4 & 5  & 2.0 & N \\  

2093: NGC~6441 & 11.7 & 231.8 & 4  & 2.0 & N \\

2094: Terzan~5 & 8.7  & 238.0 & 33 & 1.4 & N \\

2095: 47~Tuc   & 4.5  & 24.3  & 22 & 1.4 & Y \\

2096: \enddata

2097: \end{deluxetable}

2098:   

2099: %%%%%%%%%%%

2100: % FIGURES %

2101: %%%%%%%%%%%

2102: 

2103: %Survey Sensitivity

2104: \newpage

2105: 

2106: \begin{figure}

2107: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9\columnwidth]{f1.eps}}

2108: %\plotone{f1.eps}

2109: \caption{Survey sensitivity as a function of period and DM,

2110: assuming an intrinsic pulse width of 8\% and an integration time of 2\,hr.

2111: Each set of curves shows (from left to right) the sensitivity for DMs of 30,

2112: 100, and 200\,pc cm$^{-3}$.  

2113: %The discontinuities in these curves indicate a

2114: %loss of power in the Fourier domain as higher order harmonics surpass

2115: %half the Nyquist frequency $\nu_{\rm Nyq} = 1/2t_{\rm samp}$.  

2116: The solid curves are the

2117: sensitivity of the survey described in this paper.  The dotted (dashed)

2118: curves are the sensitivity of the 430\,MHz survey of \citet{and93} scaled to

2119: 1400\,MHz assuming a spectral index of $-1.8$ ($-1.3$).  For low-DM pulsars with

2120: periods $\gtrsim 10$\,ms and steep spectral indices, the \citet{and93}

2121: survey has comparable sensitivity.  However, the survey presented here is

2122: significantly more sensitive to pulsars with periods $\lesssim 4$\,ms, high

2123: DMs, and/or relatively flat spectral indices.  The plotted survey

2124: sensitivity to slower pulsars ($P_{\rm spin} \gtrsim 100$\,ms) is likely

2125: significantly over-estimated by an unknown factor between $2-10$ due to RFI

2126: and red noise (see \S5.1.1).

2127: \label{sensitivity.fig}}

2128: \end{figure}

2129: 

2130: %Sample Candidate Plot

2131: \newpage

2132: 

2133: \begin{figure}

2134: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=1.0\columnwidth,angle=-90]{f2.eps}}

2135: %\plotone{f2.eps}

2136: \caption{Sample candidate plot showing the various criteria on which a 

2137: candidate is judged.  The left-most panel shows the pulse intensity as a

2138: function of observing time and pulse phase (two cycles plotted) in

2139: greyscale, with the cumulative profile plotted at top and a side-bar at

2140: right showing the increase in the reduced ${\chi}^2$ (measure of

2141: signal-to-noise ratio) with observing time.  The top-middle greyscale panel

2142: shows the signal strength as a function of pulse phase and observing

2143: frequency (subband).  The bottom-middle plot is the reduced ${\chi}^2$ as a function of DM.

2144: The top-right (top-middle) panel shows the reduced ${\chi}^2$ as a function

2145: of trial period derivative (period) at the best period (period derivative).  Finally, the

2146: bottom-right panel shows the reduced ${\chi}^2$ over a range of trial periods

2147:  and period derivatives.  During the folding, a range of DM, period,

2148: and period derivative are searched to produce the highest reduced ${\chi}^2$.

2149: This optimization improves on candidate parameters determined during the initial search.

2150: This is the discovery  observation of NGC~6749A.  

2151: The subbands show effects due to the masking of some 

2152: of their constituent channels to remove RFI.

2153: \label{discplot.fig}}

2154: \end{figure}

2155: 

2156: %Pulse Profiles

2157: \newpage

2158: 

2159: \begin{figure}

2160: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=1.0\columnwidth,angle=-90]{f3.eps}}

2161: %\plotone{f3.eps}

2162: \caption{$1.4$-GHz pulse profiles for the 11 millisecond pulsars and two

2163: promising candidates (marked with an asterisk) discovered in this survey.

2164: The profiles are often the sum of numerous observations and in the case of

2165: clusters where there is significant scintillation (i.e. M3, M5, and M13) the

2166: profiles are the sum of a few (or only one) observations where the pulsar

2167: appears much brighter than on average.  The profiles have been rotated in

2168: phase so that pulse maximum occurs at 0.25.  In each case, there are 64 bins

2169: accross the profile, with the exception of M3C where 32 bins are used.  The

2170: horizontal bar indicates the effective time resolution of the data, taking

2171: into consideration dispersive smearing.  To aid the reader in interpreting

2172: what features in these profiles correspond to real emission, rather than

2173: spurious baseline fluctuations, we identify the following.  M13C has low

2174: level emission preceding the main pulse and starting at phase 0.7.  M13D may

2175: have a very weak interpulse around phase 0.75.  M3B has a weak interpulse

2176: around phase 0.65.  M5C has an interpulse around phase 0.7, which is of

2177: comparable strength to the main pulse.  M5E has a duty cycle close to 100\%,

2178: showing at least 3 significant peaks.  \label{profiles.fig}}

2179: \end{figure}

2180: 

2181: %Spin Frequency Distributions

2182: \newpage

2183: 

2184: \begin{figure}

2185: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.475\columnwidth,angle=-90]{f4a.eps}

2186: \hspace{0.5cm}

2187: \includegraphics[height=0.475\columnwidth,angle=-90]{f4b.eps}}

2188: %\plotone{f4.eps}

2189: \caption{{\it Left:} Period histogram of 129 known GC pulsars (listed in

2190: http://www.naic.edu/$\sim$pfreire/GCpsr.html).  The shaded area reflects

2191: pulsars found in the survey presented here.  The vertical dashed line marks

2192: the median spin period of the observed population, 4.7\,ms.  {\it Right:} The 

2193: combined population of MSPs in the field and GCs, plotted as a

2194: function of spin frequency.  The points are binned in intervals of 100\,Hz,

2195: and are shown as lower limits to reflect the various observational biases

2196: against detecting millisecond pulsars.

2197: The number of observed pulsars drops rapidly with spin frequency above 200\,Hz,

2198: roughly as $N_{\rm psr} \propto {\nu_{\rm spin}}^{-3}$ (solid line).

2199: \label{spinfdist.fig}}

2200: \end{figure}

2201: 

2202: %Luminosity Distributions

2203: \newpage

2204: 

2205: \begin{figure}

2206: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=1.0\columnwidth]{f5.eps}}

2207: %\plotone{f5.eps}

2208: \caption{Cumulative distributions of 1.4-GHz luminosities of pulsars in M5,

2209: M13, M15, M28, NGC~6440, NGC~6441, 47~Tucanae, and Terzan~5.  The minimum

2210: luminosity considered for fitting purposes is $L^{\rm min}_{1400} =

2211: 1.5$\,mJy kpc$^2$.  Error bars are the square-root of each value.  The

2212: excluded points below $L^{\rm min}_{1400}$ are shown without error bars.

2213: {\it Top left:} luminosity distribution of 41 isolated pulsars in these

2214: clusters, which has a slope of $-0.90 \pm 0.07$ (solid line, 37 pulsars used

2215: in fitting).  {\it Top right:} luminosity distribution of 41 binary pulsars

2216: in these clusters, which has a slope of $-0.63 \pm 0.06$ (solid line, 33

2217: pulsars used in fitting).  The best-fit slope from the distribution of

2218: isolated pulsars is also shown overlaid as a dashed line.  {\it Bottom:}

2219: combined luminosity distribution, including all 82 isolated and binary

2220: pulsars.  The best-fit slope is $-0.77 \pm 0.03$ (solid line, 70 pulsars

2221: used in fitting). \label{luminosities.fig}}

2222: %McConnell 47 Tuc paper: -0.9 +/- 0.2 (Lmin_1400 ~ 1.4 mJy kpc2)

2223: %Anderson thesis: -0.93 +/- 0.38 (Lmin_1400 ~ 1.5 mJy kpc2)

2224: \end{figure}

2225: 

2226: \end{document}

2227: