1: % file /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/paper.tex

2: % revised version from ApJ after editing

3: % incorporates response to referee

4: 

5: % \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

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

7: 

8: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}

9: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\odot}$}}

10: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\rm{eff}}$}

11: \newcommand{\grav}{log($g$)}

12: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\/}}

13: \newcommand{\eqw}{$W_{\lambda}$}

14: \newcommand{\fe}{[Fe/H]}

15: \newcommand{\mtv}{$v_t$}

16: \newcommand{\cband}{C$_2$}

17: \newcommand{\ciso}{$^{12}$C/$^{13}$C}

18: \newcommand{\nemp}{8}

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \title{New Extremely Metal-Poor Stars in the Galactic Halo\altaffilmark{1}}

23: 

24: \author{Judith G. Cohen\altaffilmark{2}, Norbert Christlieb\altaffilmark{4}, 

25: Andrew McWilliam\altaffilmark{3},  

26: Stephen Shectman\altaffilmark{3}, Ian Thompson\altaffilmark{3}, 

27: Jorge Melendez\altaffilmark{5},

28: Lutz Wisotzki\altaffilmark{6} \& Dieter Reimers\altaffilmark{7}  }

29: 

30: \altaffiltext{1}{Based in part on observations obtained at the

31: W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by the California 

32: Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the

33: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.}

34: 

35: \altaffiltext{2}{Palomar Observatory, Mail Stop 105-24,

36: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Ca., 91125, 

37: jlc@astro.caltech.edu, aswenson@caltech.edu}

38: 

39: \altaffiltext{3}{Carnegie Observatories of Washington, 813 Santa

40: Barbara Street, Pasadena, Ca. 91101, andy, ian, shec@ociw.edu}

41: 

42: \altaffiltext{4}{Current address: Department of

43:    Astronomy and Space Physics, Uppsala University, Box 515,

44:    75120 Uppsala, Sweden, formerly at Hamburger Sternwarte, Universit\"at

45: Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, D-21029 Hamburg, Germany, norbert@astro.uu.se}

46: 

47: \altaffiltext{5}{Palomar Observatory, Mail Stop 105-24,

48: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Ca., 91125,

49: Current address: Australian National University, Australia,

50: jorge@mso.anu.edu.au}

51: 

52: \altaffiltext{6}{Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16,

53: D-14482 Potsdam, Germany, lwisotzki@aip.de}

54: 

55: \altaffiltext{7}{Hamburger Sternwarte, Universit\"at

56: Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, D-21029 Hamburg, Germany,

57: dreimers@hs.uni-hamburg.de}

58: 

59: 

60: 

61: \begin{abstract}

62: 

63: We present a detailed abundance analysis based on high resolution

64: and high signal-to-noise spectra of eight extremely metal poor (EMP)

65: stars with [Fe/H] $\lesssim -3.5$~dex, four of which are new.

66: Only stars with $4900 <$ \teff\ $< 5650$~K are included.

67: 

68: Two stars of the eight are outliers in each of several

69: abundance ratios.

70: The most metal poor star in this sample, HE1424$-$0241,

71: has [Fe/H] $\sim -4$~dex

72: and is thus among the most metal poor stars known in the Galaxy.

73: It has highly anomalous abundance ratios unlike those of any other

74: known EMP giant, with very low Si, Ca and Ti relative to Fe,

75: and enhanced Mn and Co, again relative to Fe. 

76: Only (low) upper limits

77: for C and N can be derived from the non-detection of the CH

78: and NH molecular bands.

79: HE0132$-$2429, another sample star, has 

80: excesses of N and Sc  with respect to Fe.  

81: 

82: The strong outliers in abundance ratios among

83: the Fe-peak elements in these C-normal stars,

84: not found at somewhat higher metallicities

85: ([Fe/H] $\sim -3$ dex),  

86: are definitely real.  They suggest that at such low metallicities

87: we are beginning to see the  anticipated and

88: long sought stochastic effects of individual supernova events

89: contributing to the Fe-peak material within a single star.

90: With spectra reaching well into the near-UV we are able to

91: probe the behvaior of copper abundances in such extreme EMP stars.   

92: 

93: A detailed comparison of the results of the analysis procedures

94: adopted by our 0Z project compared to those of the First Stars VLT

95: Large Project finds a systematic difference for [Fe/H] of

96: $\sim$0.3 dex, our values always being higher.

97: 

98: \end{abstract}

99: 

100: \keywords{nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances 

101: --- stars: abundances --- supernovae: general}

102: 

103: 

104: 

105: 

106: \section{Introduction}

107: 

108: 

109: 

110: Extremely metal poor stars provide important clues to the chemical

111: history of our Galaxy, the role and type of early SN, the

112: mode of star formation in the proto-Milky Way, and the formation

113: of the Galactic halo.  The number of extremely metal poor (EMP)

114: stars known is summarized by \cite{beers05}.  They

115: compiled a list of the key properties of

116: the 12 stars identified up to that time with [Fe/H] 

117: $\lesssim -3.5$~dex\footnote{The 

118: standard nomenclature is adopted; the abundance of

119: element $X$ is given by $\epsilon(X) = N(X)/N(H)$ on a scale where

120: $N(H) = 10^{12}$ H atoms.  Then

121: [X/H] = log$_{10}$[N(X)/N(H)] $-$ log$_{10}$[N(X)/N(H)]\subsun, and similarly

122: for [X/Fe].}, 7 of which are EMP giants and subgiants within

123: the range of \teff\ considered here.

124: 

125: Our 0Z project has the goal of increasing the sample of such stars

126: through data mining of

127: the  Hamburg/ESO Survey (HES) \citep{wis00}.  This is an 

128: objective prism survey from which it is

129: possible to efficiently select QSOs \citep{wis00} as well

130: as a variety of interesting

131: stellar objects, among them extremely metal poor (EMP) stars \citep{christlieb03}.

132: 

133: The 0Z project has been systematically searching the 

134: database of the HES for this purpose over the past five years.

135: We present in \S\ref{section_sample} a sample of new EMP giants 

136: with \teff\ $< 6000$~K

137: and [Fe/H] $\lesssim -3.5$~dex which substantially increases the

138: number of such stars known.  Details of the analysis are described

139: in \S\ref{section_analysis}, while the radial velocity data

140: are discussed in \S\ref{section_vr}.  The abundance ratios for

141: $\sim$20 elements in each of the sample EMP giants are described

142: in \S\ref{section_abund}.  In the following section (\S\ref{section_comp})

143: we check  the consistency of

144: the analyses and procedures adopted by our 0Z project

145: with those of the First Stars VLT Large Project using UVES

146: \citep{cayrel04} and offer some comments on the implication of 

147: our results on the frequency of carbon-enhanced stars.

148: The penultimate section presents a discussion of the implications

149: of our results

150: for early SN  and for nucleosynthesis in the forming Galactic halo.

151: A summary of the key results follows.

152: Two appendices which discuss details of a comparison

153: of our work with other large spectroscopic and photometric surveys

154: of EMP stars complete this paper.

155: 

156: 

157: 

158: \section{Sample of Stars \label{section_sample} }

159: 

160: In pursuit of our goal of exploiting the HES to identify new

161: EMP stars, we began with a list of candidates selected from the HES

162: database over the 50\% of its area on the sky to which we have

163: access.

164: Our 0Z project has 

165: now taken moderate resolution spectra of more than 600 candidates

166: with the Double Spectrograph \citep{oke82} on the Hale 5-m telescope 

167: at Palomar Mountain, and more than 1100 at the

168: 6.5m Clay and Baade Telescopes at the Las Campanas Observatory.

169: These spectra have been processed

170: with the algorithm of \cite{beers99}, which uses a measure

171: of the strength

172: of H$\delta$ and of the 3933~\AA\ line

173: of Ca~II, to determine rough metallicities, denoted [Fe/H](HES).

174: \cite{cohen05} provides a brief description of the vetting process,

175: see also \cite{beers05}.

176: Those stars of special interest with follow-up spectra from Palomar, 

177: including all those with 

178: [Fe/H](HES) $< -2.9$ dex,

179: have been observed with HIRES \citep{vogt94} at the Keck~I telescope

180: over the past

181: four years; a total of $\sim$90 such stars have been observed with HIRES to date.

182: In this paper we present analyses of those stars from the Palomar

183: sample with \teff\ $< 6000$~K which

184: turned out to be genuine EMP stars with [Fe/H] $\lesssim -3.5$ dex  as 

185: determined from our high-resolution, high SNR spectra, and which have

186: not already been published in our earlier papers.  A future paper will

187: deal with the most extreme metal-poor stars found in the Las Campanas 

188: sample.  The limitation on \teff\ ensures that internal comparisons

189: of abundance ratios within the sample will be as reliable as possible.

190: 

191: 

192: Five new EMP stars are presented here.  One turned out to be a rediscovery

193: of a HK Survey star.  This was not realized for a long time

194: due to the 32'' difference in the

195: coordinates of CS22949$-$037 from its  discovery by the HK Survey

196: \citep{beers85,beers92},

197: and those of HE2323$-$0256, found in the HES.  It appears

198: that the HK Survey coordinates are sometimes in error by such a

199: large amount, as the updated coordinates for this star

200: given by \cite{cayrel04} are within 1.5'' of those from the HES of

201: HE2323$-$0256.

202: 

203: We also include a new analysis based on better spectra

204: of the only genuine EMP giant described previously in our published papers,

205: HE0132--2429, part of the 

206: Keck Pilot Project \citep{cohen02,carretta02}.

207: We do not consider here the three EMP dwarfs whose analyses we have

208: published, 

209: BS16545--0089 and HE1346--0427

210: from \cite{cohen04}, nor HE0218--2738, a double lined

211: spectroscopic binary \citep{cohen02,carretta02}. 

212: There are many fewer absorption lines detected in these hotter stars 

213: and we wish

214: to restrict ourselves to a narrow range in \teff\ to ensure accurate

215: comparisons within our sample.

216: 

217: We add to our sample the only star from the 

218: Hamburg/ESO r-process enhanced star

219: survey (HERES) \citep{barklem05,christlieb04b} which they believed to have

220: [Fe/H] $< -3.5$ dex, HE1300+0157.  We also add the star BS16467--062,

221: which is included in the VLT/UVES First Stars program

222: \citep{cayrel04}.  A detailed analysis

223: for the latter, found in the HK Survey, 

224: was presented by \cite{francois03}, which was superseded

225: by that of \cite{cayrel04}.

226: Since BS16467--062 and HE2323$-$0256 are part of the First Stars sample,

227: several analyses have been published for each of these stars.  

228: In the present work they serve

229: as comparison  objects to determine the consistency of the absolute

230: iron abundance and relative abundances of various

231: elements as deduced by our group versus those of the First Stars VLT large program.

232: 

233: The sample stars are listed in Table~\ref{table_sample}, which 

234: gives their J2000 coordinates, new optical photometry,

235: when available, and other relevant data. 

236: 

237: 

238: 

239: 

240: 

241: \section{Stellar Parameters \label{section_param} }

242: 

243: We use the procedures described in \cite{cohen02} and used in all

244: subsequent work by our 0Z project published to date. 

245: Our \teff\ determinations are based on broad band colors

246: $V-I, V-J$ and $V-K$.

247: The IR photometry is taken from 2MASS \citep{2mass1,2mass2}.

248: We have obtained new photometry at $V$ and $I$ for almost

249: all of the stars discussed here.  We use 

250: ANDICAM images taken for this purpose over the past two years via a service

251: observing queue on

252: the 1.3m telescope at CTIO operated

253: by the SMARTS consortium. ANDICAM is a dual channel camera

254: constructed by the Ohio State University instrument 

255: group\footnote{See http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM and

256: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts.}.  Our ANDICAM program requires

257: photometric conditions, and additional standard star fields,

258: charged to our ANDICAM allocation through NOAO, are always taken for us.

259: % Appendix~\ref{appendix_phot} 

260: Appendix~A compares our photometry with

261: that of \cite{beers07} and with that of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

262: \citep{york00}.

263: 

264: We derive surface gravities through combining these \teff\ with

265: an appropriate

266: 12 Gyr isochrone from the grid of \cite{yi01}.

267: 

268: The resulting stellar parameters, which have been

269: derived with no reference to the spectra themselves,

270: are given in Table~\ref{table_sample}. The random uncertainties

271: in \teff\ from photometric errors  (see Appendix A)

272: are 100~K.  This ignores systematic errors

273: which may be present.  The adopted uncertainties in \grav\ 

274: are, following the discussion in \cite{cohen02}, 

275: 100~$d$[\grav]/$d$\teff\ evaluated along the RGB

276: for stars in this extremely low metallicity range, 0.2~dex at \teff = 5000~K

277: and 0.15~dex at 5500~K.

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: \section{Observations}

282: 

283: The EMP  stars in our sample were observed with HIRES at Keck 

284: during various runs over

285: the past 4 years.  Details of the best available spectra for each

286: of the new stars

287: are listed in Table~\ref{table_spectra}. 

288: Six of these stars were observed with high SNR spectra from HIRES

289: at the Keck Observatory after the recent

290: detector upgrade, which provides complete spectral coverage

291: from 3180 to 5990~\AA\ in a single exposure.  Two (HE1356$-$0622 and

292: HE1347$-$1025\footnote{We are grateful to W.~Sargent for obtaining this

293: spectrum.}) have only relatively short exposures with the new detector, used

294: primarily to measure the strength of the NaD lines.  Their only high

295: SNR spectra were taken before the upgrade and hence have 

296: spectral coverage restricted to 3840 to 5330\,{\AA} with no gaps 

297: between orders

298: for $\lambda < 5000$~\AA, and only small gaps thereafter. 

299: The slit width (either 0.86 arcsec, corresponding to a spectral

300: resolution of 46,000, or 1.1 arcsec, which corresponds to

301: a spectral resolution of 35,000) used for each spectrum

302: is indicated in this table as well.

303: Each exposure was broken up into 1200 sec segments to expedite

304: removal of cosmic rays.  The goal was to achieve  

305: a SNR of 100 per spectral

306: resolution element in the continuum at

307: 4500\,{\AA}; a few spectra have slightly

308: lower SNR.   This SNR calculation utilizes only

309: Poisson statistics, ignoring issues of cosmic ray removal,

310: night sky subtraction, flattening, etc.   The observations

311: were carried out with the slit length aligned to

312: the parallactic angle.  

313: 

314: The processing of the spectra was done with 

315: MAKEE\footnote{MAKEE was developed

316: by T.A. Barlow specifically for reduction of Keck HIRES data.  It is

317: freely available on the world wide web at the

318: Keck Observatory home page, 

319: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/hires/data\_reduction.html.} and Figaro 

320: \citep{shortridge93} 

321: scripts, and follows closely that described by \cite{cohen06}.

322: The equivalent widths were measured as described in \cite{cohen04}.

323: Table~\ref{table_eqw} lists the atomic parameters adopted

324: for each line and their equivalent widths measured in the spectra of

325: each of the \nemp\ EMP stars.

326: 

327: 

328: \section{Analysis \label{section_analysis} }

329: 

330: The analysis is identical to that of \cite{cohen04} with several

331: important additions.  In particular we use the model

332: stellar atmosphere grid of \cite{kurucz93}

333: and a current

334: version of the LTE spectral synthesis program MOOG \citep{moog},

335: which treats scattering as LTE absorption.

336: The improved HIRES spectra now reach into the near-UV, making the

337: NH and redder part of the OH bands accessible.

338: We use the molecular line list of \cite{kurucz94}, 

339: augmented with the strongest atomic features, to analyze the NH band.

340: We use the line list of \cite{gillis01} for OH.

341: Our nominal Solar CNO abundances are 8.59, 7.93, and 8.83 dex respectively.

342: These are close to those of \cite{grevesse98},

343: but somewhat larger than  the values obtained using 3D model atmospheres 

344: by \cite{asplund04} and \cite{asplund05}.  We prefer not

345: to attempt 3D corrections until a full grid of model 3D

346: atmospheres or of corrections to CNO abundances derived from the

347: molecular bands from 3D to 1D models becomes

348: available.  For

349: CH and for NH we have

350: adjusted the scale of our $gf$ values so as to 

351: reproduce the Solar spectrum,

352: taken from \cite{wallace98}.

353: We adopt dissociation potentials of  3.47 and 4.39~eV \citep{huber79} for CH

354: and OH respectively.  For NH we adopt 3.40~eV based on the

355: theoretical calculations of \cite{bauschlicher87} and the

356: laboratory spectroscopy of \cite{ervin87}.

357: Our analysis assumes classical plane

358: parallel stellar atmospheres and LTE, both for atomic

359: and for molecular features.

360: 

361: In view of the inclusion of the near-UV in many of these spectra,

362: a few UV lines of key atomic species have been added to the master line list.

363: These include, for example, three Fe~II lines near 3270~\AA\ which

364: are stronger than any in the optical band.  This is important as

365: often 

366: only the two strongest Fe~II lines  in the optical are detected

367: in even high quality spectra of such extremely metal poor giants;

368: the remaining optical Fe~II lines are too weak.  For the most extreme EMP

369: dwarfs, none of the optical Fe~II lines can be detected. 

370: Inclusion of the UV lines

371: strengthens the determination of the ionization equilibrium

372: between Fe~I, with its multitude of detected lines,

373: and Fe~II. Lines of species with no

374: detectable optical features, such as V~II and Mn~II, have also been

375: added.  The resonance lines of Cu~I near 3250~\AA\ were added as well,

376: as the usual Cu~I lines  seen in stars with [Fe/H] $\sim -2.5$~dex, 

377: including those at 5105 and 5782~\AA,

378: become undetectable at the extremely low metallicities of the stars

379: studied here.  In such cases, the $gf$ values were adopted from

380: % Table~2 of \cite{sneden03} - no, he took them from NIST

381: Version 3.1.0 of the NIST Atomic Spectra Database 

382: (phsics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html).

383: The HFS patterns for the UV Mn~II lines

384: are given by \cite{holt99}, but these lines in the sample stars are 

385: mostly so weak

386: that the corrections are negligible. Those for the UV Cu~I lines

387: were downloaded from R.~Kurucz's web site; his primary source

388: was \cite{biehl76}.  The  isotope ratio $^{63}$Cu/$^{65}$Cu

389: was assumed to be the solar value. 

390: 

391: Where possible, we have checked the consistency of

392: the scale of the transition probabilities for a given

393: species between the rarely used UV lines and the commonly used

394: optical ones by comparing

395: the derived abundances of lines for the same species as a function

396: of wavelength for a small number of stars with HIRES spectra taken

397: as part of our 0Z project with somewhat higher [Fe/H], including 

398: as HD~122563, with weak or no detected CH or NH.

399: The results of this check were satisfactory

400: for Fe~II.  However, even with HFS included,  

401: log[$\epsilon$(Mn)] deduced from the 

402: 4030~\AA\ triplet of Mn~I (the strongest lines in the optical region,

403: two lines of which are sufficiently unblended to use in an abundance analysis)

404: appear to be $\sim$0.3 dex lower than those found from the 

405: redder optical lines and from the UV resonance lines of Mn~II.  In the

406: solar spectrum, as well as for HD~122563, the

407: nominal Solar Mn abundance of \cite{anders89} is recovered only for lines

408: with $4783 \leq \lambda \leq 6022$~\AA, as well as from the

409: Mn~II UV lines.  

410: A similar problem with the 4030~\AA\ Mn~I triplet was noted by

411: \cite{cayrel04}.  

412: \cite{bihain04} has carried out such a consistency check for Cu~I.  They

413: compare their [Cu/Fe] determinations based on the near-UV resonance lines

414: with those of \cite{mishenina02} derived from the weak optical lines. 

415: They find good agreement, i.e. a mean difference

416: for 16 stars of $-0.04\pm0.04$~dex.

417: 

418: Following \cite{cohen04}, we adopt a non-LTE correction

419: for Al~I, for which we only detect the resonance doublet at 3950~\AA, 

420: of +0.60 dex based on the

421: work of \cite{bau96} and \cite{bau97}.  We adopt a non-LTE correction for Na~I,

422: for which we can only observe the two D lines, of 

423: $-0.20$~dex based on the calculations of

424: \cite{takeda03}. No other non-LTE corrections have been applied.

425: 

426: Our abundances for the CNO elements are based on molecular bands of

427: CH, NH and OH respectively.

428: We use 1D model atmospheres to synthesize the molecular features,

429: ignoring any 3D effects, although \cite{collet06} suggest that

430: these may be very large.  They claim that  

431: CNO abundances may be overestimated by $\sim$0.8 dex as

432: compared to a 1D analysis when molecular bands are used in EMP stars.

433: 

434: Table~\ref{table_slopes} gives the slope of a linear fit

435: to the abundances determined from the set of Fe~I lines

436: as a function of $\chi$ (the excitation potential of the lower level),

437: \eqw, and $\lambda$, which are most sensitive to \teff, $v_t$,

438: and the wavelength dependence of any missing major source

439: of continuous opacity, respectively.  There are $\sim$ 40 to 60 Fe~I lines detected in

440: each star, with $\chi$ ranging from 0 to 3~eV.  The correlation coefficients 

441: $cc(\lambda)$

442: of the fits with $\lambda$ are, for all except one of the stars,

443: between 0.11 and $-$0.20, indicating that these fits are not

444: statistically significant.  The $cc(W_{\lambda} / \lambda$) for the fit

445: with \eqw\ are within the same range for most of the stars.

446: The slopes with $\chi$ appear at first sight to be statistically significant

447: with $\mid cc(\chi) \mid ~ > ~ 0.4$ for one of the 

448: 8 stars; the $cc(\chi)$ are predominantly negative.  

449: They reach as low as $\sim -0.09$~dex/eV for two of the stars.

450: If these slopes were

451: valid, they would 

452: suggest that for these two stars, \teff\ needs to be decreased by $\sim$300~K

453: to achieve excitation equilibrium for Fe~I.  However, a careful scrutiny

454: of the behavior of the derived Fe abundance from individual

455: Fe~I lines indicates that the problem lies largely in the 0~eV lines; 

456: for those of higher excitation (the majority of the lines), the

457: deduced abundance shows no statistically significant

458: dependence on $\chi$.   A typical example of this is shown

459: in Fig.~\ref{figure_ep}.

460: 

461: 

462: Our plots of abundance versus reduced equivalent width indicate that

463: the Fe~I overabundances for lines with $\chi ~ < ~ 0.2$~eV do not

464: appear to arise from

465: an inappropriate choice of microturbulent velocity parameters.  

466: The effect could be due

467: to systematic errors for $gf$ values of low excitation lines, or

468: may result from resonance scattering \citep*[e.g. see][]{asplund_araa}.

469: In resonance scattering

470: the source function, S$_{\nu}$, is reduced to below the local 

471: Planck function,

472: thus leading to a stronger line in non-LTE.  Resonance scattering is

473: seen in the Na~D lines of metal-poor stars \citep*[e.g.][]{andrievsky07},

474: the OI triplet at

475: 7774~\AA\ in the Sun and may have affected the abundances from the 

476: Ca~I 4226~\AA\ resonance line 

477: of \cite{mcwilliam95a}.  If resonance scattering is the cause of the small abundance

478: enhancement seen in the 0~eV Fe~I lines,

479: the effect should be more pronounced in the weakest low excitation lines;

480: thus a plot of \eqw\ versus abundance enhancement should show a positive 

481: correlation.  Proof

482: that resonance scattering is the cause of the  apparent overabundances requires a 

483: non-LTE abundance 

484: calculation for Fe in our stars, which is beyond the scope of this paper.

485: 

486: 

487: 

488: \subsection{Radial Velocities \label{section_vr} }

489: 

490: The radial velocities were determined using the procedure

491: described in \cite{cohen04}, updated 

492: to improve the long term stability of $v_r$ measurements;

493: they are given in Table~\ref{table_spectra}.

494: Each individual measured $v_r$ from the spectrum of a star

495: taken with the upgraded HIRES detector

496: for the SNR typical of the present set of spectra taken on

497: a given run now has an internal

498: uncertainty of $< 0.2$ \kms, with possible long term systematic drifts

499: of comparable size; this was not true of the $v_r$ published

500: in earlier papers of the 0Z project.

501: 

502: For six of our sample EMP stars we have HIRES spectra taken 

503: between 2 and 5 years apart.  The older spectra have

504: been re-reduced using our improved procedures and codes to

505: measure more accurate $v_r$.   R. Cayrel has generously

506: provided the $v_r$ measured by the First Stars project

507: from their UVES spectra

508: for the two stars discussed here which are in common.

509: 

510: Table~\ref{table_vr} compiles the available high precision

511: radial velocities for these EMP stars from HIRES

512: and from UVES.  Two of the stars

513: with  $v_r$ measurements from multiple HIRES spectra show

514: $v_r$ variations, HE0132--2429 at more than 10$\sigma$ and

515: HE1012--1540 at the 4$\sigma$ level.  In addition,

516: BS16467$-$062 may also be a $v_r$ variable, with a difference

517: exceeding 5$\sigma$ between the two UVES measurements from

518: M.~Spite \& R.~Cayrel and that from our HIRES spectrum, but

519: this should be verified.  Such $v_r$ variations presumably

520: result from orbital motion in a binary system.

521: 

522: 

523: 

524: 

525: \section{Abundances \label{section_abund} }

526: 

527: 

528: 

529: Tables~\ref{table_abunda} and \ref{table_abundb} give the 

530: derived abundances for each

531: detected species in each of the \nemp\ EMP giants. 

532: We divide the stars into

533: two groups: low C stars with the G band of CH

534: barely detectable, if present at all, and  three stars which appear

535: to have C enhanced. 

536: The first group includes

537: five of the 8 stars,

538: HE0132$-$2429, HE1347$-$1025, HE1356$-$0622, HE1424$-$0241 and BS16467$-$062.

539: The second group includes three stars, two of which

540: (HE1300+0157 and HE2323$-$0256) are in the present

541: analyses hovering just at

542: the border line of being C-rich, defined by

543: \cite{beers05} as [C/Fe] $> +1.0$ dex.

544: The third star,

545: HE1012$-$1540, is a highly C-enhanced EMP star.

546: The fraction of C-rich stars in our sample of EMP giants with this definition

547: is a minimum of 1/8 and a maximum of 3/8,

548: depending on which side of the boundary of [C/Fe] = +1.0~dex

549: the two borderline stars fall.

550: 

551: \subsection{The Low Carbon Stars \label{section_low_c} }

552: 

553: We first consider the 5 stars with low C.

554: These stars span a relatively small total range in \teff\ of 420~K, from 

555: 4950 to 5370~K.  Their spectra show very weak metallic absorption

556: lines and  lack strong molecular

557: features, so measuring \eqw\ for them is straightforward; 

558: the uncertainties in the \eqw\ are thus low, particularly

559: for the three stars with high SNR spectra taken with the updated

560: HIRES detector.  A breakdown of

561: the abundance errors resulting from uncertainties in \teff,

562: \grav, and $v_t$ can be found in Table~6 of \cite{ramirez03}.

563: % M5 paper 

564: Given our uncertainties in the determination of the stellar parameters,

565: the dominant contribution to the uncertainties in the abundance ratios [X/Fe]

566: is that of \teff.  The contribution from errors in $v_t$, \eqw\ and the assumed

567: metallicity of the model atmosphere are small for most

568: elements due to the use of mostly weak lines and to the stars being so metal poor. 

569: (Exceptions are Ca~I, Mg~I and Ni~I, where the expected contributions

570: to the uncertainty in [X/Fe]

571: from \teff\ and from \grav\ are each $\leq 0.05$~dex, and

572: Sc~II, La~II, Ba~II and Eu~II, where they are each $\leq 0.08$~dex

573: in absolute value.)

574: We therefore expect the abundance ratios when compared among

575: this group of stars to have small errors, $\pm0.15$ dex. 

576: Systematic

577: errors of comparable size may exist for

578: the CNO elements as these are derived from hydride

579: bands and accurate values for many molecular parameters

580: are required for their analysis.

581: This estimate is too conservative, at least for

582: comparisons internal to the 0Z project, for neutral species with at least

583: three detected absorption lines which have a temperature dependence

584: similar to that of Fe~I, an example of which is Cr~I, when enough

585: lines are detected in a star.  

586: 

587: 

588: The abundance ratios in these stars among the heavy elements

589: are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_cnormal_heavy} for 9 species in the

590: range Ca to Cu.  The median is indicated, and stars with

591: [X/Fe] which deviate from the median by more than 0.3 dex are shown

592: individually; these are always either HE0132$-$2429 or HE1424$-$0241.

593: If there is an outlier for a particular species, the individual values

594: of [X/Fe] for the remaining four stars in the sample are shown as

595: well.  Thus this figure demonstrates graphically how deviant

596: the outliers really are.

597: 

598: The medians show (see Fig.~\ref{figure_cnormal_heavy})

599: a small excesses for Ca and for Ti with respect to Fe.   

600: Cr, Mn and Cu are deficient relative to Fe, while

601: Co is strongly enhanced relative to Fe.

602: Ni appears to be tied to Fe so that [Ni/Fe] $\sim 0.0$~dex.  

603: These are in agreement with the usual trend seen among extreme

604: EMP stars as found in our previous work \citep{cohen04} and in the

605: First Stars project \citep{cayrel04}.

606: 

607: The surprise is the outliers.  Five  species with outliers are marked 

608: in Fig.~\ref{figure_cnormal_heavy}, all of which arise in only two

609: stars, HE0132$-$2429 and HE1424$-$0241.

610: Spectral regions illustrating lines of three of these cases, contrasting

611: the outlier star with a star close to the median value of [X/Fe], are shown

612: in Figs.~\ref{figure_sc2_4246}, 

613: \ref{figure_ti2_4444} and \ref{figure_mn_4030}.  The

614: stars displayed in each figure have been chosen to have \teff\ as

615: close to each other as possible. These figures

616: demonstrate the reality of the outlier in [X/Fe] for each of Sc~II,

617: Ti~II and Mn~I.  The spectra of the each outlier star for each of these

618: five cases have been checked twice.  Two independent HIRES spectra

619: exist for several of these stars. There is no question that

620: the outliers in each of [Ca, Sc, Ti, Mn, Co/Fe] are real. 

621: 

622: Fig.~\ref{figure_cnormal_light} shows the behavior of [X/Fe] for

623: 7 light elements in the range C to Ca for

624: the five C-normal stars.  Upper limits are ignored, and only one of

625: these stars has a detectable NH band.  Again there are outliers.

626: One might expect outliers among those elements

627: (C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al)  where mixing

628: of proton-burning material has already been demonstrated to occur

629: among luminous EMP giants by 

630: \cite{spite05} and \cite{spite06}, while \cite{andrievsky07}

631: present slight modifications in the details

632: due to non-LTE effects without altering the overall picture.  

633: Large variations in [N/Fe] 

634: are clearly present

635: among this small sample of C-normal EMP giants, as illustrated in

636: Fig.~\ref{figure_nh3360}, where it is shown that HE0132$-$2429

637: has a strong enhancement for [N/Fe].

638: 

639: The most peculiar star in this sample of EMP giants, HE1424$-$0241, is 

640: also the most metal poor, with [Fe/H] $\sim -4$~dex.

641: The very low [Si/Fe] and other abundance anomalies found  in

642: a preliminary analysis of this star were

643: briefly  reported in

644: \cite{cohen07}. HE1424$-$0241 has a ratio of [Si/Fe] which is 1.2 dex 

645: below that of any other star in the present sample,

646: a result which is

647: completely unexpected.  Fig.~\ref{figure_si3905} shows

648: the spectral region of the 3905~\AA\ Si~I line

649: to demonstrate the obvious reality

650: of this very discrepant abundance ratio. 

651: This star also has anomalously low [Ca/Fe] and moderately low [Ti/Fe],

652: accompanied by unusually high [Mn/Fe] (by 0.6 dex) and [Co/Fe].

653: The G band of CH and the NH band at 3360~\AA\ are not detected in the

654: HIRES spectra of this star, implying fairly low upper limits for

655: C and for N.

656: 

657: 

658: The EMP giant HE0132$-$2429 has [Sc/Fe] higher than any other star in the

659: sample of C-normal stars by 0.4 dex, accompanied by very high [N/Fe],

660: and [N/C]$ > 0$.  HE1356$-$0622 shows 

661: an apparent small excess for [Na/Fe] and for [Si/Fe].

662: The modest anomalies in this star are small enough that their reality

663: is dubious.

664: 

665: The plots comparing

666: spectral regions around key absorption lines presented here

667: reinforce our claim that

668: most if not all of the discrepant points in Figs.~\ref{figure_cnormal_heavy}

669: and \ref{figure_cnormal_light} are

670: unquestionably real, and not the result of observational error

671: nor of uncertainties in the analysis.  They are not consistent

672: with a dependence on condensation temperature nor on first

673: ionization potential.

674: Table~\ref{table_abunda} presents

675: a summary of the abundance ratios found among the five C-normal stars.

676: 

677: We have presented in Tables~\ref{table_abunda} and \ref{table_abundb}

678: the first Cu abundances for extreme EMP stars, made possible

679: by the high efficiency of HIRES in the near-UV, so that we can reach

680: Cu~I resonance lines near 3250~\AA.  Fig.~\ref{figure_copper}

681: displays [Cu/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] for our sample of EMP giants

682: (including one whose analysis has not yet been published).

683: Earlier results using the weak optical Cu~I lines by \cite{mishenina02}

684: (for the giants in their sample) and by \cite{simmerer03} who compiled

685: the means for Galactic globular clusters are shown in this figure.

686: A steady decrease of [Cu/Fe] as the Fe-metallicity

687: decreases was found in previous work.  Our new results

688: demonstrate that [Cu/Fe] reaches a plateau at  low

689: Fe-metallicity below [Fe/H] $-2.0$~dex which continues through

690: the extreme EMP stars, as might be expected if 

691: Cu is formed primarily in massive stars.

692: 

693: 

694: 

695: The behavior of the heavy element ratio [Sr/Ba] is presented in

696: Fig.~\ref{figure_sr_ba}.  Here the values from all the stars in

697: our sample of candidate EMP giants from the HES from our published

698: and unpublished work are indicated as well to provide guidance

699: as to the typical behavior. Stars from the present sample often have

700: very weak lines of both of these elements. If no detected line

701: has \eqw $< 10$~m\AA, we consider the abundance $\epsilon$(Sr) or 

702: $\epsilon$(Ba)

703: for that star to be an upper limit. 

704: 

705: The abundance ratio

706: $\epsilon$(Sr)/$\epsilon$(Ba) ranges over more than a factor of 100,

707: in agreement with \cite{mcwilliam95b} and \cite{mcwilliam98}.

708: The fractions predicted to arise from pure $r$ or $s$ process nucleosynthesis

709: for the Sun,

710: taken from \cite{simmerer04}, are indicated in Fig.~\ref{figure_sr_ba}

711: by the dashed and solid horizontal lines.  

712: CS22892$-$052, the prototype for the rare extreme

713: $r$-process stars, shows [Sr/Ba] $-0.4$~dex

714: \citep*[see, e.g.][]{sneden03}, a value somewhat below the

715: $r$-process line indicated in Fig.~\ref{figure_sr_ba}.

716: 

717: The presence of numerous EMP stars with [Sr/Ba] larger than that from

718: either the standard $s$ or $r$-process demonstrates that another

719: process must exist which produces the light neutron capture elements,

720: and in particular Sr, in EMP stars, without producing those in

721: the second peak (i.e. Ba), as was originally suggested by

722: \cite{mcwilliam95b}.  Early calculations by \cite{prantzos90} have been updated and

723: augmented by \cite{travaglio04}, who emphasize the many nucleosynthetic

724: processes that can produce Sr, Y and Zr, and who suggest again

725: that a secondary source of Sr from an as yet unidentified 

726: nucleosynthetic site is required. 

727: 

728: Supernova calculations by \cite{woosley92} found production of elements 

729: significantly 

730: heavier than the iron-peak, up to A$\sim$100, occurs for high neutron excess 

731: material (greater than $\eta$$\sim$0.05) during the alpha-rich freezeout.  

732: They also suggested that the alpha-rich

733: freezeout might merge, naturally, into an $r$-process.

734: 

735: \cite{chieffi04} computed supernova yields for a range of masses and metallicities,

736: including charged particle reactions up to Mo.  In their models they found that 

737: elements heavier

738: Zn could only be produced for metallicities greater than 

739: Z/Z$_{\odot}$=10$^{-3}$, essentially

740: confirming the neutron-excess sensitivity found by \cite{woosley92}

741: for the production

742: of elements up to A$\sim$100.  This metallicity limit excluded the supernovae 

743: considered by \cite{chieffi04} as sources for the enhancements of elements up to

744: A$\sim$100 seen in EMP stars \citep*[e.g. as found by][]{mcwilliam98}.

745: 

746: \cite{nomoto06} explored theoretical supernova and hypernova yields; 

747: while they included the

748: alpha-rich freezeout in their calculations, they only considered species 

749: up to A=74.  Their

750: hypernovae were characterized with kinetic energies more than 10 times 

751: that of normal

752: core-collapse supernovae.  It was found that in the complete Si-burning 

753: region of hypernovae

754: elements produced by the alpha-rich freezeout are enhanced.  

755: Thus, we speculate that some form

756: of alpha-rich freezeout, perhaps from hypernova explosions, with 

757: metallicities lower than the low

758: limit determined by \cite{chieffi04}, may yet provide an explanation for the 

759: extra source of A$\sim$100 elements seen in some EMP stars 

760: (also known as a ``second r-process'').

761: 

762: 

763: Most of the

764: stars with [Sr/Ba] significantly less than that of the $r$-process  (and of the

765: $s$-process as well) are carbon stars with highly enhanced Ba

766: from the $s$-process running at low Fe-metallicity

767: \citep*[see, e.g.][]{busso99}.

768: Some  of the EMP stars studied here fall somewhat below the

769: $r$-process line, but not by more than 2$\sigma$.  

770:  

771: All of the EMP stars in the present sample, including the three C-rich stars,

772: have [Ba/Fe] $< -0.2$~dex.

773: With such weak lined stars, and no excess of Ba in any of them,

774: no other heavy elements beyond the Fe-peak besides Ba and Sr could be 

775: detected in any of the \nemp\ EMP stars studied here.

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: \subsection{The Stars with Higher C \label{section_crich} }

780: 

781: There are three stars with the G band of CH obviously much

782: stronger than the five C-normal stars discussed above.

783: Two of the then 

784: have larger enhancements of C than of N, but one 

785: (HE2323$-$0256, CS22949$-$037)) has [N/Fe] $>$ [C/Fe], as shown

786: in Fig.~\ref{figure_crich_light}.

787: In two of the three stars, including the highly N-enhanced star,

788: Na and Mg are also enhanced, while the enhancement of Al is

789: more modest.  Such enhancements have been seen among other very metal poor

790: carbon stars, for example HE0336+0113 from our 0Z survey,

791: with [Mg/Fe] +1.0 dex \citep{cohen05}, the EMP giant CS29498$-$043,

792: %

793: % Aoki..2004, ApJ, 608  this star shows C_2 and hence is a Carbon star

794: %   Teff 4500 K, giant, Fe/H -3.53 dex

795: %

796: studied by \cite{aoki04} with  highly enhanced Na and Mg as well, 

797: and the very extreme EMP dwarf

798: CS22958$-$042 (\teff\ 6250~K, [Fe/H] $-2.85$~dex) 

799: with [Na/Fe] +2.8 dex analyzed by \cite{sivarani06}.

800: % 

801: % CS22958$-$042, Sivarani et al, 2006, shows C_2 bands so it is a carbon star

802: %

803: On the other hand,

804: HE1300+0157, which has the smallest C+N-enhancement of the three stars,

805: [C/Fe] $\sim 1.2$~dex, has only an upper limit for N (from NH), with

806: highly enhanced O (from OH).  It

807: shows normal abundances for all other detected elements.

808: 

809: 

810: Each of the three C-rich

811: EMP stars shows good agreement for the abundance ratios [X/Fe]

812: for the elements with detected features from Ca through Cu

813: with each other and with the median from the five C-normal stars.  This is

814: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure_crich_heavy}.   The C-enhancement, even

815: when extreme, does not affect the relative abundances of elements

816: in this range, which includes the Fe-peak, as was suggested earlier

817: by, e.g. \cite{cohen06}.

818: 

819: 

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: 

824: 

825: \section{Comparison with the Abundance Analyses of \cite{cayrel04}

826: \label{section_comp} }

827: 

828: 

829: The 0Z project and the First Stars project of \cite{cayrel04}

830: using UVES at the VLT are two large independent

831: efforts to determine the chemical abundance ratios in EMP stars

832: and use those to draw inferences on the properties of the

833: early Galaxy, the first supernovae, etc. 

834: Our sample largely consists of new EMP stars we have found through

835: painstaking, time consuming searches of the HES database coupled

836: with the expenditure of very large and generous allocations of telescope time.

837: We have observed a few stars from thee sample of the First Stars Survey at the VLT

838: \citep{cayrel04} and have analyzed them independently.  We compare 

839: our results with those of \citep{cayrel04} to determine the 

840: consistency of the absolute

841: iron abundance and relative abundances of various

842: elements as deduced by our group versus those of the First Stars VLT large program.

843: 

844: 

845: We begin by testing the measured equivalent widths

846: for the

847: two stars in common, HE2323$-$0256 (a.k.a. CS22949$-$037) and

848: BS16467$-$062, the latter of which we added to our sample specifically

849: for this purpose.  There are 79 lines in common for

850: BS16467$-$062, with a mean difference in \eqw\ of 1.8~m\AA\

851: and $\sigma$ of the differences of 4.4~m\AA.  This extremely

852: good agreement is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_eqw_bs16467}.

853: The agreement in measured \eqw\ for HE2323--0256 (a.k.a CS22949--037)

854: is not quite as good (see Fig.~\ref{figure_eqw_he2323}); the

855: dispersion of the differences in 

856: measured \eqw\ for the 66 lines in

857: common is 9.5~m\AA, with a mean difference of only 0.3~m\AA.

858: Most of the dispersion arises from 5 discrepant lines, as is shown

859: in Fig.~\ref{figure_eqw_he2323}. M.~Spite advises (private

860: communication, June 2007), on behalf of

861: the First Stars Project, that their published \eqw\ for these 5

862: lines are not correct, and that the correct values from their UVES spectra are

863: much closer to those given here in Table~\ref{table_eqw}.  She further

864: advises that she believes that their problems with \eqw\ are restricted to this

865: particular star.

866: 

867: 

868: We next examine the scale of the transition probabilities adopted by

869: each group. For 43 Fe~I lines in common in the spectrum of 

870: BS16467$-$062, the mean difference in log($gf$) is only

871: 0.004 dex, with $\sigma$ for the differences of 0.06 dex.

872: The scale of the $gf$ values for all lines of species 

873: in common with \cite{cayrel04}

874: have been compared.

875: The maximum scale difference for the lines of a given species

876: was only 0.04 dex (occurring

877: for Fe~II), with the largest dispersion about the mean

878: for the lines in common reaching 0.07~dex (for Ti~II).

879: Thus we find that the  parameters adopted for atomic lines

880: by the two groups are in very good agreement, and specifically 

881: for Fe~I are identical in the mean to within $\pm0.01$~dex.

882: 

883: We have adopted the \cite{schlegel98} reddening map, which 

884: has a small but non-zero reddening at the Galactic pole, while

885: the First Stars project appears to be using the older \cite{burstein82}

886: values based on 21 cm HI surveys.  This map has zero 

887: reddening at the Galactic pole.  Hence we have systematically

888: larger reddening values for each star than does the First

889: Stars project.

890: 

891: A detailed discussion of the differences in the stellar

892: parameters between us and the First Stars project

893: and the differences in abundance, both absolute

894: (i.e. [Fe/H]) and ratios with

895: respect to Fe ([X/Fe]), is given in  Appendix~B.  Overall

896: for a particular star with measured \eqw\ for a set of detected absorption features

897: and values of observed optical and 2MASS colors,

898: the [Fe/H] value derived by the First Stars project

899: as described in \cite{cayrel04} will be systematically $\sim$0.3~dex lower

900: than that for the same star as analyzed by the 0Z project.

901: It is interesting to note that the sample of

902: stars analyzed by \cite{aoki05} also included two stars in common

903: with the First Stars

904: project sample. \cite{aoki05} derived [Fe/H] values higher than those

905: of \cite{cayrel04} by $\sim 0.2$~dex. 

906: 

907: 

908: Table~1 of \cite{cohen07} compares the mean for [X/Fe] for C-normal

909: EMP giants between our 0Z survey and the First Stars survey of

910: \cite{cayrel04}.  A detailed comparison for a small number of 

911: individual stars in common is given in Appendix~B.

912: We find much better agreement of the abundance ratios [X/Fe]

913: between the two large surveys

914: than for absolute Fe-metallicities [Fe/H]. This is as expected since

915: many of the error terms in the absolute iron abundance

916: [Fe/H] largely cancel out in an abundance ratio [X/Fe].  

917: If we ignore C deduced from an analysis of the CH band

918: and N inferred from the UV NH band, 

919: we find

920: differences in [X/Fe] for 11 or 12 elements in a star 

921: ranging from $-0.07$ to +0.05 dex

922: when we adopt their equivalent widths but use our stellar parameters.

923: Somewhat larger differences, $\pm$0.15 dex with $\sigma = 0.10$~dex, 

924: occur when we analyze

925: our own HIRES spectra with our own choice of stellar parameters, in

926: part because of the errors in the \eqw\ of \cite{cayrel04}.

927: As indicated above, only a maximum of $\pm0.04$~dex

928: of these differences arise from differences in the scale of the

929: transition probabilities adopted by each of

930: these large surveys.

931: 

932: 

933: 

934: \subsection{Comparison with the HERES Sample \label{section_heres}}

935: 

936: Analyses of 253 stars from the Hamburg/ESO $r$-process enhanced

937: star survey \citep[HERES,][]{christlieb04b} was presented by

938: \cite{barklem05}.

939: This survey  relied on modest SNR

940: high resolution spectra of candidate EMP giants from the HES.

941:  We have observed with HIRES at the Keck~I

942: telescope the most Fe-poor star found

943: in that survey, HE1300+0157, as a comparison object.

944: A very detailed abundance analysis based on a high quality

945: Subaru/HDS spectrum for this star was recently presented by \cite{frebel07}.

946: 

947: Both HERES and \cite{frebel07} utilize the 

948: relations between broad band colors and \teff\ for giants of

949: \cite{alonso99} evaluated at [Fe/H] $-2.0$~dex, as these

950: relations have not been calibrated adequately at still lower

951: metallicities.  As was discussed in \cite{cohen02}, while

952: the MARCS and ATLAS9 \teff\ color-relations are in very good

953: agreement, they disagree with those of \cite{alonso99}.  In this

954: regime of \teff, \grav\ and [Fe/H], the difference

955: in deduced \teff\ for a fixed $V-K$ color is $\sim$200~K, with

956: the value derived from the \cite{alonso99} relations being

957: cooler.  The \teff\ adopted by \cite{barklem05}, \cite{frebel07},

958: and that we derive for HE1300+0157

959: are 5411, 5450, and 5630~K respectively.

960: This difference in \teff\ corresponds to a difference in

961: [Fe/H] of $\sim$0.35~dex, with  HE1300+0157 having the

962: higher Fe-metallicity of $-3.4$~dex in our analysis instead

963: of the value they obtained, $-3.7$~dex.

964: 

965: We first consider the comparison for the star HE1300+0157 if we

966: adopt \teff\ and \grav\ from \cite{barklem05}, but 

967: analyze with our own codes and atomic parameters 

968: our own set of \eqw\ from our HIRES/Keck spectra.

969: Overall, with this assumption, the agreement between the results 

970: presented here

971: based on high SNR Keck/HIRES spectra and those of HERES 

972: is very good given

973: the lower SNR of their spectra and the automatic analysis

974: codes employed in the analysis of \cite{barklem05}.

975: For the 10 elements in common, the agreement in log$\epsilon$(X) 

976: is in all cases within

977: the errors assigned by HERES for absolute abundances (their ``errA'' 

978: values, ranging from $\sim$0.2 to 0.3 dex), and in almost all

979: cases is within the smaller relative errors they assigned for star-to-star

980: comparison within HERES.  The techniques employed by HERES are certainly

981: more than adequate to find interesting EMP stars and determine the general

982: nature of their chemical inventory.

983: 

984: We detected several additional elements beyond those that HERES

985: could reach.  We suggest, as did \cite{frebel07},  that

986: the HERES claimed

987: detection of Y using their automatic

988: abundance analysis code  is almost surely incorrect;

989: they found [Y/Fe] +0.56 dex.

990: They could not detect Sr; we find a marginal detection of 

991: a single Sr~II line which yields [Sr/Fe] $=~-1.55$~dex.

992: Given this very low Sr abundance, any accessible

993: optical Y line would be expected to be undetectable.

994: 

995: We now compare  our derived [Fe/H] and abundance

996: ratios [X/Fe] for HE1300+0157 with those of the very

997: detailed and careful analysis by

998: \cite{frebel07}.   Their \teff\ is 180~K cooler than ours, hence

999: they derive [Fe/H]  0.34 dex lower than we do.  However, the difference

1000: in abundance ratios should be smaller assuming the same stellar parameters

1001: are adopted.  

1002: 

1003: For the CNO elements, we note that there is agreement to within

1004: 0.2 dex for the [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] abundance ratios in this

1005: star between our analysis and that of  \cite{frebel07},

1006: while both fail to detect the NH band and only have an

1007: upper for [N/Fe].  Our [C/Fe] is identical to  that derived by

1008: \cite{lucatello06}, who analyzed the HERES spectra for the CNO

1009: elements.  Since their [Fe/H] for this star was only $-2.9$~dex,

1010: this implies a difference in $\epsilon$(C) between the

1011: value they derive and that of either of the two

1012: high dispersion analyses of about a factor of 3 (0.5~dex),

1013: with the  value of \cite{lucatello06} for HE1300+0157 being too large.  

1014: 

1015: We have carried out the  comparison for this star

1016: adopting first the stellar

1017: parameters of \cite{frebel07}, then those we have derived.

1018: In both cases

1019: we use our own set of \eqw\ measured from our HIRES spectra.

1020: The results  are given in

1021: Table~\ref{table_he1300}.  Our measured  \eqw\ for Fe~I lines show no

1022: systematic difference with those of \cite{frebel07}.

1023: Similarly $\Delta$(Fe) = [Fe~I/H] -- [Fe~II/H] has the same

1024: sign (positive) in both analyses, but our ionization equilibrium

1025: is slightly better than theirs ($\Delta$(Fe) = 0.08 vs 0.15~dex)

1026: for the identical stellar parameters.  However,

1027: log[${\epsilon}(Fe~I)$] is slightly higher in our analysis (by 0.13~dex) 

1028: with same stellar parameters; the origin of this offset is not clear.

1029:   

1030: Adopting their (cooler) \teff, 

1031: we find that of the 17 elements in common (ignoring upper limits),

1032: log[$\epsilon(X$)] differs by less than 0.10~dex for 7 of them,

1033: but disagrees by more than 0.15~dex for 6 species. 

1034: Adopting our hotter \teff\ raises [Fe/H] substantially.  But

1035: the values of [X/H] are only slightly altered, 

1036: $\mid\Delta {\rm{[X/H]}} \mid ~ < ~ 0.15$~dex

1037: for most elements in our analysis.  The largest change in abundance

1038: ratio is seen for C, which is derived from the CH molecular band;

1039: with the higher \teff\ [C/Fe] increases by $\sim$0.2~dex.  The

1040: same holds for O (from the OH band).

1041: 

1042: 

1043: \section{Discussion}

1044: 

1045: Our 0Z survey and the First Stars survey at the VLT

1046: (see, e.g. Cohen \etal\ 2004, Cayrel \etal\ 2004),

1047: following in the footsteps of many earlier studies, including,

1048: for example, \cite{mcwilliam95a} and \cite{mcwilliam95b}, have established

1049: over the past five years the general behavior of abundances

1050: among EMP stars, with substantial samples of stars analyzed

1051: with [Fe/H] $< -2.5$~dex.

1052: If one ignores the light elements which might be affected by

1053: proton burning, 

1054: definite trends of [X/Fe] with [Fe/H] have been established 

1055: beginning with Ca and extending through the Fe-peak

1056: which hold

1057: down to [Fe/H] $\sim -4$~dex.  The

1058: data available to date show that there is a scatter about these

1059: trends which for most stars with normal carbon abundances 

1060: and for most elements

1061: is not larger than the observational uncertainties.

1062: A substantial theoretical effort has gone into calculations of

1063: nucleosynthesis yields in core collapse SN directed towards understanding the

1064: behavior of these ``typical'' VMP and EMP stars.  The work of

1065: \cite{chieffi04}, \cite{kobayashi} and

1066: \cite{tominaga07} are examples of recent 

1067: computations for grids of metal-poor stars over a range of initial mass and

1068: chemical composition.  These models have been tuned to  reproduce the 

1069: previously observed trends of abundance ratios among

1070: ``typical'' EMP stars.

1071: 

1072: In comparing the properties of our sample of EMP giants with the

1073: predictions of such calculations, it behooves us to recall the 

1074: enormous difficulty of these calculations and the many parameters whose

1075: values must be calculated from theory, assumed, or inferred from the data and which

1076: substantially affect the resulting predicted nucleosynthesis yields.  

1077: Among the most crucial of these

1078: factors are the explosion energy, the mass cut, the neutron excess,

1079: and  previous mass loss in earlier evolutionary stages.

1080: 

1081: 

1082: There are three stars in the present sample of EMP giants which we consider as

1083: ``typical''.  They have normal or low carbon.

1084: Their abundance ratios follow the patterns

1085: previously delineated  by our work and that of the First Stars project.

1086: However, there are also two C-normal stars which are definite outliers.

1087: Some abundance ratios in these two stars are

1088: definitely anomalous.  The small \teff\ range of our sample discussed

1089: here ensures that intercomparisons within the 0Z project set of 

1090: abundance analyses are valid and that differences exceeding

1091: 0.3~dex are real. Furthermore, in Table~1 of \cite{cohen07} we compared our

1092: mean abundance ratios with those of \cite{cayrel04} for

1093: those ``typical'' giants studied by each group.  In our

1094: case this included our published and unpublished abundance analyses,

1095: and for the First Stars project we relied upon the 

1096: fits tabulated in \cite{cayrel04}.  The agreement was very good,

1097: within 0.10~dex, with one

1098: exception (Mg).  Although we

1099: emphasize again that we have shown here that our [Fe/H] scale is 

1100: systematically 0.3 dex higher than that of \cite{cayrel04}, the consequences

1101: for abundance ratios of differences in the details of the analyses

1102: between these two surveys are much smaller.

1103: We are therefore

1104: confident that any outliers  found are real and are not the result

1105: of problems or uncertainties in our measurements or analyses.

1106: 

1107: 

1108: 

1109: 

1110: HE1424$-$0241, with [Fe/H] $\sim -4$~dex,

1111: is the  most extreme outlier we have found.  Its peculiarities were

1112: briefly described in \cite{cohen07}.   This extreme EMP giant

1113: has a very low abundance of Si, and moderately

1114: low Ca and Ti, with respect to Fe.  Si, Ca and Ti are produced

1115: primarily via explosive $\alpha$-burning.  But Mg/Fe, where Mg is produced

1116: largely by hydrostatic $\alpha$-burning, is normal in this star.

1117: Mn and Co are enhanced with respect to Fe.  Only (low) upper limits

1118: for C and for N could be determined.

1119: Older calculations of nucleosynthetic yields by \cite{woosley95}

1120: come close to reproducing at least some of this behavior with

1121: ejecta from

1122: SN biased towards the lower end of the relevant mass range,

1123: but more current grids of SNII nucleosynthesis fail to reproduce

1124: the very unusual chemical inventory seen in this extreme EMP star.

1125: We defer to

1126: our theoretical colleagues to try to find an explanation for

1127: this very peculiar star.

1128: 

1129: The anomalies seen in HE1424$-$0241 are unique and,

1130: as far as we are aware,

1131: are not seen in any other EMP giant studied to date.

1132: This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure_si} and

1133: \ref{figure_ca}, which show [Si/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] as a function

1134: of [Fe/H] for all the C-normal giants analyzed by our 0Z project to

1135: date, all those of the First Stars project \citep{cayrel04},

1136: and those from several other sources noted in the figure legends.

1137: In both cases, HE1424$-$0241 has the lowest value by far

1138: of the relevant abundance ratio.

1139: 

1140: 

1141: There is one star, CS22966$-$043,

1142: studied by

1143: \cite{preston00} and again by \cite{ivans03} which has

1144: abundance ratios somewhat similar

1145: to those of  HE1424$-$0241.  CS22966$-$043 has [Fe/H] $-1.9$~dex, with 

1146: [Si/Fe] $-1.0$~dex

1147: \citep{ivans03} and [Ca/Fe] $-0.2$~dex, with [Cr/Fe] and [Mn/Fe]

1148: somewhat high and [Sr/Fe] somewhat low for its Fe-metallicity.  CS22966$-$043,

1149: however,

1150: has \teff\ = 7200~K.  It is a SX Phe variable and a binary.

1151: It shows rotation, with $v_{rot} {\rm{sin}}(i) = 20$~\kms ~\citep{preston96}, 

1152: not uncommon among

1153: stars in the \cite{preston00} sample of blue metal poor stars.

1154: It may be a blue straggler, the outcome today of extensive past mass transfer

1155: within the binary system.

1156: \cite{ivans03} attribute its anomalies

1157: to local differences in the chemical history within 

1158: different regions of the Galactic halo,

1159: presumably arising from accretion of one or more dwarf satellite galaxies.

1160: We assume, perhaps incorrectly, that whatever may be causing its anomalies

1161: is not directly relevant to those of the EMP giant HE1424$-$0241.

1162: 

1163: The second of the two outliers is HE0132$-$2429, with [Fe/H] $-3.55$~dex.

1164: The spectrum of this star indicates moderately high [C/Fe],

1165: very high [N/Fe], and high [Sc/Fe].

1166: We suggest that this is the result of a major contribution

1167: to its chemical inventory from a SNII with a higher

1168: than typical mass.  \cite{limongi06} reproduce the

1169: general nature of these anomalies with a massive 

1170: SNII with $M \sim 60 M$\subsun\ (see their

1171: Fig.~5). 

1172: Although this calculation was carried out for

1173: solar metallicity, we take it as 

1174: applying at least partially to extremely metal poor SNII.  We

1175: could not locate any

1176: published SNII models with nucleosynthetic yields

1177: for a large set of isotopes for such massive extremely metal poor 

1178: stars; the published grids typically end at 40$M$\subsun, with some

1179: studies, for example \cite{umeda02}, then jumping to treat

1180: very massive pair instability

1181: SN with $M \sim 150M$\subsun, omitting the mass range of ``normal'' SNII

1182: with $M > 50M$\subsun.  The very recent calculations of

1183: \cite{tominaga07} for nucleosynthesis in Pop~III SNII explosions

1184: end at $50M$\subsun.

1185: 

1186: 

1187: 

1188: The peculiarities in  abundance ratios found

1189: in HE0132$-$2429 are reminiscent of those found in the most Fe-poor star known,

1190: HE1327$-$2326 \citep{frebel05}, which also has N highly enhanced 

1191: (with C enhanced as well,

1192: but not by as much) and high Sr relative to Fe.  The Sc~II lines

1193: are too weak to be detected in such an extreme star even if the same

1194: anomaly were present for this element as well.  

1195: 

1196: 

1197: HE1356$-$0622 is a modest outlier in [Na/Fe] and

1198: in [Si/Fe], being high in both cases by perhaps $\sim$0.5 dex.

1199: However, [Na/Fe] shows a definite range among EMP giants

1200: \citep{cayrel04}, which \cite{spite06}  subsequently explained

1201: as mixing of material processed through proton-burning

1202: along the RGB, thus enhancing Na by $\sim$0.5~dex

1203: \citep*[see also ][for a discussion

1204: of non-LTE effects.]{andrievsky07}.  Since

1205: HE1356$-$0622 is one of the coolest stars in our sample

1206: of EMP giants, it presumably is among those with the highest

1207: luminosity and thus has a high probability of being a mixed star.

1208: The apparent anomaly in [Si/Fe] is due primarily to the 

1209: extremely large deficiency of that ratio in HE1424$-$0241, which

1210: couples with our adopted definition of ``anomalous''

1211: via a median over our

1212: small sample of C-normal EMP giants. 

1213: After careful consideration, we find that HE1356$-$0622 is probably

1214: a mixed EMP giant and has no  statistically significant

1215: anomalies in its abundance ratios for the set of elements

1216: we have detected.

1217: 

1218: The three more C-rich stars in the present sample of EMP giants

1219: all obey patterns previously seen for such stars (see, e.g. Cohen \etal\ 2005

1220: or Aoki \etal\ 2006).  Two of them show strong enhancements of the light elements

1221: up to and including Al; one does not.

1222: 

1223: There are two stars in our sample of EMP giants with 

1224: [N/C] $> 0$, one of which is very highly N-enhanced.

1225: CS 22949-037 (a.k.a HE2323$-$0256), is a N-rich star, 

1226: with [N/Fe] +2.16 dex, while [C/Fe] is is +0.97 dex.  HE0132$-$2429

1227: is a milder case of a star with [N/C] $> 0$.   Several

1228: similar stars are known, although EMP

1229: C-rich stars with [N/C] $< 0$ are much more common than

1230: EMP giants with  [N/C] $> 0$.  If we assume that the C-rich EMP giants 

1231: are the result

1232: of mass transfer across a binary system when the former primary

1233: was an AGB star, then

1234: predictions of nucleosynthesis 

1235: in AGB stars (Lattanzio 1992, Herwig 2004, and references therein)

1236: suggest that hot bottom burning in intermediate mass

1237: AGB stars (3 to 6 $M$\subsun) leads to strong N-enhancements

1238: 

1239: \cite{johnson06} discuss the predicted frequency of N-enhanced stars

1240: with [N/C] $> 0$ as a function of mass of the AGB star contributing.

1241: They suggest that N-rich stars represent the contribution from

1242: the upper mass limit of such stars near $\sim$6~M\subsun, and 

1243: note that

1244: their observed frequency appears to be

1245: quite low compared to that expected for a normal mass distribution

1246: of AGB stars.

1247: They speculate that factors

1248: which decrease the efficiency of mass transfer in binary systems

1249: with large mass ratios may be responsible for the apparent lack of

1250: N-enhanced stars.

1251: 

1252: 

1253: To summarize the situation as we view it,

1254: HE1424$-$0241 and HE0132$-$2429, both analyzed here, are the only

1255: EMP giants known to us which show peculiar abundance ratios 

1256: among the Fe-peak elements.  One EMP dwarf, HE2344$-$2800

1257: with [Fe/H] $\sim -2.7$~dex, first

1258: studied in the Keck Pilot Project, was a suspected outlier, with 

1259: [Cr/Fe] $\sim 0.3$~dex higher than typical EMP dwarfs, a large

1260: sample of which were studied in \cite{cohen04}.  Analysis of

1261: a new HIRES spectrum of this EMP dwarf taken in Oct. 2004 confirms the

1262: excess in [Cr/Fe],

1263: and suggests an excess in [Mn/Fe] of $\sim 0.5$~dex as well.

1264: Many EMP stars show

1265: unexpectedly high CNO abundances, which are likely due to

1266: intrinsic production followed

1267: by mixing (for luminous giants only)

1268: or pollution from a former AGB binary companion.

1269: A smaller number of stars, including two of the three C-rich stars

1270: studied here,

1271: show large enhancements of the light elements

1272: Na, Mg and Al as well.

1273: All such $\alpha$-enhanced stars

1274: with the exception of BS16964$-$002, very recently discovered by \cite{aoki07},

1275: are C-rich; Aoki's new star is, however, highly O-rich.  

1276: A few stars, such as CS22952$-$015 \citep{mcwilliam95a} and

1277: CS22169$-$035 \citep{cayrel04} 

1278: show small (at least compared to those of the present sample) deficiencies 

1279: of the $\alpha$-elements, with normal C.

1280: 

1281: With better spectra and analyses, and the larger sample

1282: of known EMP stars enabled in part by our searching 

1283: for such in the Hamburg/ESO Survey,

1284: we are now able to discern the impact on the chemical inventory of

1285: a star from contributions

1286: by individual SNII among extreme EMP stars.  At slightly higher Fe-metallicity,

1287: we see abundance ratios which show slow trends as functions of [Fe/H] 

1288: with low dispersions about the mean trends which presumably arise

1289: from summing the ejecta of SNII over a stellar population with 

1290: a normal (i.e. Salpeter or similar)  initial mass function.

1291: These trends can often be reproduced in detail by theoretical models

1292: of Galactic chemical evolution containing the most recent

1293: nucleosynthetic yields such as those of

1294: \cite{prantzos06} or \cite{matteucci07}.

1295: It is now up to the theorists who model SNII explosions to 

1296: try to develop a set of nucleosynthesis yields

1297: which will lead to the variety of chemical inventories we have seen in the

1298: EMP stellar population in the Milky Way, particularly among

1299: the lowest [Fe/H] stars known in the Galaxy, and especially

1300: for the very anomalous extreme EMP star HE1424$-$0241.

1301: 

1302: 

1303: Turning to the elements beyond the Fe-peak,

1304: another by now well established observational fact is the decoupling between the

1305: production of the Fe-peak elements and the heavy neutron capture elements.

1306: The ratios of [Sr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] 

1307: among the EMP stars analyzed by our 0Z project, including those discussed here,

1308: show a very wide range among both the

1309: C-normal and C-rich EMP stars (see Fig.~\ref{figure_sr_ba}). 

1310: It is interesting to note that no star in the present

1311: sample, neither C-normal nor C-rich, has [Ba/Fe] $> -0.2$~dex.  Among

1312: more metal-rich C-rich stars, the fraction of stars with enhancements

1313: of the $s$-process elements is large, exceeding 75\% \citep[see, e.g.][]{cohen06}.

1314: 

1315: 

1316: \subsection{Implications for C/Fe ratio and Frequency of C-enhanced stars}

1317: 

1318: The fraction of C-enhanced stars among EMP stars  is a very

1319: contentious issue.  Adopting the definition of

1320: C-enhanced stars of \cite{beers05} as those with

1321: [C/Fe] $> 1.0$~dex, recent values for 

1322: this fraction from several independent survey

1323: for stars with [Fe/H] $< -2.0$~dex

1324: cover the range from  $>21~\pm$0.2\% \citep{lucatello06}

1325: to 9${\pm}$2\% \citep{frebel07}, with  

1326: our 0Z survey yielding a preliminary value of 14${\pm}$4\% \citep{cohen05}. 

1327: 

1328: The samples are in each case reasonably large, but there is a fairly 

1329: large range in the deduced frequency of C-rich

1330: EMP stars.  This suggests that differences in the analysis

1331: are contributing to this problem.

1332: It is not surprising in the context of the previous discussion

1333: (see, for example, that of \S\ref{section_heres})

1334: that the fraction of C-rich stars calculated from a set of different independent

1335: analyses of large samples would result in different estimates from

1336: different surveys.

1337: Our [Fe/H] values are systematically

1338: higher than those of \cite{cayrel04} by $\sim$0.3 dex, and the

1339: differences in 

1340: C and N abundances determined from molecular bands

1341: between the two surveys  show a larger

1342: dispersion than do the abundances based on atomic absorption lines.

1343: Stars near the boundary

1344: of the C-enhanced class 

1345: could easily be shifted into or out of  the

1346: C-rich class as a result of small systematic differences

1347: between the various ongoing large projects.  This 

1348: would affect such frequency calculations, whatever

1349: the specific abundance characteristic of interest might be.

1350: 

1351: 

1352: Since there are many stars near the boundary of the C-enhanced

1353: class as defined above,

1354: we suggest that a substantial part of the  variation in the deduced

1355: fraction of C-enhanced EMP stars arises from such differences

1356: in the details of the analysis.  It is thus extremely important

1357: for people engaged in this type of work to publish the full

1358: details of their analyses, as we did in \cite{cohen06},

1359: and to analyze a few stars in common with

1360: other major groups working in this area.  Among the details

1361: that must be described, in addition to those discussed above, is the issue

1362: of the way one handles the recent upheaval in the Solar CNO abundances

1363: through the work of \cite{asplund04} and \cite{asplund05} with 3D models.

1364: 

1365: 

1366: The modified definition of  the cutoff for enhanced [C/Fe] suggested by

1367: \cite{aoki07} offers the advantage of a cleaner cut with fewer stars

1368: near the boundary between C-normal and C-enhanced classes.  It is preferable

1369: to the definition we are using, which is that of \cite{beers05}.

1370: With the latter definition, two of the three stars are just at the

1371: boundary, while with the newer definition, all three

1372: of the C-rich stars discussed here would clearly be considered

1373: C-rich.

1374: 

1375: 

1376: 

1377: 

1378: \section{Summary}

1379: 

1380: 

1381: We have presented detailed abundance analyses of five extremely

1382: metal poor giants which are newly discovered

1383: from our datamining of the Hamburg/ESO Survey. One of these

1384: turned out to be a rediscovery

1385: of a star found in the HK Survey with an unusually large error

1386: in its published coordinates.

1387: We include here a

1388: new analysis based on better spectra of HE0132$-$2429, part of

1389: the Keck Pilot Project (see Cohen et al 2002 and Carretta et al 2002).

1390: We also analyze new high resolution and high signal-to-noise

1391: ratio spectra of the only EMP giant found in the HERES project

1392: \citep{barklem05} and of an EMP giant from the First Stars project

1393: to use as a calibration object for comparison of the two projects,

1394: for a total sample of 8 EMP giants.

1395: 

1396: The high quality of our HIRES spectra and our discovery of many more EMP

1397: stars, including some close to $-4$~dex, makes it possible to search

1398: for, to find, and to confirm outliers which have

1399: anomalous abundance ratios [X/Fe] among the Fe-peak elements,

1400: where such have not been detected previously.

1401: The lowest metallicity star in our sample,  HE1424$-$0241,

1402: with [Fe/H] $-3.95$ dex, has only upper limits for the C and N

1403: abundances, based on our non-detection of the G band of CH and

1404: of the 3360~\AA\ band of NH.  This star 

1405: shows highly anomalous abundance

1406: ratios, with extremely low [Si/Fe] ($<-1$~dex) and very

1407: low [Ca/Fe] ($-0.6$ dex) and [Ti/Fe] ($-0.18$ dex), while

1408: [Mg/Fe] is normal. Mg is produced in hydrostatic $\alpha$-burning,

1409: while the other three elements are made in explosive $\alpha$-burning.

1410: In essentially all other EMP

1411: stars, these three abundance ratios are positive. These deficits 

1412: in HE1424$-$0241 are accompanied

1413: by strong excesses for the odd atomic number elements, so that

1414: [Mn/Fe] and [Co/Fe] are significantly larger than is typical

1415: of all other EMP giants.  We

1416: speculate that the parcel of gas from which this star 

1417: formed in the early Milky Way contained ejecta from only

1418: a few SNII, and was deficient in ejecta from core collapse SN

1419: whose progenitors had masses at the upper end of the relevant range.

1420: The nucleosynthesis was such that the explosive $\alpha$-elements

1421: (Si, Ca and Ti) were not produced by the SNII at typical rates, while the

1422: hydrostatic $\alpha$-element Mg, formed during the course of

1423: normal stellar evolution even in zero metallicity stars, was

1424: produced at normal rates.

1425: 

1426: A second outlier, HE0132$-2429$, shows  enhanced

1427: Sc relative to Fe, with [N/C] $>0$.

1428: We suggest that this chemical inventory of this star had 

1429: the opposite bias, namely a

1430: larger contribution from SNII toward the upper end of

1431: the progenitor mass range near 60$M$\subsun.   The remaining

1432: three C-normal stars have abundance ratios typical

1433: of slightly more metal rich EMP stars; they do not

1434: show any detectable anomalies in their chemical inventory. 

1435: 

1436: 

1437: No other EMP giant known to us shows peculiar abundance ratios 

1438: among the Fe-peak elements.  One EMP dwarf,

1439: HE2344$-$2800, first

1440: studied in the Keck Pilot Project, and now revisited  with a better HIRES spectrum,

1441: appears to have [Cr/Fe] $\sim 0.3$~dex and [Mn/Fe] of $\sim 0.5$~dex

1442: higher than typical EMP dwarfs, a large

1443: sample of which were studied in \cite{cohen04}.  C and N

1444: have only upper limits in this hot dwarf, where the molecular

1445: bands are, even for normal [C/Fe] ratios, 

1446: very weak and difficult to detect.  Many EMP stars show

1447: unexpectedly high CNO abundances, which are likely due to

1448: intrinsic production followed

1449: by mixing (for luminous giants only)

1450: or pollution from a former AGB binary companion. 

1451: A smaller number of stars, including two of the three C-rich stars

1452: studied here,

1453: show large enhancements of the light elements

1454: Na, Mg and Al as well.

1455: All such $\alpha$-enhanced stars

1456: with the exception of BS16964$-$002, very recently discovered by \cite{aoki07},

1457: are C-rich, and this star is highly O-rich.

1458: 

1459: The behavior of the C-rich stars contains no surprises.  Two in our 

1460: present sample

1461: have large enhancements of the light elements through Al; the third

1462: shows normal abundance ratios for Na, Mg and Al with respect to Fe.

1463: Two of the sample stars have [N/C] $> 0$, which is not common

1464: among C-rich EMP giants.  It

1465: is generally believed that C-rich EMP stars are  the result

1466: of mass transfer within a binary system when the former primary 

1467: was an AGB star.  If this is true,

1468: nucleosynthesis calculations by \cite{lattanzio92}, \cite{herwig04}

1469: and references therein suggest that to produce such a large excess of N

1470: the former primary must have a mass towards the upper

1471: end of the range for AGB stars.

1472: 

1473: We present the first determination of [Cu/Fe] for EMP giants

1474: below [Fe/H] $-3$~dex based on the rarely measured

1475: UV resonance lines of Cu~I near 3250~\AA.

1476: We find that the plateau level which was

1477: suggested for [Cu/Fe] for dwarfs with [Fe/H] $<-2$~dex

1478: by \cite{bihain04} continues to even lower metallicities.

1479: 

1480: 

1481: The  heavy neutron capture elements are low in all eight EMP stars

1482: in our sample, with

1483: [Ba/Fe] $< -0.2$~dex.  This is rare among more Fe-rich C-stars,

1484: which often have strong $s$-process enhancements. 

1485: The ratio $\epsilon$(Ba)/ $\epsilon$(Sr)

1486: varies by more than a factor of 100 among the stars studied here,

1487: and suggests again that another nucleosynthesis mechanism

1488: that preferentially produces the light neutron capture elements such as Sr is

1489: required.

1490: 

1491: 

1492: A careful comparison of the procedures and results 

1493: of the detailed abundance analyses carried out by our 0Z project

1494: with those of the First Stars project \citep{cayrel04} demonstrates

1495: that there is

1496: a systematic offset between the deduced [Fe/H] values; ours

1497: being on average 0.3~dex higher. 

1498: Thus the most metal poor star we found, HE1424$-$0241,

1499: with [Fe/H] $-3.95$ dex based on our 0Z project analysis, would

1500: translates roughly into $-4.2$ dex if it were analyzed by

1501: the First Stars project of \cite{cayrel04}. 

1502: For elements which display

1503: measurable atomic absorption features, the differences 

1504: between these two projects results in systematic

1505: changes in abundance ratios with respect to Fe which are much smaller.  

1506: 

1507: Inter-comparison

1508: between surveys of abundances  [X/Fe] derived from molecular bands,

1509: typically used to determine CNO abundances, is much less

1510: common and more difficult to carry out.  Systematic differences

1511: between surveys for CNO abundances from

1512: CH, NH, CN, CO  or OH bands may be common and may be larger than for elements

1513: where atomic lines can be utilized.    Any such systematic

1514: differences between surveys may

1515: affect the deduced fraction of C-rich stars found in a survey and

1516: may contribute to the wide range in published values

1517: for this parameter.

1518: 

1519: 

1520: 

1521: \section{Appendix A: Comparison of Photometry \label{appendix_phot} }

1522: 

1523: We have observed $\sim$100 EMP candidates with ANDICAM in queue mode over the past

1524: three years.  We calibrate to the Johnson-Kron-Cousins

1525: photometric system using standard star fields

1526: from \cite{landolt92}.  The observer at CTIO running the queue only carries

1527: out our program if the night is believed to be photometric.  Data from

1528: nights which at sunset were believed to be photometric, but subsequently

1529: the observer changed his opinion of the sky conditions, were discarded.

1530: The zero points of our photometric

1531: calibration are based on two sets of images of standard

1532: star fields per night in almost all cases, and never more than two.  Most

1533: stars were observed only on one night; about 1/3 were observed 

1534: on two nights, and a few on three nights.

1535: 

1536: We assess whether our assigned photometric errors for ANDICAM photometry

1537: of the HES candidate EMP stars are valid by comparison of stars from

1538: our sample which are included in

1539: much larger, and hopefully better calibrated, photometric surveys.  

1540: This is a key issue

1541: since we use this photometry, together with $J, H, K_S$ from

1542: 2MASS, to determine stellar parameters.  

1543: 

1544: We compare

1545: our values with those from the SDSS \citep{york00} DR4 release

1546: \citep{sdss_dr4}, using the

1547: transformations of \cite{sdss_trans} for Johnson $V$

1548: and Kron-Cousins $I$.

1549: There are 26 stars in common.  The mean difference in $V$ and in $I$ 

1550: between that we measure using ANDICAM and that from the SDSS database

1551: appropriately transformed is less than 0.01 mag.  The dispersion

1552: about the mean is 0.06 mag for each of $V$ and $I$, 

1553: somewhat larger than one might expect

1554: for our nominal errors of $\pm 0.03$~mag for each combined with 

1555: the nominal uncertainties of $\pm 0.02$~mag for the SDSS.  This suggests

1556: that our assessment of the  uncertainty in our ANDICAM photometry may be

1557: somewhat underestimated.

1558: 

1559: The SDSS is a very large area survey with a very extensive

1560: photometric calibration effort, and our ANDICAM measurements agree

1561: well in the mean with the SDSS values, suitably transformed.

1562: This suggests that the photometric calibration of our ANDICAM data

1563: has no systematic errors.

1564: 

1565: The recent large photometric survey of EMP candidate stars 

1566: of \cite{beers07} includes 17 stars from our ANDICAM sample.

1567: \cite{beers07} include data taken at many sites with many different

1568: instruments on many different runs.

1569: For these 17 stars, our $V$ is

1570: fainter by 0.05~mag on average, with $\sigma$ of the differences

1571: being 0.05~mag.  Our $V-I$ colors are identical to within $\pm0.01$ mag

1572: on average with those of \cite{beers07} for the 12 stars with

1573: such colors in the survey of \cite{beers07}, with $\sigma$ of the difference

1574: being 0.03~mag. The (identical) systematic difference in $V$ and in 

1575: $I$ may arise from calibration difficulties across a survey with

1576: such a wide variety of data sources.

1577: 

1578: HE1424$-$0241, the most metal-poor star discussed here,

1579: has $V$(ANDICAM,SDSS,Beers) = 15.47, 15.36, 15.32~mag respectively,

1580: and is among the three stars with the largest deviation in $V$

1581: for both of these comparisons.  Its $I$ mag is the same

1582: (differing by only 0.015 mag) for

1583: the SDSS and for the ANDICAM data, while the \cite{beers07} photometry

1584: for this star has $V-I$ identical to the ANDICAM result, but $V$

1585: brighter by 0.15~mag.

1586: If we assume the SDSS $V,I$ to be correct, then

1587: we have underestimated \teff\ for this star by $\sim$130~K,

1588: the nominal uncertainty we adopt for this key

1589: stellar parameter is 100~K.

1590: 

1591: 

1592: 

1593: 

1594: 

1595: 

1596: \section{Appendix B: Details of the Comparison with the First Stars Project

1597: of \cite{cayrel04} \label{appendix_cayrel} }

1598: 

1599: In this appendix we provide additional details,

1600: beyond the discussion given in \S\ref{section_comp}, of the comparison

1601: of the analyses we have carried out for EMP giants with

1602: those of the First Stars project as given in \cite{cayrel04}.

1603: 

1604: We selected a representative sample of stars

1605: from \cite{cayrel04}

1606: to cover the range of stellar parameters of interest here

1607: ([Fe/H] below $-3$~dex and \grav\ as expected for RGB stars).

1608: Three values of \teff\ determined for each of these stars are 

1609: shown in Table~\ref{table_teff_cayrel}.

1610: The first is

1611: the value we would derive using the codes and procedures of the 0Z project,

1612: including reddening from the map of \cite{schlegel98}. 

1613: The second is that we would derive 

1614: if we used $E(B-V)$ from \cite{cayrel04} instead.  The third is that

1615: adopted by the First Stars project, taken from

1616: Table~4 of \cite{cayrel04}.  In all cases, the $V$~mag

1617: given in Table~2  of \cite{cayrel04} was used.  \teff\ for the second and

1618: third cases are given in the table as differences from that

1619: of our 0Z project.

1620: 

1621: 

1622: At first sight the differences between the \teff\ adopted by each project

1623: for the representative sample of stars

1624: given in the last column of Table~\ref{table_teff_cayrel} are

1625: satisfactory considering the quoted

1626: accuracies of \teff\ by us of $\pm100$~K and

1627: by the First Stars project of $\pm$80~K.  

1628: However, we stress that this is a systematic,

1629: not a random, effect.  

1630: Table~\ref{table_teff_cayrel} shows, by comparing the first and second

1631: values of \teff\ given for each star, that  the

1632: somewhat larger values of $E(B-V)$ that we adopt result in

1633: our \teff\ being higher than that of the First Stars project 

1634: by up to $\sim$100~K. 

1635: This difference depends both on the reddening difference

1636: for the particular star (i.e. where the star is in the sky)

1637: and on \teff\ for the star, as hotter stars have smaller values

1638: of $\Delta(V-K,V-J)/\Delta($\teff).

1639: 

1640: 

1641: In addition, for a specified set of stellar colors and a fixed choice

1642: of reddening, comparing the  second and third choices for \teff,

1643: we find that our \teff\ are higher by up to 100~K.  This must

1644: arise from some systematic difference in the transformation within

1645: the grid of colors (specifically $V-J$ and $V-K$) and the stellar parameters

1646: for EMP giants.  It should be noted that the \teff\ given by

1647: \cite{cayrel04} are based on the \cite{alonso99} relations while

1648: ours are based on those of the MARCS and ATLAS model atmosphere grids.

1649: This issue was discussed in \cite{cohen02}, where it was demonstrated

1650: that the MARCS and ATLAS9 \teff\ color-relations are in very good

1651: agreement, but that they disagree with those of \cite{alonso99}.

1652: We also note that the \cite{alonso99} color relations

1653: have not been calibrated adequately at the very low values of [Fe/H]

1654: considered here; a theoretical calibration is easier to achieve at present

1655: than an observational one for EMP stars.

1656: 

1657: The result of adding these two effects is that our \teff\ would be

1658: from 30 to 165~K hotter than those adopted by \cite{cayrel04} for the

1659: same input set of observed colors, with the hotter stars in the sample

1660: (\teff $\sim~5200$~K) having larger differences than the

1661: cooler ones; the coolest stars in our sample have \teff$~\sim~4900$~K.

1662: This of course will result in a systematic offset such that the

1663: [Fe/H] value deduced for a star with a particular set of \eqw\ will

1664: be higher 

1665: as determined by the 0Z project than as determined by the First Stars

1666: project \citep{cayrel04}.   This is accompanied by

1667: a smaller effect

1668: on the deduced abundance ratios, as we will see below.

1669: 

1670: 

1671: 

1672: 

1673: % comparison for these stars is in /scr2/jlc/abund\_surveys/cayrel

1674: 

1675: 

1676: Since \cite{cayrel04} use ionization equilibrium

1677: to determine \grav, given a \teff, while we use evolutionary

1678: tracks, there is some scatter of the difference of \grav\

1679: between the two projects for a  given star.  In most cases the

1680: difference is small; the largest difference among the stars

1681: compared in Table~\ref{table_teff_cayrel} 

1682: is 0.4 dex for the same input parameters.

1683: 

1684: 

1685: We next isolate the differences introduced

1686: into the abundance ratios by the different abundance analysis codes

1687: and model atmosphere grids

1688: between our 0Z project and the First Stars Project.  Recall

1689: that we use model atmospheres from ATLAS \citep{kurucz93} 

1690: while the First Stars project uses OSMARCS models

1691: \citep{gustaffson02}.  

1692: 

1693: We first note that changing to the latest and currently

1694: preferred Kurucz models which have

1695: a somewhat different treatment of convection with no overshooting

1696: described in \cite{castelli}

1697: and an improved opacity distribution function

1698: (which are labeled as ``ODFNEW'' models) leads to

1699: very small changes (not exceeding 0.01 dex) in the derived

1700: log[{$\epsilon$}(X)] for all species considered here.  The 

1701: predicted model colors

1702: $V-J$ and $V-K$ differ

1703: by less than 0.02 mag in this range of [Fe/H] and

1704: \teff, introducing a change 

1705: of less than 50~K in deduced \teff.

1706: Since these

1707: stars are so metal-poor, the details of the treatment of the

1708: line opacity used in computing the model atmosphere do not matter.

1709: 

1710: 

1711: For this test, we assume, for a given star, the  same 

1712: stellar parameters as \cite{cayrel04} derived.  We then carry out an abundance

1713: analysis using our codes and our model atmospheres appropriate

1714: to those input stellar parameters, and compare the resulting

1715: [Fe/H] values and abundance ratios [X/Fe]. 

1716: First we compare the deduced values of log[$\epsilon$(X)] for three

1717: stars.  The first case we examined

1718: is the bright EMP giant CD $-38$ 245.  We use the \eqw\

1719: and $gf$ values from \cite{cayrel04}; we do not have any HIRES

1720: spectra of this star. For the other two stars, BS16467$-$062

1721: and CS22949$-$037 (a.k.a. HE2323$-$0256) we have independent

1722: HIRES spectra; we use our own measured \eqw\ and our own adopted

1723: atomic parameters.

1724: 

1725: The comparison for the three stars is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_cayrel_diff}.

1726: This figure shows our absolute abundances

1727: being systematically about 0.15~dex larger for all species.

1728: This difference is similar to that

1729: found by \cite{luck06} (see their Fig.~1), who have carried out a similar

1730: test for stellar parameters appropriate to Cepheid variables.

1731: This systematic offset  would be largely eliminated

1732: if we were to use a stellar atmosphere which was $\sim$90~K lower than

1733: the \teff\ adopted by the First Stars project.

1734: The agreement for the C and N abundances, with differences as large

1735: as 0.4 dex, is not as good.  This is not surprising, as we have shown

1736: in \S\ref{section_comp}

1737: that the $gf$ values for atomic absorptoin lines

1738: adopted by both projects are in very good

1739: agreement.

1740: The  C and N abundances, on the other hand, are derived from molecular bands and

1741: many more parameters enter, none of which have been compared between

1742: the two projects.

1743: 

1744: 

1745: The offset from equality shown in Fig.~\ref{figure_cayrel_diff} does

1746: not affect the deduced abundance ratios [X/Fe] derived

1747: from our work and the First Stars project as the offset is approximately

1748: constant for all species considered.

1749: However the

1750: First Stars project adopts  log$\epsilon$(Fe) = 7.50~dex

1751: for the Sun, while we use a value 0.05 dex smaller.   Since, as we have

1752: shown earlier, the $gf$ value scales are identical,

1753: we will therefore see

1754: a systematic difference of 0.05~dex in all values of [X/Fe] and in

1755: [Fe/H], with our values being higher (i.e. more metal-rich).  This is

1756: in addition to the offset of 0.15~dex due to differences in the

1757: model atmosphere grids and analysis codes.

1758: 

1759: For CD$-$38~245 

1760: both analyses give very good ionization

1761: equilibrium, so it matters little whether one uses

1762: Fe~I or Fe~II as the reference.  Ideally, since log$\epsilon($FeII)

1763: is less sensitive to \teff, it would be better to use that

1764: in calculating [Fe/H] and [X/Fe], but

1765: there are few Fe~II lines detected in these EMP stars, and many

1766: of those detected are very weak with somewhat unreliable \eqw.

1767: The differences in [X/Fe] for the 12 species in common (ignoring

1768: the reference species, Fe~I) range from $-0.07$ to +0.05 dex,

1769: with a mean of $-0.02$ dex and $\sigma$ of 0.04 dex, which we consider

1770: very good agreement.

1771: 

1772: The difference in the deduced abundance ratios between our 0Z project

1773: and the First Stars project for HE2323$-$0256, ignoring

1774: N (deduced from the NH band at 3360~\AA\  in both cases),

1775: ranges from $-0.18$ to +0.11 dex for the 11 species in common,

1776: with a mean of $-0.07$ dex and $\sigma$ 0.10 dex. 

1777: (That for [N/Fe] is 0.38 dex, with our value being lower.)

1778: Part of this may arise in the problem with the \eqw\ for this

1779: star; incorrect values were published by \cite{cayrel04} for

1780: at least 7\% of the  lines in common with our 0Z values

1781: given here in Table~\ref{table_eqw} (M.~Spite, 

1782: private communication, July 2007).

1783: The ionization equilibrium of Fe is good in both analyses.

1784: 

1785: 

1786: BS~16467--062, the third case we checked, gives similar results.

1787: Here, with the stellar parameters set by

1788: the First Stars project, the difference in log$\epsilon$(Fe~I)

1789: is 0.16~dex, with our value again being higher.

1790: The ionization equilibrium in our solution for this

1791: set of stellar parameters is 

1792: log($\epsilon$)(Fe~I) -- log($\epsilon$)(Fe~II) +0.04 dex;

1793: for the First Stars project derived +0.12~dex.

1794: 

1795:  

1796: But the true comparison is what happens when we use the stellar

1797: parameters  

1798: derived with our own codes and procedures and the reddening

1799: values we adopt (i.e. our systematically higher \teff\ as compared to

1800: those of the First Star project). 

1801: For BS~16467--062,

1802: if we compare log$\epsilon$(Fe~I) as published by \cite{cayrel04}

1803: versus that given in Table~\ref{table_abunda} and \ref{table_abundb}, 

1804: the difference in [Fe/H]

1805: 0.30 dex, with our value being higher.  The higher \teff\ we adopt

1806: (164~K higher than that of the First Stars project)

1807: based on our higher reddening and on our \teff\ scale is somewhat

1808: compensated by the difference in adopted \grav. 

1809: The difference in adopted \teff\ for CS22949-037 (a.k.a. HE2323$-$0256)

1810: between the two projects

1811: is small only because our $V$~mag from ANDICAM photometry

1812: is 0.05~mag fainter than that adopted by \cite{cayrel04}.  We thus

1813: find a difference of +0.18~dex in the final deduced [Fe/H], our value

1814: being higher.  This, given the essentially identical \teff, reflects

1815: just the difference in analysis details discussed above.

1816: 

1817: 

1818: In summary, it appears that the different

1819: analysis codes, and stellar atmospheres grids adopted lead to [Fe/H] values

1820: from our 0Z project being systematically 0.15$\pm0.03$~dex higher than

1821: those of the First Stars project.  

1822: The difference becomes somewhat larger,

1823: $\sim$0.25 dex,  when the hotter

1824: stellar parameters determined

1825: from the independent codes, procedures, and adopted reddening map

1826: of our 0Z project are used instead of those adopted by

1827: \cite{cayrel04}.  There is an additional

1828: contribution of 0.05 dex to the difference in derived

1829: [Fe/H] from the two projects which arises

1830: from the difference in the adopted Solar Fe abundance.

1831: Overall, the [Fe/H] value derived by the First Stars project

1832: as described in \cite{cayrel04} will be systematically $\sim$0.3~dex lower

1833: than that for the same star, the same set of \eqw,

1834: and the same set of observed stellar

1835: photometry as analyzed by the 0Z project.

1836: 

1837: \acknowledgements

1838: 

1839: 

1840: 

1841: We are grateful to the many people  

1842: who have worked to make the Keck Telescope and HIRES  

1843: a reality and to operate and maintain the Keck Observatory. 

1844: The authors wish to extend special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry

1845: on whose sacred mountain we are privileged to be guests. 

1846: Without their generous hospitality, none of the observations presented

1847: herein would have been possible.

1848: Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the Palomar

1849: Observatory.

1850: This publication makes use of data from the Two Micron All-Sky Survey,

1851: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the 

1852: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, funded by the 

1853: National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the

1854: National Science Foundation.

1855: J.G.C. is grateful to NSF grant AST-0507219  for partial support.

1856:       N.C. is a Research Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of

1857:       Sciences supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice

1858:       Wallenberg Foundation. He also acknowledges financial

1859:       support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through grants

1860:       Ch~214/3 and Re~353/44.  We thank W.~Huang for help accessing

1861:       the SDSS database.

1862: 

1863: 

1864: \clearpage

1865: 

1866: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1867: 

1868: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy \etal(2006)]{sdss_dr4}

1869: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., \etal, 2006, \apjs, 162, 38

1870: 

1871: \bibitem[Allyn Smith \etal(2002)]{sdss_trans}

1872: Allyn Smith, J. \etal, 2002, \aj, 123, 2121

1873: % SDSS transformations UBV etc.

1874: 

1875: \bibitem[Alonso, Arribas \& Martinez-Roger(1996)]{alonso96}

1876: Alonso, A., Arrivas, S. \& Martinez-Roger, C., 1996, \aap, 313, 873

1877: 

1878: \bibitem[Alonso, Arribas \& Martinez-Roger(1999)]{alonso99}

1879: Alonso, A., Arrivas, S. \& Martinez-Roger, C., 1996, \aaps, 140, 261

1880: 

1881: \bibitem[Amiot (2001)]{amiot83} Amiot C., 1983, \apjs, 52, 329

1882: 

1883: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{anders89} Anders, E. \& Grevesse, N., 1989,

1884: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197

1885: 

1886: \bibitem[Andrievsky \etal(2007)]{andrievsky07}

1887: Andrievsky, S.~M., Spite, M., Korotin, S.~A., Spite, F.,

1888: Bonifacio, P., Cayrel, R., Hill, V. \& Fracois, P., 2007

1889: \aap\ (in press), 

1890: 

1891: \bibitem[Aoki \etal(2004)]{aoki04}

1892: Aoki, W., Norris,  J.~E., Ryan, S.~G., Beers, T.~C., Christlieb, N.,

1893: Tsangarides, S. \& Ando, H., 2004, \apj, 608, 971

1894: % CS 294298-043

1895: 

1896: \bibitem[Aoki \etal(2005)]{aoki05}

1897: Aoki, W. \etal, 2005, \apj, 632, 611

1898: % light neutron capture elements

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[Aoki \etal(2007)]{aoki07}

1901: Aoki, W., Beers, T.~C., Christlieb, N., Norris,  J.~E., Ryan, S.~G.

1902: \& Tsangarides, 2007, \apj, in press

1903: % 26 C-rich stars

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[Asplund \etal(2004)]{asplund04}

1906: Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.~J., Allende Prieto, C.

1907: \& Kisselman, D., 2004, \aap, 417, 751

1908: % Solar O abundance  8.66 \pm 0.05 dex

1909: 

1910: \bibitem[Asplund(2005)]{asplund_araa}

1911: Asplund, M. 2005, \araa, 43, 481

1912: 

1913: \bibitem[Asplund \etal(2005)]{asplund05}

1914: Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.~J., Allende Prieto, C.

1915: \& Blomme, R., 2005, \aap, 431, 693

1916: % Solar C abundance, 8.39 \pm 0.05 dex

1917: 

1918: \bibitem[Barklem \etal(2005)]{barklem05}

1919: Barklem, P.~S. \etal, 2005, \aap, 439, 129

1920: 

1921: \bibitem[Baum\"{u}ller \& Gehren(1996)]{bau96}

1922: Baum\"{u}ller, D. \& Gehren, T., 1996, \aap, 307, 961

1923: 

1924: \bibitem[Baum\"{u}ller \& Gehren(1997)]{bau97}

1925: Baum\"{u}ller, D. \& Gehren, T., 1997, \aap, 325, 1088

1926: 

1927: \bibitem[Bauschlicher \& Langhoff (1987)]{bauschlicher87}

1928: Bauschlicher, N.~B. \& Langhoff, S.~R., 1987, 

1929: Chem. Phys. Lett. 135, 67

1930: % NH dissociation potential - theory (also did CH and OH)

1931: 

1932: \bibitem[Beers, Preston \& Shectman(1985)]{beers85}

1933: Beers, T.C.,  Preston, G.W. \& Shectman, S., 1985, \aj, 90, 2089

1934: 

1935: \bibitem[Beers, Preston \& Shectman(1992)]{beers92}

1936: Beers, T.C.,  Preston, G.W. \& Shectman, S., 1992, \aj, 103, 1987

1937: 

1938: \bibitem[Beers \etal(1999)]{beers99}

1939: Beers, T.~C., Rossi, S., Norris, J.~E., Ryan, S. \& Shefler, T., 1999,

1940: \aj, 117, 981

1941: % recalibration of CaII technique for stellar metal abundances

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[Beers \& Christlieb(2005)]{beers05}

1944: Beers, T.~C. \& Christlieb, N., 2005, \araa, 43, 531

1945: 

1946: \bibitem[Beers \etal(2007)]{beers07}

1947: Beers, T.~C., \etal, 2007, \apjs, 168, 128

1948: 

1949: \bibitem[Bihain \etal(2004)]{bihain04}

1950: Bihain, G., Israelian, G., Bonifacio, P. \& Molaro, P., 2004,

1951: \aap, 423, 777

1952: 

1953: \bibitem[Biehl(1976)]{biehl76}

1954: Biehl, D.,  1976, Diploma thesis, Kiel University

1955: % CuI HFS pattern

1956: 

1957: \bibitem[Bonifacio \etal(1998)]{bonifacio98}

1958: Bonifacio, Molaro, Beers, T.C., Vladilo, 1998, \aap, 332, 672

1959: % HE2356-0410  CS22957-027

1960: 

1961: % \bibitem[Burris \etal(2000)]{burris00}

1962: % Burris, Pilachowski, Armandroff, Sneden, Cowan and Roe, 2000,

1963: % \apj, 544, 302  ***Fill in initials***

1964: 

1965: \bibitem[Burstein \& Heiles(1982)]{burstein82}

1966: Burstein, D \& Heiles, C., 1982, \aj, 87, 1165 

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[Busso, Gallino \& Wasserburg(1999)]{busso99}

1969: Busso, M., Gallino, R. \& Wasserburg, G.J., 1999, \araa, 37, 239

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \bibitem[Carretta \etal(2002)]{carretta02} Carretta, E.,   Gratton, R.~G.,   

1973: Cohen,   J.~G.,  Beers,   T.~C. \&  Christlieb,   N., 2002, \aj, 124, 481

1974: % Keck pilot project, abundances

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[Castelli, Gratton \& Kurucz(1997)]{castelli}

1977: Castelli, F., Gratton, R.~G. \& Kurucz, R.~L., 1997, \aap, 318, 841

1978: % no convective overshoot

1979: 

1980: \bibitem[Cayrel \etal(2004)]{cayrel04} Cayrel, R. \etal\, 2004, \aap, 416, 1117

1981: 

1982: \bibitem[Chieffi \& Limongi(2004)]{chieffi04}

1983: Chieffi, N. \& Limongi, M., 2004, \apj, 608, 405

1984: 

1985: 

1986: \bibitem[Christlieb(2003)]{christlieb03}

1987: Christlieb, N., 2003, Rev. Mod. Astron. 16, 191

1988: 

1989: \bibitem[Christlieb \etal(2004a)]{christlieb04a}

1990: Christlieb, N., Gustafsson, B., Korn, A.~J., Barklem, P.~S., Beers, T.~C.,

1991: Bessell, M.~S., Karlsson, T. \& Mizuno-Wiedner, M., 2004, \apj, 603, 708

1992: 

1993: \bibitem[Christlieb \etal(2004b)]{christlieb04b}

1994: Christlieb, N., \etal, 2004, \aap, 428, 1027

1995: % HERES survey lead in paper

1996: 

1997: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2002)]{cohen02} Cohen,   J.~G.,  Christlieb,  N., 

1998: Beers,   T.~C.,  Gratton,   R.~G. \& Carretta,   E., 2002, \aj, 124, 470

1999: 

2000: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2004)]{cohen04} 

2001: Cohen, J.~G., Christlieb, N.,  McWilliam, A., Shectman, S.,

2002: Thompson, I., Wasserburg, G.~J., Ivans, I., Dehn, Karlsson, T. \& 

2003: Melendez, J., 2004, \apj, 612, 1107

2004: 

2005: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2005)]{cohen05}

2006: Cohen, J.~G. \etal, 2005, \apjl, 633, L109

2007: 

2008: 

2009: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2006)]{cohen06} 

2010: Cohen, J.~G. \etal, 2006, \aj, 132, 137

2011: % C-star abundance long paper

2012: 

2013: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2007)]{cohen07} 

2014: Cohen, J.~G., McWilliam, A., Christlieb, N., Shectman, S., Thompson, I., 

2015: Melendez, J.,  Wisotzki, L. \& Reimers, D.,

2016: 2007, \apjl, 659, L161

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Collet, Asplund \& Trampedach(2006)]{collet06}

2019: Collet, R., Asplund, M. \& Trampedach, R., 2006, \apjl, 644, L121

2020: 

2021: \bibitem[Cutri \etal(2003)]{2mass2} Cutri, R.~M. \etal, 2003,

2022: ``Explanatory Supplement to the 2MASS All-Sky Data Release,

2023: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/explsup.html

2024: 

2025: \bibitem[Ervin \& Armentrout(1987)]{ervin87}

2026: Ervin, K.~M., \& Armentrout, P.~B., 1987, J.Chem.Phys., 86, 2659

2027: % lab measurements of NH dissociation potential

2028: 

2029: \bibitem[Francois \etal(2003)]{francois03}

2030: Francois et al, 2003, \aap, 403, 1105

2031: 

2032: \bibitem[Frebel \etal(2005)]{frebel05}

2033: Frebel, A., \etal, 2005, Nature, 434, 871

2034: % HE 1327-2326, [Fe/H] -5.6 dex, C rich

2035: 

2036: \bibitem[Frebel \etal(2007)]{frebel07}

2037: Frebel, A., \etal, 2007, \apj, 658, 545

2038: 

2039: \bibitem[Fulbright(2000)]{fulbright00}

2040: Fulbright, J.~P., 2000, \aj, 120, 1841

2041: 

2042: \bibitem[Gillis \etal(2001)]{gillis01}

2043: Gillis, J.~R., Goldman, A, Stark, G \& Rinsland, CP, 2001, JQSRT, 68, 225

2044: % OH line list

2045: 

2046: \bibitem[Gratton \& Sneden(1991)]{gratton91}

2047: Gratton, R. \& Sneden, C., 1991, \aap, 241, 501

2048: 

2049: \bibitem[Grevesse \& Sauval(1998)]{grevesse98}

2050: Grevesse, N. \& Sauval, A.~J., 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161

2051: 

2052: \bibitem[Gustafsson \etal(2002)]{gustaffson02}

2053: Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., Mizuno-Weidner, M.,

2054: J{\o}rgensen,  U.~G. \& Plez, B., 2002, in ASP Conf.Ser.288,

2055: {\it{Stellar Atmospheres Modeling}}, ed. I.~Hubeny, D.~Mihalis

2056: \& K. Werner, (San Francisco, ASP), 331

2057: 

2058: \bibitem[Herwig(2004)]{herwig04}

2059: Herwig, F., 2004, \apj, 605, 425

2060: 

2061: \bibitem[Holt, Scholl \& Rosner(1999)]{holt99}

2062: Holt, R.A., Scholl, T.J. \& Rosner, S.D., 1999, MNRAS, 306, 107

2063: % MnII HFS pattterns

2064: 

2065: 

2066: \bibitem[Houdashelt, Bell \& Sweigart(2000)]{houdashelt00}

2067: Houdashelt, M.~L., Bell, R.~A. \& Sweigart, A.~V., 2000, \aj, 119, 1448

2068: 

2069: \bibitem[Huber \& Herzberg(1979)]{huber79}

2070: Huber, K.~P. \& Herzberg, G., 1979, {\it{Constants of Diatomic Molecules}},

2071: (New York, Van Nostrand)

2072: % dissociation potential for OH

2073: 

2074: \bibitem[Ivans \etal(2003)]{ivans03}

2075: Ivans, I.~I., Sneden, C., Renee James, C., Preston, G.~W.,

2076: Fulbright, J.~P., Hoflich, P.~A., Carney, B.~W. \& Wheeler, J.~C.,

2077: 2003, \apj, 592, 906

2078: 

2079: \bibitem[Johnson(2002)]{johnson02}

2080: Johnson, J., 2002, \apjs, 139, 219

2081: 

2082: \bibitem[Johnson \etal(2006)]{johnson06}

2083: Johnson, J.~A., Herwig, F., Beers, T.~C. \& Christlieb, N., 2006,

2084: \apj, in press

2085: 

2086: \bibitem[Kobayashi \etal(2006)]{kobayashi}

2087: Kobayashi, C., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N.

2088: \& Ohkubo, W., 2007, \apj, 653, 1145

2089: 

2090: 

2091: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993)]{kurucz93} Kurucz, R. L., 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar 

2092: Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s Grid, (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13)

2093: 

2094: \bibitem[Kurucz(1994)]{kurucz94} Kurucz, R. L., 1994, Diatomic

2095: molecular data for opacity calculations, (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 15)

2096: 

2097: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{landolt92} Landolt, A.~U., 1992, \aj, 104, 340

2098: 

2099: \bibitem[Lattanzio(1992)]{lattanzio92}

2100: Lattanzio, J.~C., 1992, Pub. Astronomical Soc. of Australia,

2101: 10, 120

2102: 

2103: % \bibitem[Lay \etal(2007)]{lay07}

2104: % Lay, D.~K., Johnson, J.~A., Bolte, M. \& Lucatello, S., 2007, \apj\ (in

2105: % press), see Astro-ph/07063043

2106: %  frequency of C-rich stars, did not use, sample too small.

2107: 

2108: \bibitem[Limongi \& Chieffi(2006)]{limongi06}

2109: Limongi, M. \& Chieffi, A., 2006, in {\it{The Multicolored Landscape

2110: of Compact Objects and Their Explosive Origins}}, to be published

2111: by AIP (also available as Astro-ph/0611140)

2112: 

2113: \bibitem[Lucatello \etal(2006)]{lucatello06}

2114: Lucatello, S., Beers, T., Christlieb, N.,

2115: Barklem, P., Rossi, S., Marsteller, B.,

2116: Sivarani, T. \& Lee, Y.~S.,  2006, \apjl, 652, L37

2117: % frequency of C-stars in HERES survey

2118: 

2119: \bibitem[Luck, Kovtyuk \& Andrievsky(2006)]{luck06}

2120: Luck, R.~E., Kovtyuk, V.~V. \& Andrievsky, S.~M., 2006, \aj, 132, 902

2121: 

2122: \bibitem[Matteucci(2007)]{matteucci07}

2123: Matteucci, F., 2007, in {\it{Emission Line Universe}},

2124: see Astro-ph/07040770

2125: % lecture on Chemical Evolution, Canary Winter School on EMission Line Universe

2126: 

2127: 

2128: \bibitem[McWilliam \etal(1995a)]{mcwilliam95a}

2129: McWilliam, A., Preston, G.~W., Sneden, C. \& Shectman, S., 1995, \aj,

2130: 109, 2736

2131: 

2132: \bibitem[McWilliam \etal(1995b)]{mcwilliam95b}

2133: McWilliam, A., Preston, G.~W., Sneden, C. \& Searle, L., 1995, \aj,

2134: 109, 2757

2135: 

2136: \bibitem[McWilliam(1998)]{mcwilliam98}

2137: McWilliam, A., 1998, \aj, 115, 1640

2138: % Ba HFs paper

2139: 

2140: \bibitem[Mishenina \etal(2002)]{mishenina02}

2141: Mishenina, T.~V., Kovtyukh, V.~V., Soubiran, C., Travaglio, C.

2142: \& Busso, M., 2002, \aap, 396, 189

2143: %  Cu and Zn in metal poor stars

2144: 

2145: \bibitem[Nomoto \etal(2006)]{nomoto06}

2146: Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K. 2006, 

2147: Nuclear Physics, A777, 424 (see also Astro-ph/0605725)

2148: 

2149: \bibitem[Norris, Ryan \& Beers(1997)]{norris97}

2150: Norris, J.~E., Ryan, S.~G. \& Beers, T.C., 1997, \apjl, 489, L169

2151: % HE2356-0410  CS22957-027

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[Norris, Ryan \& Beers   (2001)]{norris01}

2154: Norris, J.~E., Ryan, S.~G. \& Beers, T.C., 2001, \apj, 561, 1034

2155: 

2156: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1982)]{oke82}

2157: Oke, J.~B. \& Gunn, J.~E., 1982, \pasp, 94, 586

2158: 

2159: \bibitem[Plez \& Cohen(2005)]{plez}

2160: Plez, B. \& Cohen, J.~G., 2005, \aap, 434, 1117

2161: 

2162: \bibitem[Plez, Cohen \& Melendez(2006)]{plez2}

2163: Plez, B., Cohen, J.~G. \& Melendez, J., 2005, in

2164: IAU Symposium 228, {\it{ From Lithium to Uranium:

2165: Elemental Tracers of Early Stellar Evolution}}, ed. V. Hill,

2166: P. Francois \& F. Primas, Cambridge University Press, pg. 267

2167: 

2168: \bibitem[Prantzos, Hashimoto \& Nomoto(1990)]{prantzos90}

2169: Prantzos, N.,  Hashimoto, M. \& Nomoto, K., 1990, \aap, 234, 211

2170: 

2171: 

2172: \bibitem[Prantzos(2006)]{prantzos06}

2173: Prantzos, N., 2006, in {\it{Nuclei in the Cosmos IX}},

2174: CERN, Geneva, July 2006, ed. A. Mengoni et al.

2175: 

2176: \bibitem[Preston(1996)]{preston96}

2177: Preston, G.~W., 1996, in {\it{The Formation of the Galactic Halo -- Inside

2178: and Out}}, ed. H.~L. Morrison \& A. Sarajedini, ASP Conf. Ser. 92

2179: 

2180: \bibitem[Preston \& Sneden(2000)]{preston00}

2181: Preston, G.~W. \& Sneden, C., 2000, \aj, 120, 1014

2182: % what are those blue metal-poor stars ?

2183: 

2184: \bibitem[Ram\'{\i}rez \& Cohen(2003)]{ramirez03}

2185: Ram\'{\i}rez, S.~V. \& Cohen, J.~G., 2003, \aj, 125, 224 

2186: 

2187: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis(1998)]{schlegel98}

2188: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P. \& Davis, M., 1998, \apj, 500, 525

2189: 

2190: \bibitem[Shortridge(1993)]{shortridge93}

2191: Shortridge K. 1993, in {\it{Astronomical Data Analysis Software and

2192:       Systems II}}, A.S.P. Conf. Ser., Vol 52, eds. R.J. Hannisch, 

2193:       R.J.V. Brissenden, \& J. Barnes, 219

2194: 

2195: \bibitem[Simmerer \etal(2003)]{simmerer03}

2196: Simmerer, J., Sneden, C., Ivans, I.~I., Kraft, R.~P., Shetrone, M.~A.

2197: \& Smith, V.~v., 2003, \aj, 125, 2018

2198: % copper

2199:       

2200: \bibitem[Simmerer \etal(2004)]{simmerer04}

2201: Simmerer, J., Sneden, C., Cowan, J.~J., Collier, J., Woolf, V.~M.

2202: \& Lawler, J.~E., 2004, \apj, 617, 1091

2203: % rise of s-process in the galaxy, table with new r/s splits for Sun

2204: 

2205: \bibitem[Skrutskie \etal(2006)]{2mass1}

2206: Skrutskie, M.~F. \etal, 2006, \aj, 131, 1163

2207: 

2208: 

2209: \bibitem[Sivarani \etal(2006)]{sivarani06}

2210: Sivarani, T. \etal, 2006, \aap, 459, 125

2211: % 3 C-enhanced stars, one is very Na rich

2212: 

2213: \bibitem[Sneden(1973)]{moog} Sneden, C., 1973, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. 

2214: of Texas

2215: 

2216: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(2003)]{sneden03}

2217: Sneden, C., \etal, 2003, \apj, 591, 936

2218: % Comprehensive analysis of CS22892-052

2219: 

2220: \bibitem[Spite \etal(2005)]{spite05}

2221: Spite, M. \etal, 2005, \aap, 430, 655

2222: % First stars VI, CNO Li and mixing in EMP giant

2223: 

2224: \bibitem[Spite \etal(2006)]{spite06}

2225: Spite, M. \etal, 2006, \aap, 455, 291

2226: % First stars IX, Mixing in EMP giants, C12/C13, Na/Mg, Al/Mg 

2227: 

2228: \bibitem[Takeda \etal(2003)]{takeda03}

2229: Takeda, Y., Zhao, G., Takada-Hidai, M., Chen, Y.~Q.,

2230: Saito, Y. \& Zhang, H.~W., 2003, Chinese Jrl Astron \& Astrophys,

2231: 3, 316

2232: 

2233: \bibitem[Tominaga, Umeda \& Nomoto(2007)]{tominaga07}

2234: Tominaga, N., Umeda, H. \& Nomoto, K., 2007, 

2235: \apj, 660, 516

2236: 

2237: \bibitem[Travaglio \etal(2004)]{travaglio04}

2238: Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Arnone, E., Cowan, J., Jordan, F.

2239: \& Sneden, C., 2004, \apj, 601, 864

2240: 

2241: \bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2002)]{umeda02}

2242: Umeda, H. \& Nomoto, K., 2002, \apj, 565, 385

2243: 

2244: \bibitem[Vogt \etal(1994)]{vogt94} Vogt, S.~E. \etal\, 1994, SPIE, 2198, 362

2245: 

2246: \bibitem[Wallace, Hinkle \& Livingston(1998)]{wallace98}

2247: Wallace, L., Hinkle, K. \& Livingston, W.~C.,1998,

2248: ``An Atlas of the Spectrum of the Solar Photosphere from 13,500

2249: to 28,000 cm$^{-1}$'', N.S.O. Technical Report 98-001,

2250: ftp://nsokp.nso.edu/pub/atlas/visatl.

2251: 

2252: 

2253: \bibitem[Wisotzki \etal(2000)]{wis00} Wisotzki, L., Christlieb, N., 

2254: Bade, N.,Beckmann, V., K\"ohler, T., Vanelle, C. \& Reimers, D., 2000, 

2255: \aap, 358, 77

2256: 

2257: \bibitem[Woosley \& Hoffman(1992)]{woosley92}

2258: Woosley, S.~E., \& Hoffman, R.~D. 1992, \apj, 395, 202

2259: 

2260: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{woosley95}

2261: Woosley, S.~E. \& Weaver, T.~A., 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

2262: 

2263: \bibitem[Yi \etal(2002)]{yi01}

2264: Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C. ,  Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.

2265: Lejeune, Th. \&  Barnes, S., 2001, \apjs, 136, 417

2266: 

2267: \bibitem[York \etal(2000)]{york00}

2268: York, D. \etal, 2000, \aj, 120, 1579

2269: 

2270: \end{thebibliography}{}

2271: 

2272: \clearpage

2273: 

2274: 

2275: \begin{deluxetable}{lclr rrrr}

2276: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2277: \tablenum{1}

2278: \tablewidth{0pt}

2279: \tablecaption{New EMP Stars With $T_{eff} < 6000$~K From the 0Z Project

2280: \label{table_sample}}

2281: \tablehead{

2282: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Coords.} & 

2283: \colhead{V\tablenotemark{a}} &  \colhead{I\tablenotemark{a}} &

2284: \colhead{E(B$-$V)\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{\teff} &

2285: \colhead{\grav} & \colhead{$v_t$}  \\

2286: \colhead{} & \colhead{(J2000)} &

2287: \colhead{(mag)} &   \colhead{(mag)} &

2288: \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2289: \colhead{(\kms)} }

2290: \startdata 

2291: HE0132$-$2429\tablenotemark{f} & 01 34 58.8  $-24$ 24 18 & 14.82 & \nodata &

2292:     0.012 & 5294 & 2.75 & 1.8 \\

2293: HE1012$-$1540 & 10 14 53.5  $-$15 55 54 & 14.04 & 13.21 & 0.070 &

2294:     5620 & 3.40  & 1.6   \\

2295: % [Fe/H] -3.43  April 2005

2296: HE1347$-$1025 &  13 50 22.4 $-$10 40 19 & 15.06 & 14.16 & 0.058 &

2297:     5195 & 2.50 &  1.8 \\

2298: % [Fe/H] -3.49  May 2004

2299: HE1356$-$0622 &  13 59 30.3  $-$06 36 35 &  14.31& 13 36  &0.030 &

2300:    4947 & 1.85 & 2.2 \\

2301: % [Fe/H] -3.47  May 2004 

2302: HE1424$-$0241 &  14 26 40.3  $-$02 54 28 &  15.47 & 14.54 &  0.064 &

2303:  5193 & 2.50 & 1.8 \\

2304: % [Fe/H] -3.95  April 2006

2305: HE2323$-$0256\tablenotemark{c} &  23 26 29.8  $-$02 39 58 &  14.41 & 13.40 & 0.051 &

2306:  4915 & 1.70 &  2.0 \\  

2307: % [Fe/H] -3.79   Oct 2004 

2308: From Other Surveys: \\

2309: HE1300+0157\tablenotemark{d}  & 13 02 56.3  +01 41 51 &  14.11 & 13.39 &  0.022 & 

2310:   5632  & 3.37 &  1.3 \\  

2311: %  (Andicam available but not yet reduced, teff log(g) from HERES)

2312: %  [Fe/H] -3.82  April 2006

2313: BS16467$-$062\tablenotemark{e}  &  13 42 00.6  +17 48 48 & 

2314:   14.09\tablenotemark{e} &   \nodata &  0.018 &

2315:   5364 & 2.95 & 1.6 \\

2316: % Star from Cayrel First stars sample

2317: \enddata

2318: \tablenotetext{a}{Our photometry from ANDICAM images.}

2319: \tablenotetext{b}{Based on the reddening map of \cite{schlegel98}. }

2320: \tablenotetext{c}{Rediscovery of CS22949$-$037 from the HK Survey.}

2321: \tablenotetext{d}{From HERES \citep{christlieb04b,barklem05}.}

2322: \tablenotetext{e}{Star from the HK Survey included in the First Stars \citep{cayrel04}

2323: sample, $V$ mag from this source.}

2324: \tablenotetext{f}{Star from the Keck Pilot Project, $V$ from

2325: \cite{cohen02}.}

2326: \end{deluxetable}

2327: 

2328: 

2329: \begin{deluxetable}{lllrr r}

2330: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2331: \tablenum{2}

2332: \tablewidth{0pt}

2333: \tablecaption{Details of the HIRES Observations

2334: \label{table_spectra}}

2335: \tablehead{

2336: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Exp.Time} & \colhead{Julian Date} &

2337: \colhead{SNR\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Slit Width} &

2338: \colhead{$v_r$\tablenotemark{b}} \\

2339: \colhead{} & \colhead{(sec)} &

2340: \colhead{($-$2453000.00)} &   \colhead{} & \colhead{('')} &

2341: \colhead{(\kms)} }

2342: \startdata 

2343: HE0132$-$2429 & 7200 & 289.89 & 95 &  0.86 & +289.2 \\

2344: % new spectra from Aug and Oct 2004, from Keck Pilot Project

2345: HE1012$-$1540 &  3600 & 489.77 &    109 &  0.86 &  +226.2 \\

2346: %  UTC-END = '06:27:41.95'  DATE-END= '2005-04-29

2347: %  [Fe/H]  -3.43  April 2005

2348: HE1300+0157  & 3600 & 843.87 &  $>$110  & 1.1 &  +73.4  \\

2349: % DATE_END= '2006-04-18 UTC-END = '08:46:29.91'

2350: %  (Andicam available but not yet reduced, teff log(g) from HERES)

2351: %  [Fe/H] -3.82  April 2006

2352: HE1347$-$1025  &  3600 & 149.80 & 80  & 1.1 & +48.6 \\

2353: % DATE-END  2004-05-24 UT-END 07:15:44.48 

2354: % [Fe/H] -3.49  May 2004

2355: HE1356$-$0622 &  3600 & 149.89 & 105 &   1.1 & +93.5 \\

2356: % DATE-END 2004-05-24 UT-END 09:26:48.08 

2357: % [Fe/H] -3.47  May 2004 

2358: HE1424$-$0241  &  6000 & 844.96 & 90  & 1.1 &    +60.4  \\

2359: % 2006-04-19 UTC-END = '11:09:26.37

2360: % [Fe/H] -3.95  April 2006

2361: HE2323$-$0256  &   7200 & 312.76 &  100  &  0.86 &   $-125.9$ \\ 

2362: % UD date 2004-11-03  UTC END  06:14:54.46

2363: % [Fe/H] -3.79   Oct 2004   

2364: BS16467$-$062 &   3600  & 490.02 &  100  & 0.86 &   $-91.7$ \\  

2365: %  2005-04-29  12:23:24.84 

2366: %  [Fe/H] -3.47   April 2005

2367: \enddata

2368: \tablenotetext{a}{SNR per spectral resolution element in the continuum at

2369: 4500\,{\AA}.}

2370: \tablenotetext{b}{Heliocentric $v_r$.}

2371: \end{deluxetable}

2372: 

2373: 

2374: 

2375: \clearpage

2376: 

2377: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}

2378: % \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2379: \tablenum{3}

2380: \tablewidth{0pt}

2381: \tablecaption{Radial Velocities for Stars with Multiple

2382: High Resolution Observations

2383: \label{table_vr}}

2384: \tablehead{

2385: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Julian Date\tablenotemark{a}} & 

2386:    \colhead{Julian Date\tablenotemark{a}} &

2387:    \colhead{Julian Date\tablenotemark{a}} &

2388:    \colhead{Julian Date\tablenotemark{a}} \\

2389: \colhead{} & \colhead{$v_r$(\kms)\tablenotemark{b}} 

2390:     & \colhead{$v_r$(\kms)\tablenotemark{b}}

2391:     & \colhead{$v_r$(\kms)\tablenotemark{b}}

2392:     & \colhead{$v_r$(\kms)\tablenotemark{b}} } 

2393: \startdata 

2394: HE0132$-$2429 & 1811.96 &  3243.00 & 3289.89 \\

2395: ~ & +296.0 (0.1) &  +289.5 (0.2) & +289.2 (0.1) \\

2396: HE1012$-$1540 &  2396.82 &  3489.77  \\

2397: ~  &   +226.3 (0.4) &  +224.8 (0.1) \\

2398: HE1300+0157 & 2830.50\tablenotemark{c} & 3157.74\tablenotemark{d} & 

2399:    3432.01\tablenotemark{d} &   3843.87   \\

2400: ~ & +73.6 (2.0) & 74.6 (0.6) & 74.6 (0.6) & +73.4 (0.1) \\

2401: % Barklem/HERES, 2 HDS spectra from Frebel et al, HIRES (April 18, 2006)

2402: HE1346$-$1025 & 3149.80 & 4198.92 \\

2403: ~  & +48.6 (0.5) & +49.4 (0.1) \\

2404: HE1356$-$0622 & 3149.89 & 3989.72 \\

2405: ~  & +93.5 (0.4) & +94.1 (0.2) \\

2406: HE1424$-$0241  &  3152.90 & 3844.96 \\

2407: ~   & +58.8 (0.6) &     +60.4 (0.1)  \\

2408: HE2323$-$0256  & 1764.73\tablenotemark{e} & 2158.73\tablenotemark{e} & 

2409:     2544.90  & 3312.76  \\

2410: ~ & $-$125.6 (0.1)\tablenotemark{e} & $-$125.6 (0.1)\tablenotemark{e} &

2411:      $-125.9$ (0.1) &  $-125.9$ (0.1) \\ 

2412: BS16467$-$062 & 2064.55\tablenotemark{e} & 2095.45\tablenotemark{e} & 

2413:      3490.02 \\

2414: ~  & $-$90.6 (0.1) &  $-$90.5 (0.1) &   $-91.7$ (0.1) \\  

2415: \enddata

2416: \tablenotetext{a}{Julian date  $-$ 2450000.00.}

2417: \tablenotetext{b}{Heliocentric $v_r$ and its 1$\sigma$ uncertainty.}

2418: \tablenotetext{c}{$v_r$ from HERES/UVES \citep{barklem05}.}

2419: \tablenotetext{d}{$v_r$ from Subaru/HDS spectra of \cite{frebel07}.}

2420: \tablenotetext{e}{$v_r$ provided by M.Spite \& R.Cayrel (from UVES spectra).}

2421: \end{deluxetable}

2422: 

2423: % Julian Date of the HERES/UVES spectrum of HE1300+0157 from the ESO archive

2424: % value in archive entry is MJD - 240000.5 days

2425: 

2426: % data from cayrel/spite, received Sep 28, 2006

2427: % CS22929-037

2428: % year-mo-dd     UT     Heliocentric Vr

2429: % 2001-09-06    5h36      -125.62

2430: % 2000-08-08    5h25      -125.68

2431: % 2000-08-09    5h34      -125.64

2432: % 2000-08-11    4h59      -125.60

2433: % 

2434: % BS16467-062

2435: % 2001-06-04    1h11       -90.58

2436: % 2001-07-04   22h54       -90.53

2437: 

2438: \clearpage 

2439: 

2440: 

2441: % edited version of eqw_table.out for testing Latex OK

2442: %

2443: % output of program eqw_table.f for all 8 EMP stars

2444: % 

2445: % run on Oct 11, 2006, updated Nov 19, 2006,

2446: %      Latex file created from eqw_table.out Nov 20, 2006

2447: %      test version is file eqw_table.tex

2448: %

2449: \begin{deluxetable}{l  crrr  rrrr  rrrr }

2450: \tablenum{4}

2451: % \tiny

2452: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2453: \rotate

2454: \tablewidth{0pt}

2455: \tablecaption{$W_{\lambda}$ for the Sample EMP Stars From the HES \label{table_eqw}}

2456: \tablehead{

2457: \colhead{$\lambda$} & \colhead{Species} & \colhead{EP} &

2458: \colhead{log($gf$)} &

2459: \colhead{HE0132$-$2429} & \colhead{HE1012$-$1540} &

2460: \colhead{HE1300+0157} & \colhead{HE1356$-$0622} &

2461: \colhead{HE1347$-$1025} & \colhead{HE1424$-$0241} & 

2462: \colhead{BS16467$-$062}  & \colhead{HE2323$-$0256}  \\

2463: \colhead{($\AA$)} & \colhead{} &

2464: \colhead{(eV)}    &   \colhead{}  & \colhead{(m$\AA$)} 

2465: }

2466: \startdata 

2467:  3189.30 & OH &   1.03 & $-$1.990 &    $\leq$21.2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2468:  3255.50 & OH &   1.30 & $-$1.940 &     $\leq$14.3 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 40.0  \\

2469:  5889.95 & Na~I  &   0.00 &   0.110 &    62.8 &   168.8 &    48.2 &   132.8 &  64.9 &    65.7 &    50.1 &   192.7  \\

2470:  5895.92 & Na~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.190 &    50.4 &   146.7 &    26.8 &   117.3 & 52.2 &    39.0 &    27.8 &   159.2  \\

2471:  3829.36 & Mg~I  &   2.71 & $-$0.210 &    93.3 &   259.0 &    84.2 & \nodata & \nodata &    79.0 &    81.8 &   139.7  \\

2472:  4057.52 & Mg~I  &   4.34 & $-$1.200 & \nodata &    22.0 & \nodata &     9.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    22.6  \\

2473:  4167.28 & Mg~I  &   4.34 & $-$1.000 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    10.5 & \nodata & \nodata &     6.8 &    28.7  \\

2474:  4703.00 & Mg~I  &   4.34 & $-$0.670 &     9.0 &    72.2 & \nodata &    24.4 &    16.0 & \nodata & \nodata &    47.5  \\

2475:  5172.70 & Mg~I  &   2.71 & $-$0.380 &   101.3 &   301.2 &    92.6 &   128.2 &   110.5 &    89.7 &    92.7 &   160.6  \\

2476:  5183.62 & Mg~I  &   2.72 & $-$0.160 &   114.3 &   391.5 &   103.7 &   142.2 &   120.8 &   104.7 &   105.2 &   179.9  \\

2477:  5528.40 & Mg~I  &   4.34 & $-$0.480 &    12.1 &    59.3 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    48.3  \\

2478:  3944.01 & Al~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.640 &    39.1 & \nodata & \nodata &    61.5 &    58.5 &    23.0 &    34.2 &   123.8  \\

2479:  3961.52 & Al~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.340 &    42.7 &   103.0 &    36.4 &    76.8 &    62.5 &    27.1 &    37.1 &    89.7  \\

2480:  3905.53 & Si~I  &   1.91 & $-$1.040 &   110.5 &   133.7 &    93.5 &   141.7 &   116.5 &    16.0 &    93.4 &   150.7  \\

2481:  4102.94 & Si~I  &   1.91 & $-$3.140 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    41.3 &     8.0 & \nodata & \nodata &    13.7  \\

2482:  4226.74 & Ca~I  &   0.00 &   0.240 &   105.7 & \nodata &    94.1 &   134.0 &   111.1 &    58.7 &    98.8 &   116.6  \\

2483:  4289.37 & Ca~I  &   1.88 & $-$0.300 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    16.9 &     9.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2484:  4302.54 & Ca~I  &   1.90 &   0.280 &    22.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    39.5 &    32.4 & \nodata &    12.0 & \nodata  \\

2485:  4318.66 & Ca~I  &   1.90 & $-$0.210 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    16.3 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2486:  4425.44 & Ca~I  &   1.88 & $-$0.360 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    14.0 &     9.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2487:  4435.69 & Ca~I  &   1.89 & $-$0.520 & \nodata &     7.3 & \nodata &    13.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2488:  4454.79 & Ca~I  &   1.90 &   0.260 &    17.4 &    21.3 &    15.9 &    36.2 &    26.7 & \nodata &    17.2 &    82.0  \\

2489:  3736.90 & Ca~II &   3.15 & $-$0.148 &    75.0 &    50.9 &    69.7 & \nodata & \nodata &    44.0 &    70.8 & \nodata  \\

2490:  4246.82 & Sc~II &   0.32 &   0.242 &    79.3 & \nodata &    30.9 &    87.6 &    43.3 &    20.5 &    43.3 &    63.8  \\

2491:  4314.08 & Sc~II &   0.62 & $-$0.100 &    43.1 & \nodata & \nodata &    49.5 &    20.0 & \nodata &    13.4 & \nodata  \\

2492:  4320.73 & Sc~II &   0.60 & $-$0.260 &    33.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    36.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    11.1 & \nodata  \\

2493:  4670.41 & Sc~II &   1.36 & $-$0.580 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     7.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2494:  3958.22 & Ti~I  &   0.05 & $-$0.160 &    15.3 & \nodata & \nodata &    18.9 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &  $<$13.5  \\

2495:  3998.64 & Ti~I  &   0.05 & $-$0.050 &    13.5 & \nodata & \nodata &    24.7 &  $<$25.0 & \nodata &     9.6 & \nodata  \\

2496:  4533.25 & Ti~I  &   0.85 &   0.480 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    14.0 &  $<$16.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2497:  4534.78 & Ti~I  &   0.84 &   0.280 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    11.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2498:  4981.74 & Ti~I  &   0.85 &   0.500 &    12.0 & \nodata & \nodata &    18.0 &  $<$12.0 & \nodata &     4.9 & \nodata  \\

2499:  4999.51 & Ti~I  &   0.83 &   0.250 &  \nodata &    $<$6.0 &  \nodata &  \nodata &   $<$10.0 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2500:  3900.54 & Ti~II &   1.13 & $-$0.450 &    52.2 &    13.6 &    27.9 &    76.5 &    54.1 &    14.0 &    41.6 &    61.1  \\

2501:  3987.61 & Ti~II &   0.61 & $-$2.730 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2502:  4012.39 & Ti~II &   0.57 & $-$1.610 &    24.4 & \nodata & \nodata &    46.8 &    23.7 &     8.5 &    20.3 &    31.4  \\

2503:  4028.35 & Ti~II &   1.89 & $-$0.870 &     5.3 & \nodata & \nodata &    14.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2504:  4300.05 & Ti~II &   1.18 & $-$0.490 &    42.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    67.2 &    46.6 &     7.5 &    30.9 & \nodata  \\

2505:  4301.93 & Ti~II &   1.16 & $-$1.200 &    17.9 & \nodata & \nodata &    37.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    10.3 & \nodata  \\

2506:  4312.86 & Ti~II &   1.18 & $-$1.160 &    23.4 & \nodata & \nodata &    41.0 &    23.7 & \nodata &     8.5 & \nodata  \\

2507:  4395.03 & Ti~II &   1.08 & $-$0.510 &    49.5 & \nodata &    24.4 &    76.4 &    56.7 &    12.0 &    39.5 &    60.6  \\

2508:  4399.77 & Ti~II &   1.24 & $-$1.290 &    19.9 & \nodata & \nodata &    31.6 &    17.5 & \nodata &    12.1 &    20.2  \\

2509:  4417.72 & Ti~II &   1.16 & $-$1.160 &    23.0 & \nodata & \nodata &    38.6 &    31.3 & \nodata &    12.1 &    25.4  \\

2510:  4443.81 & Ti~II &   1.08 & $-$0.700 &    44.0 &    11.8 &    20.3 &    69.8 &    51.1 & \nodata &    39.9 &    58.2  \\

2511:  4468.51 & Ti~II &   1.13 & $-$0.600 &    46.8 &    19.9 &    22.1 &    74.3 &    50.3 &    10.7 &    31.2 &    53.8  \\

2512:  4501.28 & Ti~II &   1.12 & $-$0.760 &    41.7 &    11.2 &    20.7 &    66.8 &    49.9 &    12.2 &    31.9 &    51.4  \\

2513:  4533.97 & Ti~II &   1.24 & $-$0.640 &    37.4 &    14.0 &    15.5 &    63.5 &    42.2 &     8.3 &    24.8 &    49.3  \\

2514:  4563.77 & Ti~II &   1.22 & $-$0.820 &    30.1 &    10.6 &    13.4 &    56.1 &    32.3 &     5.1 &    24.7 &    39.5  \\

2515:  4571.98 & Ti~II &   1.57 & $-$0.340 &    33.4 &    13.7 &    17.3 &    58.5 &    28.9 & \nodata &    19.7 &    42.8  \\

2516:  4589.95 & Ti~II &   1.24 & $-$1.650 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    15.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2517:  4111.77 & V~I   &   0.30 &   0.408 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata & 

2518:       $<$5.6 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2519:  3545.19 & V~II  &   1.10 & $-$0.390 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &  $<$10.9 &    11.6 &    11.8  \\

2520:  3592.03 & V~II  &   1.10 & $-$0.370 &    12.4 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     8.2 &    11.5  \\

2521:  4254.33 & Cr~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.110 &    31.5 & \nodata &    21.5 &    58.9 &    40.6 &    23.6 &    30.6 &    38.4  \\

2522:  4274.79 & Cr~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.230 &    29.2 & \nodata &    16.8 &    47.3 &    32.5 &    19.7 &    22.5 &    29.3  \\

2523:  4289.72 & Cr~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.361 &    22.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    42.3 &    26.5 &    13.4 &    20.0 &    31.8  \\

2524:  5206.04 & Cr~I  &   0.94 &   0.030 &    11.9 &     8.4 &     4.7 &    23.2 &    14.0 &     5.8 &     6.2 &     7.4  \\

2525:  5208.43 & Cr~I  &   0.94 &   0.158 &    14.3 &     8.5 &     7.6 & \nodata & \nodata &     7.7 &    12.8 &   18.2  \\

2526:  4030.75 & Mn~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.470 &    17.3 &    20.0 &    10.8 &    36.6 &    26.0 &    34.7 &    17.4 &    22.1  \\

2527:  4033.06 & Mn~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.620 &    12.3 &    15.0 &     8.5 &    30.0 &    18.0 &    26.3 &    14.4 &    17.9  \\

2528:  3441.99 & Mn~II &   1.78 & $-$0.273 &    28.0 &    10.0 &    16.2 & \nodata & \nodata &    48.4 &    32.0 & \nodata  \\

2529:  3460.32 & Mn~II &   1.81 & $-$0.540 &    23.5 & \nodata &    14.3 & \nodata & \nodata &    37.9 &    20.4 &    32.3  \\

2530:  3488.68 & Mn~II &   1.85 & $-$0.860 &    15.9 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    29.8 &    13.0 & \nodata  \\

2531:  3865.52 & Fe~I  &   1.01 & $-$0.980 &    63.8 &    46.5 &    48.8 &    88.1 &    74.2 &    50.2 &    66.2 &    72.8  \\

2532:  3886.29 & Fe~I  &   0.05 & $-$1.080 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    90.5 & \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2533:  3887.06 & Fe~I  &   0.91 & $-$1.140 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    40.5 & \nodata &  \nodata \\

2534:  3895.67 & Fe~I  &   0.11 & $-$1.670 &    79.4 & \nodata &    69.2 &   101.9 &    83.4 &    69.4 &    78.6 &    96.4  \\

2535:  3899.72 & Fe~I  &   0.09 & $-$1.530 &    83.7 &    70.2 &    72.9 &   115.0 &    92.1 &    73.5 &    84.6 &    95.8  \\

2536:  3902.96 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.470 &    55.9 &    48.0 &    45.9 &    80.6 &    70.8 &    41.4 &    56.1 &    59.7  \\

2537:  3906.49 & Fe~I  &   0.11 & $-$2.240 &    60.7 &    36.0 &    41.8 &    92.4 &    73.9 &    47.5 &    60.7 &    68.3  \\

2538:  3920.27 & Fe~I  &   0.12 & $-$1.750 &    83.5 &    59.9 &    66.4 &   106.4 &    82.9 &    70.2 & \nodata &    95.7  \\

2539:  3922.92 & Fe~I  &   0.05 & $-$1.650 &    90.5 &    58.1 &    74.1 &   113.3 &    95.4 &    79.4 &    85.6 &    98.4  \\

2540:  3930.31 & Fe~I  &   0.09 & $-$1.590 & \nodata &    75.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    75.7 & \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2541:  3949.96 & Fe~I  &   2.18 & $-$1.160 &     8.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    18.2 &     9.2 &     8.5 &     8.6 &    12.6  \\

2542:  4005.24 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.610 &    54.9 &    45.8 &    41.3 &    80.3 &    68.1 &    39.5 &    56.7 &    63.0  \\

2543:  4045.81 & Fe~I  &   1.49 &   0.280 &    90.0 &    94.1 &    79.5 &   121.5 &   106.7 &    78.1 &    89.4 &    99.3  \\

2544:  4063.59 & Fe~I  &   1.56 &   0.060 & \nodata &    69.1 & \nodata &   101.3 &    82.9 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2545:  4071.74 & Fe~I  &   1.61 & $-$0.020 & \nodata &    68.3 & \nodata &    99.6 &    83.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2546:  4118.55 & Fe~I  &   3.57 &   0.140 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    18.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2547:  4132.06 & Fe~I  &   1.61 & $-$0.820 &    49.0 &    37.6 &    36.0 &    81.7 &    68.2 &    40.5 &    48.7 &    62.3  \\

2548:  4143.87 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.620 &    57.8 &    42.6 &    47.7 &    84.9 &    66.8 &    49.6 &    60.2 &    65.9  \\

2549:  4147.67 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$2.100 &    13.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    19.0 &     8.0 & \nodata &     6.4 &     8.7  \\

2550:  4172.76 & Fe~I  &   0.96 & $-$3.070 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     7.1 & \nodata & \nodata &     6.0  \\

2551:  4181.75 & Fe~I  &   2.83 & $-$0.370 &    12.2 & \nodata &     7.3 &    21.5 &    17.1 & \nodata &    14.4 &    13.3  \\

2552:  4187.05 & Fe~I  &   2.45 & $-$0.550 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    35.4 &    19.1 &    16.1 &    14.4 &    19.2  \\

2553:  4187.81 & Fe~I  &   2.43 & $-$0.550 & \nodata & \nodata &    12.6 &    38.8 &    27.9 &    13.2 &    20.0 &    25.0  \\

2554:  4198.33 & Fe~I  &   2.40 & $-$0.720 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    33.4 &    20.0 & \nodata &    12.4 &    20.2  \\

2555:  4199.10 & Fe~I  &   3.05 &   0.160 &    14.0 & \nodata &    14.5 &    31.8 &    22.3 & \nodata &    16.3 &    25.3  \\

2556:  4202.04 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$0.710 &    59.1 & \nodata &    45.9 &    80.6 &    65.0 &    47.2 &    59.5 &    67.3  \\

2557:  4216.19 & Fe~I  &   0.00 & $-$3.360 &    18.2 & \nodata & \nodata &    41.2 &    19.9 &     8.2 &    20.1 &    23.5  \\

2558:  4222.22 & Fe~I  &   2.45 & $-$0.970 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     7.8 & \nodata  \\

2559:  4227.44 & Fe~I  &   3.33 &   0.270 &    15.1 & \nodata &    11.9 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    11.2 &    15.3  \\

2560:  4233.61 & Fe~I  &   2.48 & $-$0.600 &    17.7 & \nodata & \nodata &    32.4 &    22.0 & \nodata &    14.3 &    18.7  \\

2561:  4235.95 & Fe~I  &   2.43 & $-$0.340 &    26.4 & \nodata & \nodata &    44.2 &    32.2 &    11.6 &    39.4 & \nodata  \\

2562:  4250.13 & Fe~I  &   2.47 & $-$0.410 &    16.6 & \nodata &    15.9 &    44.6 &    25.2 & \nodata &    20.6 &    22.1  \\

2563:  4250.80 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.380 &    54.3 & \nodata &    39.5 &    76.0 &    53.3 &    39.4 &    49.4 &    64.0  \\

2564:  4260.49 & Fe~I  &   2.40 &   0.140 &    41.0 & \nodata &    29.0 &    64.9 &    48.3 &    28.2 &    41.6 &    44.4  \\

2565:  4271.16 & Fe~I  &   2.45 & $-$0.350 &    30.1 & \nodata &    15.0 &    41.5 &    29.3 &    11.8 &    18.1 &    26.5  \\

2566:  4271.77 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$0.160 &    74.9 & \nodata &    61.5 &    94.3 &    83.4 &    60.6 &    74.4 &    81.9  \\

2567:  4282.41 & Fe~I  &   2.18 & $-$0.780 &    19.9 & \nodata & \nodata &    38.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    20.0 &    19.5  \\

2568:  4294.14 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$0.970 &    51.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    83.1 &    57.4 & \nodata &    46.3 &    66.1  \\

2569:  4299.25 & Fe~I  &   2.43 & $-$0.350 &    25.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    47.8 &    47.3 &    15.0 &    20.4 & \nodata  \\

2570:  4307.91 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.070 &    85.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    97.6 &    68.9 &    84.2 & \nodata  \\

2571:  4325.77 & Fe~I  &   1.61 &   0.010 &    76.0 & \nodata & \nodata &   102.6 &    80.2 &    60.8 &    72.8 & \nodata  \\

2572:  4337.05 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$1.690 &    21.5 & \nodata & \nodata &    41.9 & \nodata & \nodata &    25.5 &    28.3  \\

2573:  4375.94 & Fe~I  &   0.00 & $-3$.030 &    32.1 & \nodata &    17.4 &    67.7 &    34.6 &    19.7 &    30.8 &    36.9  \\

2574:  4383.56 & Fe~I  &   1.49 &   0.200 &    96.7 & \nodata &    79.2 &   126.2 &    99.0 &    78.9 &    86.1 &    96.9  \\

2575:  4404.76 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$0.140 &    75.1 &    64.3 &    66.0 &   100.9 &    86.2 &    62.5 &    72.9 &    83.4  \\

2576:  4415.13 & Fe~I  &   1.61 & $-$0.610 &    51.9 &    43.9 &    45.3 &    81.1 &    65.3 &    46.5 &    58.5 &    62.0  \\

2577:  4427.32 & Fe~I  &   0.05 & $-$3.040 &    33.6 & \nodata &    15.9 &    59.6 &    39.7 & \nodata &    30.5 &    40.0  \\

2578:  4442.35 & Fe~I  &   2.20 & $-$1.250 &     9.0 & \nodata &     7.2 &    24.0 & \nodata &     6.6 &     8.5 &    16.2  \\

2579:  4447.73 & Fe~I  &   2.22 & $-$1.340 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    13.7 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     9.1  \\

2580:  4459.14 & Fe~I  &   2.18 & $-$1.280 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.2 &     8.8  \\

2581:  4461.66 & Fe~I  &   0.09 & $-$3.210 &    22.1 &    17.5 &    16.4 &    52.1 &    30.6 &    10.2 &    26.6 &    29.0  \\

2582:  4489.75 & Fe~I  &   0.12 & $-$3.970 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    12.6 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.0  \\

2583:  4494.57 & Fe~I  &   2.20 & $-$1.140 &    19.6 & \nodata &     9.7 &    23.4 &    16.8 &     8.9 &    10.9 &    17.8  \\

2584:  4531.16 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$2.150 &     6.2 & \nodata & \nodata &    17.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.0  \\

2585:  4592.66 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$2.450 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     9.1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.0  \\

2586:  4602.95 & Fe~I  &   1.49 & $-$2.220 &     7.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    16.2 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     5.0  \\

2587:  4871.33 & Fe~I  &   2.86 & $-$0.360 &    11.9 &    10.6 & \nodata &    24.9 &     9.8 & \nodata &    18.7 &    18.0  \\

2588:  4872.14 & Fe~I  &   2.88 & $-$0.570 &     6.7 &     8.0 & \nodata &    18.0 & \nodata & \nodata &     4.6 &    11.2  \\

2589:  4891.50 & Fe~I  &   2.85 & $-$0.110 &    19.0 &    21.5 &    17.5 &    35.3 & \nodata & \nodata &    23.4 &    23.9  \\

2590:  4919.00 & Fe~I  &   2.86 & $-$0.340 & \nodata &    10.0 & \nodata &    22.5 &    14.0 & \nodata &     8.5 &    10.1  \\

2591:  4920.51 & Fe~I  &   2.83 &   0.150 &    17.4 &    16.5 &    13.1 &    36.2 &    26.0 &     9.9 &    19.9 &    22.3  \\

2592:  4957.61 & Fe~I  &   2.81 &   0.230 &    34.3 &    31.7 &    26.0 &    56.1 &    37.5 &    22.0 & \nodata &    37.7  \\

2593:  5083.34 & Fe~I  &   0.96 & $-$2.960 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    17.6 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2594:  5166.28 & Fe~I  &   0.00 & $-$4.200 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    11.5 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2595:  5171.61 & Fe~I  &   1.48 & $-$1.790 &    19.2 &    17.9 &    13.2 &    38.2 &    27.4 & \nodata &    13.0 & \nodata  \\

2596:  5192.35 & Fe~I  &   3.00 & $-$0.420 &     6.1 & \nodata & \nodata &    14.4 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2597:  5194.95 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$2.090 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    18.0 & \nodata & \nodata &     7.8 & \nodata  \\

2598:  5216.28 & Fe~I  &   1.61 & $-$2.150 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    12.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     6.5  \\

2599:  5227.19 & Fe~I  &   1.56 & $-$1.350 &    36.4 &    21.8 &    24.8 &    62.8 &    45.9 & \nodata &    34.6 &    46.6  \\

2600:  5232.95 & Fe~I  &   2.94 & $-$0.100 &    15.5 &    15.0 & \nodata &    30.4 & \nodata &     5.6 &    16.4 &    17.9  \\

2601:  5269.55 & Fe~I  &   0.86 & $-$1.320 &    75.8 &    55.8 &    55.7 &   103.1 &    97.3 &    61.8 &    76.6 &    85.6  \\

2602:  5324.19 & Fe~I  &   3.21 & $-$0.100 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    14.6 & \nodata & \nodata &     6.8 & \nodata  \\

2603:  5405.79 & Fe~I  &   0.99 & $-$1.840 &    39.3 &    25.5 &    25.7 & \nodata & \nodata &    27.5 &    38.8 &    46.3  \\

2604:  5434.53 & Fe~I  &   1.01 & $-$2.130 &    19.7 &     7.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    21.7 &    23.6  \\

2605:  5506.79 & Fe~I  &   0.99 & $-$2.790 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     6.8 & \nodata  \\

2606:  3255.90 & Fe~II &   0.99 & $-$2.498 &    49.6 &    36.4 &    33.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    50.4 &    54.2 &   71.2  \\

2607:  3277.36 & Fe~II &   0.99 & $-$2.191 &    52.3 &    52.1 &    46.6 & \nodata & \nodata &    53.4 &    58.6 &   74.5  \\

2608:  3281.30 & Fe~II &   1.04 & $-$2.678 &    41.0 &    28.7 &    24.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    34.6 &    45.0 & \nodata  \\

2609:  4178.86 & Fe~II &   2.57 & $-$2.530 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    16.6 &    10.2 & \nodata &     5.1 & \nodata  \\

2610:  4233.17 & Fe~II &   2.57 & $-$2.000 &    13.9 & \nodata &     9.0 &    40.5 & \nodata &    12.0 &    17.8 &    22.7  \\

2611:  4416.82 & Fe~II &   2.77 & $-$2.430 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    10.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     4.1  \\

2612:  4508.30 & Fe~II &   2.84 & $-$2.280 &     5.2 & \nodata & \nodata &    10.8 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     6.8  \\

2613:  4555.89 & Fe~II &   2.82 & $-$2.170 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    14.4 &    16.8 & \nodata & \nodata &     6.8  \\

2614:  4583.84 & Fe~II &   2.81 & $-$2.020 &    10.5 & \nodata & \nodata &    30.5 &    15.0 & \nodata &     8.6 &    17.4  \\

2615:  4923.93 & Fe~II &   2.88 & $-$1.320 &    17.5 &     5.2 &    12.6 &    45.8 & \nodata & \nodata &    17.7 &    25.2  \\

2616:  5018.45 & Fe~II &   2.89 & $-$1.220 &    26.6 &     7.8 &    16.5 &    58.6 &    36.6 &    12.6 &    24.6 &    35.1  \\

2617:  3842.05 & Co~I  &   0.92 & $-$0.763 &     9.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    18.0 & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2618:  3845.46 & Co~I  &   0.92 &   0.009 &    19.9 &    10.3 &    16.5 &    36.8 &    33.4 &    28.0 &    25.6 &    26.8  \\

2619:  3873.11 & Co~I  &   0.43 & $-$0.666 &    29.7 & \nodata &     9.6 &    41.7 &    40.0 &    34.8 &    43.9 &    38.8  \\

2620:  4121.31 & Co~I  &   0.92 & $-$0.315 &    19.8 & \nodata &     9.9 &    25.0 &    18.2 &    26.0 &    25.3 &    23.1  \\

2621:  3807.15 & Ni~I  &   0.42 & $-$1.180 &    41.4 &    16.5 &    29.0 &    58.9 &    45.3 &    42.7 &    49.0 &    41.4  \\

2622:  3858.30 & Ni~I  &   0.42 & $-$0.967 &    56.6 &    29.8 &    41.7 &    79.2 &    56.5 &    53.0 &    60.8 &    55.5  \\

2623:  4401.55 & Ni~I  &   3.19 &   0.084 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &     7.0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2624:  3247.53 & Cu~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.060 &    26.0 & \nodata &    22.6 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &    30.8 & 

2625:      \nodata\tablenotemark{a}  \\

2626:  3273.95 & Cu~I  &   0.00 & $-$0.360 &    18.4 & 13.0 &    14.4 & \nodata & \nodata &    13.9 &    20.0 &    25.5  \\

2627:  4810.54 & Zn~I  &   4.08 & $-$0.170 &   $<$4.5 & \nodata & \nodata &   $<$5.0 &   $<$6.0 &

2628:       \nodata &   $<$5.0 & \nodata  \\

2629:  4077.71 & Sr~II &   0.00 &   0.170 &    82.9 &    44.4 & \nodata &    27.6 &    37.2 &   $<$5.0 &

2630:       \nodata &   106.1  \\

2631:  4215.52 & Sr~II &   0.00 & $-$0.140 &    75.6 & \nodata &     4.8 &    13.3 &    34.2 &   $<$5.0 &     5.2 &    96.1  \\

2632:  4554.04 & Ba~II &   0.00 &   0.170 &     8.4 &    13.7 &   $<$5.5 &    22.2 &    21.5 &     4.5 &  

2633:       $<$4.3 &    19.7  \\

2634:  4934.16 & Ba~II &   0.00 & $-$0.150 &     5.2 &     8.3 &   $<$5.5 &     7.0 &    12.6 & \nodata &  

2635:       $<$5.0 &    21.7  \\

2636:  5853.70 & Ba~II &   0.60 & $-$1.010 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &   $<$2.0 & \nodata  \\

2637:  3774.33 & Y~II  &   0.13 &   0.220 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata & 

2638:        $<$10.0 &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2639:  3950.36 & Y~II  &   0.10 & $-$0.490 &   $<$6.9 & \nodata & \nodata &   $<$9.0 & \nodata & 

2640:        $<$4.5 & \nodata & \nodata  \\

2641:  3819.67 & Eu~II &   0.00 &   0.510 &    $<$8.0 &  \nodata &  \nodata &    $<$7.5 &  \nodata & 

2642:       \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2643:  3971.96 & Eu~II &   0.21 &   0.270 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &   $<$4.5 & 

2644:      \nodata & \nodata  \\

2645:  4129.70 & Eu~II &   0.00 &   0.220 &    $<$8.0 &    $<$8.0 &  \nodata &    $<$9.0 &   $<$15.0 &  \nodata

2646:       &  \nodata &    $<$5.0  \\ 

2647:  3407.80 & Dy~II &   0.00 &   0.180 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  

2648:       $<$16.1 &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2649:  3531.71 & Dy~II &   0.00 &   0.770 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata &  

2650:        $<$8.8 &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2651:  4057.81 & Pb~I  &   1.32 &  $-$0.220 &  \nodata &    $<$8.0 &  \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata & 

2652:        \nodata &  \nodata &  \nodata  \\

2653: %

2654: % Warning - had to edit beginning 3774 YII for lines with only upper limits, none less than 5 mA, see

2655: % note at head of program eqw_table.f, also 4999.51 TiI, 4111 VI had to be edited in

2656: %

2657: %   file eqw_table.tex contains version of eqw table from Nov 20, 2006

2658: %

2659: \enddata

2660: \tablenotetext{a}{Too blended to use.}

2661: \end{deluxetable}

2662: 

2663: 

2664: \clearpage

2665: 

2666:   

2667: \begin{deluxetable}{l rrr}

2668: \tablenum{5}

2669: \tablewidth{0pt}

2670: \small

2671: \tablecaption{Fit Fe~I Slopes With EP, Equivalent Width, and Wavelength 

2672: \label{table_slopes}}

2673: \tablehead{\colhead{Star ID} &

2674: \colhead{$\Delta$[X/Fe]/$\Delta$(EP)\tablenotemark{a}} &

2675: \colhead{$\Delta$[X/Fe]/${\Delta}[W_{\lambda}/\lambda]$} &

2676: \colhead{$\Delta$[X/Fe]/${\Delta}\lambda$} \\ 

2677: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex/eV)} & \colhead{(dex)} & 

2678: \colhead{($10^{-4}$dex/$\AA$)}

2679: }

2680: \startdata

2681: C-normal \\

2682: HE0132$-$2429 & $-0.068$ & $-0.074$ & +0.09 \\

2683: % corr coefs -0.3, -0.16, 0.02

2684: HE1347$-$1025 & $-0.044$ & $-$0.007 & +0.32 \\

2685: % corr coefs -0.29, 0.02, 0.05 \\

2686: HE1356$-$0622 & $-0.053$ & $-0.136$ & +0.33 \\

2687: % corr coefs  -0.36, -0.32, 0.11

2688: HE1424$-0241$ &  $-0.041$  & $-0.079$ & $-0.32$ \\

2689: % corr coefs  -0.39, -0.01, -0.15

2690: BS16467$-$062 & $-0.091$ &  +0.076 & $-0.05$ \\

2691: % corr coefs -0.64, 0.26, -0.03

2692: C-rich \\

2693: HE1012$-$1540 & +0.014 & $-0.091$ & +0.71 \\

2694: % corr coefs  0.21, -0.29, 0.31

2695: HE1300+0157 & $-0.098$ & +0.022 & +0.11 \\

2696: % corr coefs -0.37, -0.22, 0.14

2697: HE2323$-$0256 & $-0.036$ & +0.005 & $-0.67$ \\

2698: % corr coefs -0.35, 0.07, -0.20

2699: \enddata

2700: \tablenotetext{a}{Typical range of EP is 3 eV.  Often only the 0~eV lines

2701: are discrepant.}

2702: \end{deluxetable}

2703: 

2704: \clearpage

2705: 

2706: \thispagestyle{empty}

2707: 

2708: % HE0132$-$2429    

2709: % HE1347$-$1025    

2710: % HE1356$-$0622    

2711: % HE1424$-$0241    

2712: % BS16467$-$062     

2713: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_oct2004/abundances/he0132$-$2429.abund.try1        

2714: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_may2004/abundances/he1347$-$1025.abund.try1

2715: %    this must be try 2, not try1 FOR HE1347-1025        

2716: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_may2004/abundances/he1356$-$0622.abund.try3        

2717: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2006/abundances/he1424$-$0241.abund.try1      

2718: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2005/abundances/bs16467$-$062.me.try1       

2719: \begin{deluxetable}{l | rrrr | rrrr | rrrr | rrrr|  rrrr}

2720: \tablenum{6}

2721: % \tiny

2722: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2723: \rotate

2724: \tablewidth{0pt}

2725: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.1cm}

2726: \tablecaption{Abundances for the Five C-Normal EMP Stars From the HES \label{table_abunda}}

2727: \tablehead{\colhead{Species} & 

2728: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{HE0132$-$2429~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.55} &

2729: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{HE1347$-$1025~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.48} &

2730: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{HE1356$-$0622~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.49} &

2731: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{HE1424$-$0241~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.96} & 

2732: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{BS16467$-$062~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.47}  \\

2733: \colhead{} & 

2734: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &  

2735: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2736: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2737: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2738: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} \\

2739: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2740: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2741: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2742: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2743: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} 

2744: }

2745: \startdata 

2746: C(CH)  &   0.62 &   5.66   &    1 & \nodata   &   0.15 &   5.26   &    1 & \nodata   &  $\leq -$0.05 &   $\leq$5.06 & 1 & \nodata 

2747:   &   $\leq$0.63 &   $\leq$5.26 &    1 & \nodata   &   0.48 &   5.60   &    1 & \nodata   \\

2748: N(NH)  &   1.07 &   5.45   &    1 & \nodata   &\nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & 

2749:   $\leq$1.13 &   $\leq$5.10 &    1 & \nodata   &   $\leq$0.54 &   $\leq$5.00 &    1 & \nodata   \\

2750: O(OH)  &   $\leq$1.67 &   $\leq$6.95 &    2 &    0.20   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata

2751:    & \nodata   & \nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &   $\leq$1.79 &  $\leq$ 7.15 &    2 &    0.20   \\

2752: Na~I  &  $-$0.31 &   2.46   &    2 &    0.09   & $-$0.42 & 2.42 & 2 & 0.08   &   0.31 &   3.15   &    2 &    0.03   & 

2753:   $-0.04$ &   2.32   &    2 &    0.07   &  $-$0.60 &   2.25   &    2 &    0.07   \\

2754: % -0.20 dex non-LTE correction is included for all  

2755: Mg~I  &   0.40 &   4.39   &    5 &    0.15   &   0.49 &   4.55   &    3 &    0.22   &   0.67 &   4.72   &  5 &    0.32   &   0.45 & 

2756:   4.03   &    3 &    0.12   &   0.31 &   4.37   &    4 &    0.33   \\

2757: Al~I  &  $-$0.19 &   2.74   &    2 &    0.17   &  $-$0.02 &   2.97   &    2 &    0.17   &  $-$0.13 &   2.86   &    2 &    0.05   & 

2758:  $-$0.16 &   2.35   &    2 &    0.15   &  $-$0.28 &   2.72   &    2 &    0.18   \\

2759: Si~I  &   0.57 &   4.57   &    1 & \nodata   &   0.41 &   4.48   &    2 & 0.23   &   0.81 &   4.88   &    2 &    0.16 

2760:   &  $-$1.00 &   2.59   &    1 & \nodata   &   0.27 &   4.35   &    1 & \nodata   \\

2761: Ca~I  &   0.27 &   3.08   &    3 &    0.15   &   0.36 &   3.24   &    5 &    0.18   &   0.43 &   3.31   &    7 &    0.17  

2762:  &  $-$0.56 &   1.84   &    1 & \nodata   &   0.12 &   3.00   &    3 &    0.12   \\

2763: Ca~II &   0.00 &   2.81   &    1 & \nodata   & \nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata  

2764:  &  $-$0.30 &   2.10   &    1 & \nodata   &  $-0.02$ &   2.87   &    1 & \nodata   \\

2765: Sc~II &   0.75 &   0.31   &    3 &    0.05   &  0.00 &  $-$0.38   &    2 &    0.12   &   0.32 &  $-$0.06   &    4 &    0.17 

2766:   &  $-$0.08 &  $-$0.94   &    1 & \nodata   &   0.16 &  $-$0.22   &    3 &    0.03   \\

2767: Ti~I  &   0.61 &   2.05   &    3 &    0.10   &   $\leq$0.62 &   $\leq$2.13 &    4 &    0.09   &   0.40 &   1.91   &  5 &    0.06 

2768:   & \nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &   0.28 &   1.80   &    2 &    0.09   \\

2769: Ti~II &   0.39 &   1.84   &   15 &    0.10   &   0.26 &   1.77   &   13 &    0.11   &   0.26 &   1.76   &   17 &    0.07   & 

2770:  $-$0.17 &   0.85   &    8 &    0.17   &   0.20 &   1.72   &   14 &    0.12   \\

2771: V~I   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &   $\leq$0.69 &   $\leq$1.21 &    1 & \nodata   &\nodata & \nodata   & 

2772:  \nodata & \nodata   &\nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   \\

2773: V~II  &   0.36 &   0.81   &    1 & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &

2774:  \nodata   &  $\leq$ 0.60 &   $\leq$0.64 &    1 & \nodata   &   0.28 &   0.81   &    2 &    0.14   \\

2775: Cr~I  &  $-$0.43 &   1.69   &    5 &    0.12   &  $-$0.52 &   1.67   &    4 &    0.11   &  $-$0.52 &   1.66   &    4 &    0.13

2776:    &  $-$0.38 &   1.33   &    5 &    0.09   &  $-$0.54 &   1.65   &    5 &    0.10   \\

2777: Mn~I\tablenotemark{b}  &  $-$0.90 &   0.94   &    2 &    0.02   &  $-$0.88 &   1.03   &    2 &    0.04   &  $-$0.98 &   0.92   &    2 &    0.02 

2778:   &  $-$0.10 &   1.33   &    2 &    0.02   &  $-$0.85 &   1.06   &    2 &    0.04   \\

2779: Mn~II &  $-$0.48 &   1.37   &    3 &    0.16   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & 

2780:   \nodata   &   0.19 &   1.62   &    3 &    0.13   &  $-$0.48 &   1.44   &    3 &    0.07   \\

2781: Fe~I  & $-3.55$\tablenotemark{a} &   3.90   &   53 &    0.18   & $-3.48$ & 3.97   &   50 &    0.22   & $-3.49$ &   3.96   &   63 &    0.16   & 

2782:    $-3.96$ &   3.49   &   39 &    0.18   & $-3.47$ &   3.98   &   57 &    0.19   \\

2783: Fe~II &  $-$0.05 &   3.85   &    8 &    0.18   &   0.20 &   4.17   &    4 &    0.19   &   0.13 &   4.10   &    8 &    0.13   & 

2784:   0.09 &   3.58   &    5 &    0.19   &   0.04 &   4.01   &    8 &    0.16   \\

2785: Co~I  &   0.55 &   1.92   &    4 &    0.18   &   0.48 &   1.92   &    3 &    0.19   &   0.24 &   1.67   &    3 &    0.11   &  

2786:  1.03 &   1.98   &    4 &    0.21   &   0.68 &   2.12   &    3 &    0.28   \\

2787: Ni~I  &  $-$0.04 &   2.67   &    2 &    0.06   &  $-$0.19 &   2.58   &    1 & \nodata   &  $-$0.04 &   2.72   &    3 &    0.33 

2788:   &   0.24 &   2.52   &    2 &    0.01   &   0.15 &   2.93   &    2 &    0.04   \\

2789: Cu~I &  $-$0.85 &  $-$0.18   &    2 &    0.06   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & 

2790: \nodata   &  $-$0.66 &  $-$0.41   &    1 & \nodata   &  $-$0.75 &  $-$0.01   &    2 &    0.01   \\

2791: Zn~I  &   $\leq$0.84 &   $\leq$1.89 &    1 & \nodata   &   $\leq$0.94 &   $\leq$2.06 &    2 &    0.17   & 

2792:   $\leq$0.55 &   $\leq$1.66 &    1 & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & 

2793:     $\leq$0.96 &   $\leq$2.09 &    2 &    0.12   \\

2794: Sr~II &   0.05 &  $-$0.60   &    2 &    0.06   &  $-$1.13 &  $-$1.71   &    2 &    0.16   &  $-$1.88 &  $-$2.47   &    2 &    0.08 

2795:   &  $\leq -$1.69 &  $\leq -$2.75 &    2 &    0.21   &  $-$1.75 &  $-$2.32   &    1 & \nodata   \\

2796: Y~II  &   $\leq$0.33 &  $\leq -$0.98 &    1 & \nodata   &\nodata &\nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &  

2797:    $\leq -$0.13 &  $\leq -$1.38 &    1 & \nodata   &   $\leq$0.26 &  $\leq -$1.46 &    2 &    0.19  

2798:     & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   \\

2799: Ba~II &  $-$0.85 &  $-$2.27   &    2 &    0.04   &  $-$0.62 &  $-$1.96   &    2 &    0.01   &  $-$1.19 &  $-$2.54   &    2 &    0.21 

2800:   &  $-$0.91 &  $-$2.74   &    1 & \nodata   &  $\leq -$0.56 &  $\leq -$1.91 &    3 &    0.72   \\

2801: Eu~II &   $\leq$1.18 &  $\leq -$1.86 &    2 &    0.18   &   $\leq$1.39 &  $\leq -$1.58 &    1 & \nodata   &  

2802:     $\leq$0.56 &  $\leq -$2.41 &    3 &    0.18   &   $\leq$1.50 &  $\leq -$1.95 &    1 & \nodata   &

2803:     \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   \\

2804: Dy~II & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &

2805:    \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   &   $\leq$1.56 &  $\leq -$1.30 &    2 &  \nodata   & 

2806:    \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata & \nodata   \\

2807: \enddata

2808: \tablenotetext{a}{[Fe~I/H] is given instead of [X/Fe].}

2809: \tablenotetext{b}{A correction of +0.3~dex to [Mn/Fe] as derived from lines of the

2810: 4030~\AA\ Mn~I triplet is required, but not put in here.  See \S\ref{section_analysis}.}

2811: \end{deluxetable}

2812: 

2813: \clearpage

2814: 

2815: 

2816: % HE1012$-$1540 

2817: % HE1300+0157    

2818: % HE2323-0256    

2819: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2005/abundances/he1012-1540.abund.try1      

2820: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2006/abundances/he1300+0157.abund.try1      

2821: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_oct2004/abundances/he2323-0256sum.abund.try1

2822: \begin{deluxetable}{l | rrrr | rrrr | rrrr}

2823: \tablenum{7}

2824: % \tiny

2825: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2826: % \rotate

2827: \tablewidth{0pt}

2828: \tablecaption{Abundances for the Three C-Rich EMP Stars From the HES \label{table_abundb}}

2829: \tablehead{\colhead{Species} & 

2830: \colhead{} & \multispan{3}{HE1012$-$1540~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.43} &

2831: \colhead{} &\multispan{3}{HE1300+0157~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.39} &

2832: \colhead{} &\multispan{3}{HE2323$-$0256~~~[Fe/H] $-$3.79} \\

2833: \colhead{} & 

2834: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &  

2835: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2836: \colhead{[X/Fe]} & \colhead{log$\epsilon(X)$} & \colhead{No.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} \\

2837: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2838: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} &

2839: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{Lines} & \colhead{(dex)} 

2840: }

2841: \startdata   

2842: % HE1012-1540    

2843: % HE1300+0157    

2844: % HE2323-0256    

2845: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2005/abundances/he1012-1540.abund.try1      

2846: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_april2006/abundances/he1300+0157.abund.try1      

2847: % /scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_oct2004/abundances/he2323-0256sum.abund.try1 

2848: % April 11, 2007

2849: C(CH) &   2.22 &   7.38   &    1 &  \nodata   &   1.23 &   6.43   &    1 &  \nodata   &

2850:          0.97 &   5.77   &    1 &  \nodata   \\

2851: N(NH) &   1.25 &   5.75   &    1 &  \nodata   &   $<$0.71 &   $<$5.25 &    1 &  \nodata   & 

2852:    2.16 &   6.30   &    2 &    0.30    \\

2853: O(OH) &   2.25 &   7.65   &    2 &    0.25   &   1.69 &   7.13   &    2 &    0.18   &  

2854:    1.96 &   7.20   &    1 &  \nodata     \\

2855: Na~I  &   1.21 &   4.11   &    2 &    0.07   &  $-$0.49 &   2.44   &    2 &    0.07   & 

2856:     1.45 &  3.98   &    2 &    0.11     \\

2857: % values from abundance files, to these we apply -0.20 dex non-LTE correction     

2858: Mg~I  &   1.88 &   5.99   &    6 &    0.44   &   0.32 &   4.47   &    3 &    0.10   & 

2859:   1.47 &   5.22   &    7 &    0.25       \\

2860: Al~I  &   0.93 &   3.97   &    1 &  \nodata   &  $-$0.24 &   2.83   &    1 &  \nodata   &  

2861:  0.48 &   3.16   &    1 &  \nodata   \\

2862: Si~I  &   1.07 &   5.20   &    1 &  \nodata   &   0.49 &   4.64   &    1 &  \nodata   &  

2863:  0.56 &   4.32   &    1 &  \nodata    \\

2864: Ca~I  &   0.57 &   3.50   &    2 &    0.16   &   0.26 &   3.23   &    2 &    0.13   & 

2865:     0.31 &   2.88   &    2 &    0.11      \\

2866: Ca~II &  $-$0.34 &   2.59   &    1 &  \nodata   &   0.10 &   3.07   &    1 &  \nodata   & 

2867:   0.08 &   2.65   &    1 &  \nodata       \\

2868: Sc~II & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   &   0.17 &  $-$0.12   &    1 &  \nodata   &  

2869:    0.12 &  $-$0.56   &    1 &  \nodata     \\

2870: Ti~I  &   $<$0.75 &   $<$2.31 &    1 &  \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   &  

2871:    $<$0.46 &  $<$1.66 &    1 &  \nodata    \\

2872: Ti~II &  $-$0.03 &   1.53   &    7 &    0.12   &   0.12 &   1.72   &    8 &    0.06   & 

2873:    0.27 &   1.47   &   11 &    0.06     \\

2874: V~II  & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   &  

2875:    0.09 &   0.30   &    2 &    0.03    \\

2876: Cr~I  &  $-$0.33 &   1.91   &    2 &    0.09   &  $-$0.53 &   1.74   &    4 &    0.07   & 

2877:    $-$0.54 &   1.34   &    5 &    0.15    \\

2878: Mn~I\tablenotemark{a}  &  $-$0.55 &   1.41   &    2 &    0.01   &  $-$0.86 &   1.13   &    2 &    0.02   & 

2879:   $-$0.97 &   0.63   &    2 &    0.03      \\

2880: Mn~II &  $-$1.00 &   0.96   &    1 &  \nodata   &  $-$0.66 &   1.33   &    2 &    0.16 

2881:    &  $-$0.43 &   1.17   &    2 &    0.01    \\

2882: Fe~I &  $-3.43$\tablenotemark{b}  &   4.02   &   28 &    0.17   &     

2883:     $-3.39$\tablenotemark{b}   &  4.06 & 36 &    0.19   &  

2884:     $-3.79$\tablenotemark{b}  &   3.66   &   57 &    0.16     \\

2885: Fe~II &  $-$0.28 &   3.75   &    5 &    0.35   &  $-$0.16 &   3.90   &    6 &    0.11   &  

2886:  0.06 &   3.72   &    9 &    0.18     \\

2887: Co~I  &   0.19 &   1.68   &    1 &  \nodata   &   0.39 &   1.92   &    3 &    0.08   & 

2888:   0.42 &   1.55   &    3 &    0.18    \\

2889: Ni~I  &  $-$0.32 &   2.50   &    2 &    0.09   &  $-$0.02 &   2.83   &    2 &    0.06   & 

2890:   $-$0.26 &   2.20   &    2 &    0.04      \\

2891: Cu~I &  $-$0.63 &   0.15   &    1 &  \nodata   &  $-$0.68 &   0.13   &    2 &    0.02   & 

2892:    $-$0.78 &  $-$0.36   &    1 &  \nodata     \\

2893: Sr~II &  $-$0.54 &  $-$1.07   &    1 &  \nodata   &  $-$1.55 &  $-$2.05   &    1 &  \nodata   & 

2894:     0.18 &  $-$0.71   &    2 &    0.02   \\

2895: Ba~II &  $-$0.29 &  $-$1.58   &    2 &    0.02   &  $< -$0.63 &  $< -$1.89 &    2 &    0.20   & 

2896:    $-$0.66 &  $-$2.32   &    2 &    0.23     \\

2897: Eu~II &  $<$1.62 &  $< -1.30$ &    1 &  \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   &  

2898:    $<$0.73 &  $< -$2.55 &    1 &  \nodata    \\

2899: Pb~I  &   $<$2.93 &   $<$1.46 &    1 &  \nodata   & \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   &

2900:    \nodata & \nodata   &  \nodata &  \nodata   \\

2901: \enddata

2902: \tablenotetext{a}{A correction of +0.3~dex to [Mn/Fe] as derived from lines of the

2903: 4030~\AA\ Mn~I triplet is required, but not put in here.  See \S\ref{section_analysis}.}

2904: \tablenotetext{b}{[Fe~I/H] is given instead of [X/Fe].}

2905: \end{deluxetable}

2906: 

2907: 

2908: 

2909: \clearpage

2910: 

2911: \begin{deluxetable}{l rrrrr}

2912: \tablenum{8}

2913: \tablewidth{0pt}

2914: \tablecaption{Abundance Range for Five C-normal EMP Stars From the HES \label{table_range_a}}

2915: \tablehead{\colhead{Species [X/Fe]} & 

2916: \colhead{Nu. stars} & \colhead{Mean [X/Fe]} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2917: \colhead{Min.} & \colhead{Max.} \\

2918: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)}

2919:  & \colhead{(dex)} }

2920: \startdata     

2921: ${\rm{[C(CH)/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{a} & 3 & 0.39 & 0.29 & 0.07 & 0.62 \\

2922: ${\rm{[N(NH)/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{b} & ~~ \\

2923: ${\rm{[O(OH)/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{c} & ~~ \\

2924: ${\rm{[Na/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{d} & 5 & $-0.21$ & 0.36 & $-0.60$ & 0.32 \\

2925: ${\rm{[Mg/Fe]}}$ & 5 & 0.46 & 0.13 & 0.31 & 0.67 \\

2926: ${\rm{[Al/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{e} & 5 & $-0.16$ & 0.09 & $-0.28$ & $-0.02$ \\

2927: ${\rm{[Si/Fe]}}$ & 5 & 0.21 & 0.71 & $-1.00$ & 0.81 \\

2928: ${\rm{[CaI/Fe]}}$ & 5 & 0.12 & 0.40 & $-0.56$ & 0.43 \\

2929: ${\rm{[CaII/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.11$ & 0.17 & $-0.30$ & 0.00 \\

2930: ${\rm{[Sc/Fe]}}$ & 5 & 0.23 & 0.33 & $-0.08$ & 0.75 \\

2931: ${\rm{[Ti/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{f} & 5 & 0.19 & 0.21 & $-0.17$ & 0.40 \\

2932: ${\rm{[V/Fe]}}$ & 2 & 0.32 & 0.05 & 0.28 & 0.36 \\

2933: ${\rm{[Cr/Fe]}}$ & 5 & $-0.48$ & 0.07 & $-0.54$ & $-0.38$ \\

2934: ${\rm{[MnI/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{g} & 5 & $-0.75$ & 0.36 & $-0.99$ & $-0.10$ \\

2935: ${\rm{[MnII/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.26$ & 0.39 & $-0.48$ & 0.19 \\

2936: ${\rm{[FeII/FeI]}}$ & 5 & 0.08 & 0.10 & $-0.05$ & 0.20 \\

2937: ${\rm{[Co/Fe]}}$ & 5 & 0.59 & 0.29 & 0.24 & 1.03 \\

2938: ${\rm{[Ni/Fe]}}$ &  5 & 0.02 & 0.17 & $-0.19$ & 0.24 \\

2939: ${\rm{[Cu/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.75$ & 0.09 & $-0.85$ & $-0.66$ \\

2940: ${\rm{[Sr/Fe]}}$ & 4 & $-1.18$ & 0.88 & $-1.88$ & 0.05 \\

2941: ${\rm{[Ba/Fe]}}$ & 4 & $-0.89$ & 0.24 & $-1.19$ & $-0.62$ \\

2942: \enddata

2943: \tablenotetext{a}{Two stars only have upper limits for [C/Fe].}

2944: \tablenotetext{b}{One detection and two upper limits for [N/Fe].}

2945: \tablenotetext{c}{Two upper limits for [O/Fe].}

2946: \tablenotetext{d}{Non-LTE correction of $-$0.2~dex has been applied for 

2947:    [Na/Fe] from the Na~D lines.}

2948: \tablenotetext{e}{Non-LTE correction of +0.6~dex has been applied for 

2949: [Al/Fe]  from the 3950~\AA\ doublet.}

2950: \tablenotetext{f}{From Ti~II lines}

2951: \tablenotetext{g}{A correction of +0.3~dex to [Mn/Fe] as derived from lines of the

2952: 4030~\AA\ Mn~I triplet is required, but not put in here.  See \S\ref{section_analysis}.}

2953: \end{deluxetable}

2954: 

2955: 

2956: 

2957: \begin{deluxetable}{l rrrrr}

2958: \tablenum{9}

2959: \tablewidth{0pt}

2960: \tablecaption{Abundance Range for Three C-rich EMP Stars From the HES \label{table_range_b}}

2961: \tablehead{\colhead{Species [X/Fe]} & 

2962: \colhead{Nu. stars} & \colhead{Mean [X/Fe]} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &

2963: \colhead{Min.} & \colhead{Max.} \\

2964: \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)}

2965: }

2966: \startdata 

2967: ${\rm{[C/Fe]}}$ & 3 & 1.47 & 0.66 & 0.97 & 2.22 \\

2968: ${\rm{[N/Fe]}}$ & 2 & 1.37 & 0.70 & 0.64 & 2.15 \\

2969: ${\rm{[O/Fe]}}$ & 3 &  2.03 & 0.30 & 1.69 & 2.25 \\

2970: ${\rm{[Na/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{a} & 3 & 0.72 & 1.06 & $-0.49$ & 1.45 \\

2971: ${\rm{[Mg/Fe]}}$ & 3 & 1.22 & 0.81 & 0.32 & 1.88 \\

2972: ${\rm{[Al/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{b} & 3 & 0.39 & 0.59 & $-0.24$ & 0.93 \\

2973: ${\rm{[Si/Fe]}}$ & 3 & 0.71 & 0.32 & 0.49 & 1.08 \\

2974: ${\rm{[CaI/Fe]}}$ & 3 & 0.38 & 0.17 & 0.26 & 0.57 \\

2975: ${\rm{[CaII/Fe]}}$ & 2 & $-0.12$ & 0.32 & $-0.34$ & 0.10 \\

2976: ${\rm{[Sc/Fe]}}$ & 2 & 0.14 & 0.04 & 0.12 & 0.17 \\

2977: ${\rm{[Ti/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{c} & 3 & 0.12 & 0.15 & $-0.03$ & 0.27 \\

2978: ${\rm{[Cr/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.41$ & 0.12 & $-0.54$ & $-0.33$ \\

2979: ${\rm{[MnI/Fe]}}$\tablenotemark{d} & 3 & $-0.80$ & 0.22 & $-0.97$ & $-0.55$ \\

2980: ${\rm{[MnII/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.70$ & 0.28 & $-1.00$ & $-0.43$ \\

2981: ${\rm{[FeII/FeI]}}$ & 3 & $-0.12$ & 0.17 & $-0.28$ & 0.06 \\

2982: ${\rm{[Co/Fe]}}$ & 3 & 0.33 & 0.12 & 0.19 & 0.42 \\

2983: ${\rm{[Ni/Fe]}}$ &  3 & $-0.20$ & 0.16 & $-0.32$ & $-0.02$ \\

2984: ${\rm{[Cu/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.70$&  0.08 & $-0.78$ & $-0.63$ \\

2985: ${\rm{[Sr/Fe]}}$ & 3 & $-0.64$ & 0.87 & $-1.55$ & 0.17 \\

2986: ${\rm{[Ba/Fe]}}$ & 2 & $-0.52$ & 0.21 & $-0.66$ & $-0.29$ \\

2987: \enddata

2988: \tablenotetext{a}{Non-LTE correction of $-$0.2 dex has been applied for 

2989:    [Na/Fe] from the Na~D lines.}

2990: \tablenotetext{b}{Non-LTE correction of +0.6 dex has been applied for 

2991: [Al/Fe]  from the 3950~\AA\ doublet.}

2992: \tablenotetext{c}{From Ti~II lines}

2993: \tablenotetext{d}{A correction of +0.3~dex to [Mn/Fe] as derived from lines of the

2994: 4030~\AA\ Mn~I triplet is required, but not put in here.  See \S\ref{section_analysis}.}

2995: \end{deluxetable}

2996: 

2997: \clearpage

2998: 

2999: 

3000: \begin{deluxetable}{l rrr}

3001: \tablenum{10}

3002: \tablewidth{0pt}

3003: \tablecaption{Comparison of Detailed Abundance Analyses for HE1300+0157 

3004: \label{table_he1300}}

3005: \tablehead{\colhead{log[{$\epsilon$}(X)]} & 

3006: \colhead{\cite{frebel07} } & \colhead{0Z/Frebel\tablenotemark{a}} &

3007: \colhead{0Z} \\

3008: \colhead{} & \colhead{(5450,3.2) (dex)} & \colhead{(5450, 3.2) (dex)} & 

3009: \colhead{(5632,3.37) (dex)}

3010: }

3011: \startdata 

3012: [Fe/H] & $-$3.73 & $-3.60$ & $-3.39$ \\ 

3013: C(CH)  &  5.89 & 6.02 & 6.43 \\

3014: N(NH) &  $<5.12$ & $<4.93$ & $<5.25$ \\          

3015: O(OH)  & 6.54 & 6.78 & 7.13 \\

3016: Na~I\tablenotemark{b} & 2.44 & 2.49 & 2.64 \\   

3017: Mg~I & 4.10 & 4.30 & 4.47 \\ 

3018: Al~I\tablenotemark{c} & 2.64 & 2.66 & 2.83 \\ 

3019: Si~I & 4.50 & 4.44 & 4.65 \\    

3020: Ca~I & 2.98 & 3.06 & 3.23 \\  

3021: Ca~II & 2.75 & 2.96 & 3.07 \\   

3022: Sc~II & $-0.37$ & $-0.30$ & $-0.12$ \\  

3023: Ti~II & 1.77 & 1.58 & 1.72 \\  

3024: Cr~I & 1.51 & 1.56 & 1.74 \\   

3025: Mn~I\tablenotemark{d} & 0.65 & 0.91 & 1.13 \\    

3026: Mn~II & 0.89 & 1.20 & 1.33 \\   

3027: Fe~I & 3.72 & 3.85 & 4.06 \\ 

3028: Fe~II & 3.57 & 3.77 & 3.90 \\ 

3029: Co~I & 1.80 & 1.71 & 1.92 \\  

3030: Ni~I & 2.61 & 2.61 & 2.83 \\ 

3031: Cu~I & \nodata & $-0.10$ & 0.13 \\

3032: Sr~II & $<-2.64$ & $-2.22$ & $-2.05$ \\

3033: Ba~II & $<-2.56$ & $<-2.08$ & $<-1.89$ \\

3034: \enddata

3035: \tablenotetext{a}{The stellar parameters are those of \cite{frebel07}, but

3036: the analysis is that of our 0Z project with our own set of \eqw.}

3037: \tablenotetext{b}{no non-LTE correction has been applied for [Na/Fe].} 

3038: \tablenotetext{c}{Non-LTE correction of +0.6 dex has been applied for 

3039: [Al/Fe]  from the 3950~\AA\ doublet.}

3040: \tablenotetext{d}{In all cases only lines from the 4030~\AA\ triplet

3041: of Mn~I have been used.  No correction factor has been added here.

3042: The +0.4~dex correction factor added by \cite{frebel07} has been

3043: removed.}

3044: \end{deluxetable} 

3045: 

3046: 

3047: 

3048: \begin{deluxetable}{l rrr}

3049: \tablenum{11}

3050: \tablewidth{0pt}

3051: \tablecaption{Comparison of \teff\ For EMP Giants

3052: Between Our 0Z Survey and The First Stars Project 

3053: \label{table_teff_cayrel}}

3054: \tablehead{\colhead{Star} & \colhead{\teff (0Z)} & 

3055: \colhead{$\Delta$\teff Hybrid\tablenotemark{a}} & 

3056: \colhead{$\Delta$\teff [\citep{cayrel04}} \\

3057: \colhead{}  & \colhead{(K)}  & \colhead{(K)}  & \colhead{ -- 0Z)~(K)}

3058: }

3059: \startdata

3060: CD $-$38~245    &    4830     & $-30$   & $-30$ \\  

3061: % E(B-V)(Schlegel) 0.012 mag

3062: BS16477$-$003  &  4928 &  $-48$  & $-28$ \\  

3063: HE2323$-$0256\tablenotemark{b} & 4995\tablenotemark{c}  & $-65$ &  $-95$ \\  

3064: %                            We adopt4 Teff=4915 (Andicam V, 14.41)

3065: CS22948$-$066  &   5224   &   $-96$  &  $-124$ \\

3066: BS16467$-$062  &   5364   &  $-66$ &  $-164$ \\    

3067: \enddata

3068: \tablenotetext{a}{The hybrid \teff\ uses the codes of the 0Z project,

3069: but the reddening of the First Stars project, which is almost always

3070: slightly higher.  In all cases, the

3071: $V$ mag from \cite{cayrel04} is adopted. The value of

3072: \teff(hybrid) -- \teff(0Z) is given. }

3073: \tablenotetext{b}{Rediscovery of  CS22949$-$037 from the

3074: HK Survey.}

3075: \tablenotetext{c}{\teff\ for this star adopted by the 0Z project

3076: is 4915~K as our observed $V$ mag from ANDICAM is 14.41~mag, 0.05~mag

3077: fainter than that adopted by the First Stars project.}

3078: \end{deluxetable} 

3079: 

3080: 

3081: \clearpage

3082: 

3083: \begin{figure}

3084: \epsscale{0.9}

3085: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3086: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/hires_may2004/moog_files/he1356-0622_felines.ps}

3087: \plotone{f1.ps}

3088: \caption[]{The iron abundance derived from each of the 63 Fe~I lines

3089: seen in the spectrum of the EMP star HE1356$-$0622 is shown

3090: as a function of $\chi$.  The nominal

3091: set of stellar parameters we derive is used.  The

3092: solid line is the linear fit, with slope $-0.053$~dex/eV with a modest

3093: correlation coefficient of $-0.36$.

3094: However, only the 0~eV lines are discrepant.

3095: The dashed line indicates

3096: the mean log[$\epsilon$(Fe)] derived from the 52 lines with

3097: $\chi > 0.2$~eV.

3098: \label{figure_ep}}

3099: \end{figure}

3100: 

3101: 

3102: \begin{figure}

3103: \epsscale{0.9}

3104: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3105: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/cnormal_ca_cu_ver2.ps}

3106: \plotone{f2.ps}

3107: \caption[]{The median of [X/Fe] for 9 elements from Ca to Cu is shown

3108: for the 5 C-normal stars as a box.  Any ratio [X/Fe] which differs

3109: from the median by more than 0.3 dex for HE1424$-$0241 is shown as a large star;

3110: the same for HE0132$-$2429 is shown as a large filled circle.  If there is

3111: an outlier for a particular species, the abundance ratios for the

3112: remaining four C-normal EMP stars in our sample are shown as small open

3113: circles.

3114: A typical error bar for each ratio [X/Fe] in a star is shown at the upper

3115: right.

3116: \label{figure_cnormal_heavy}}

3117: \end{figure}

3118: 

3119: \begin{figure}

3120: \epsscale{0.9}

3121: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3122: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/sc2_4246.ps}

3123: \plotone{f3.ps}

3124: \caption[]{The region of the Sc~II line at 4246~\AA\ is shown in HE0132$-$2429 and

3125: in HE~1347$-$1025. 

3126: [Fe/H] differs for these two giants by only 0.15 dex, but the ScII line is

3127: much stronger in the former.

3128: \label{figure_sc2_4246}}

3129: \end{figure}

3130: 

3131: \begin{figure}

3132: \epsscale{0.9}

3133: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3134: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/ti2_4444.ps}

3135: \plotone{f4.ps}

3136: \caption[]{The region of the Ti~II line at 4444~\AA\ is shown in 

3137: three of the C-normal EMP giants of our sample.

3138: The abnormally low [TiII/Fe] ratio in HE1424$-$0241 is apparent.

3139: \label{figure_ti2_4444}}

3140: \end{figure}

3141: 

3142: \begin{figure}

3143: \epsscale{0.9}

3144: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3145: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/mn_4030.ps}

3146: \plotone{f5.ps}

3147: \caption[]{The region of the Mn~I triplet at 4030~\AA\ is shown in 

3148: three of the C-normal EMP giants of our sample.

3149: The extremely high [Mn/Fe] ratio in HE1424$-$0241 as compared to the

3150: other two stars whose spectra are displayed is apparent.

3151: \label{figure_mn_4030}}

3152: \end{figure}

3153: 

3154: 

3155: \begin{figure}

3156: \epsscale{0.9}

3157: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3158: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/cnormal_light.ps}

3159: \plotone{f6.ps}

3160: \caption[]{The median of [X/Fe] for 7 elements from C to Ca is shown

3161: for the 5 C-normal stars as a box.  Any ratio [X/Fe] which differs

3162: from the median by more than 0.3 dex is shown as a small open circle.

3163: Upper limits are excluded.

3164: Only one of these stars has a detectable NH band.

3165: A typical error bar for each ratio [X/Fe] 

3166: in a star is shown at the upper right.

3167: \label{figure_cnormal_light}}

3168: \end{figure}

3169: 

3170: \begin{figure}

3171: \epsscale{0.9}

3172: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3173: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/nh3360.ps}

3174: \plotone{f7.ps}

3175: \caption[]{The region of the NH band at 3360~\AA\ is shown for two

3176: C-normal stars; there is a huge difference in their N abundances.

3177: The \teff\ and [Fe/H] for each star are given following the

3178: object name in the text within each panel, and

3179: the X axis displays rest frame wavelengths in this figure

3180: as well as in the next 4 figures.

3181: \label{figure_nh3360}}

3182: \end{figure}

3183: % the spectra in this figure (NH 3360) only were slightly smoothed

3184: 

3185: 

3186: 

3187: \begin{figure}

3188: \epsscale{0.9}

3189: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3190: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/si_he1424.ps}

3191: \plotone{f8.ps}

3192: \caption[]{The region of the Si~I line at 3905~\AA\ is shown in HE~1424$-$0241 and

3193: in HE~1347$-$1025; the \teff\ of both stars is the same. Although the Fe-abundance

3194: is roughly 4 times higher in the latter star,  the ratio of line strengths

3195: clearly demonstrates that [Si/Fe] is abnormally low

3196: in the former star.

3197: \label{figure_si3905}}

3198: \end{figure}

3199: 

3200: %

3201: %  The Ca 4226 figure is not convincing as there are no good strong

3202: %  Fe lines to show that the ratio Ca/Fe is low in HE1424$-$0241, rather

3203: %  than it is an effect of a 4 x  lower [Fe/H].

3204: %

3205: \begin{figure}

3206: \epsscale{0.9}

3207: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3208: %\plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/plot_copper_10aug2007.ps}

3209: \plotone{f9.ps}

3210: \caption[]{[Cu/Fe] is shown as a function of [Fe/H] for giants, combining

3211: data for the extreme EMP stars presented here with that of \cite{mishenina02}

3212: and \cite{simmerer03}.  The C-rich stars from the HES

3213: are circled.

3214: \label{figure_copper}}

3215: \end{figure}

3216: 

3217: 

3218: \begin{figure}

3219: \epsscale{0.9}

3220: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3221: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/sr_ba.ps}

3222: \plotone{f10.ps}

3223: \caption[]{[Sr/Ba] from singly ionized lines of both elements is shown

3224: as a function of [Fe/H] for the entire sample of stars from the HES

3225: with \teff $< 6000$~K.  Only stars with a secure detection of an

3226: absorption feature of at least one of these two species are shown.

3227: The stars denote carbon stars with detected

3228: bands of C$_2$.  The large filled circles are the EMP giants in the

3229: present sample; those with apparent C-enhancements

3230: are circled.  A typical error bar is shown for a single star.

3231: %

3232: % I checked the direction of the arrows denoting upper limits.  They

3233: % are correct.  This is from program sr_ba_all.f

3234: %

3235: \label{figure_sr_ba}}

3236: \end{figure}

3237: 

3238: 

3239: \clearpage

3240: 

3241: 

3242: \begin{figure}

3243: \epsscale{0.9}

3244: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3245: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/crich_light.ps}

3246: \plotone{f11.ps}

3247: \caption[]{The same as Fig.~\ref{figure_cnormal_light}.

3248: with [X/Fe] for each of the three C-enhanced stars shown as well,

3249: indicated by filled symbols.  The abundance ratios for each of the C-rich stars

3250: are connected by dashed or dot-dashed lines.  Upper limits are excluded

3251: for the C-normal stars; the single upper limit (for N) 

3252: which occurs in one C-rich star is indicated.  A typical error bar for 

3253: each ratio [X/Fe] in a star is shown at the upper right.

3254: \label{figure_crich_light}}

3255: \end{figure}

3256: 

3257: \begin{figure}

3258: \epsscale{0.9}

3259: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3260: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/crich_ca_cu.ps}

3261: \plotone{f12.ps}

3262: \caption[]{[X/Fe] is shown for each of the three C-enhanced EMP stars

3263: for 9 elements from Ca to Cu. The median for the five C-normal stars

3264: is indicated by a box.  A typical error bar for each ratio [X/Fe] 

3265: in a star is shown at the upper right.

3266: \label{figure_crich_heavy}}

3267: \end{figure}

3268: 

3269: 

3270: 

3271: \begin{figure}

3272: \epsscale{0.9}

3273: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3274: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/abund_surveys/cayrel/bs16467-062.ps}

3275: \plotone{f13.ps}

3276: \caption[]{The \eqw\ we measure from our Keck/HIRES spectra for the

3277: EMP star BS16467--062 are compared to those of the First Stars VLT/UVES

3278: program data from \cite{cayrel04}.

3279: \label{figure_eqw_bs16467}}

3280: \end{figure}

3281: 

3282: \begin{figure}

3283: \epsscale{0.9}

3284: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3285: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/abund_surveys/cayrel/he2323-0256_v2.ps}

3286: \plotone{f14.ps}

3287: \caption[]{The same as Fig.~\ref{figure_eqw_bs16467} for

3288: the star HE2323--0256 (a.k.a. CS22949--037).  The arrows denote

3289: corrections to the published \eqw\ of \cite{cayrel04}

3290: (M.~Spite, private communication, June 2007).

3291: \label{figure_eqw_he2323}}

3292: \end{figure}

3293: 

3294: 

3295: \clearpage

3296: 

3297: 

3298: \begin{figure}

3299: \epsscale{0.9}

3300: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3301: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/cno_plot.ps}

3302: \plotone{f15.ps}

3303: \caption[]{Log$\epsilon$(C, C+N, C+N+O) is shown for each of the EMP stars

3304: in the present sample.  The solid horizontal line denotes

3305: log$\epsilon$(C), the dashed line is log$\epsilon$(C+N), while the dot-dashed

3306: line shows

3307: log$\epsilon$(C+N+O).  Upper limits are indicated in each case.

3308: The 5 C-normal stars are at the left, the 3 higher C stars are at the right

3309: side of the plot. 

3310: \label{figure_cno}}

3311: \end{figure}

3312: 

3313: \clearpage

3314: 

3315: \begin{figure}

3316: \epsscale{0.9}

3317: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3318: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/si_feh_all.ps}

3319: \plotone{f16.ps}

3320: \caption[]{[Si/Fe] is shown for all of the candidate EMP stars

3321: with HIRES spectra analyzed by the 0Z project to date, including

3322: the present sample.  C-rich stars are not shown. The solid horizontal line denotes

3323: the Solar ratio.  The plot includes well studied Galactic globular clusters,

3324: mostly from analyses by J.~Cohen and her collaborators, as well as

3325: samples of halo field stars from the sources indicated on the symbol key

3326: in the lower right of the figure.

3327: Note the highly anomalous position of HE1424$-$0241, the only star

3328: with [Si/Fe] $<< 0$~dex. 

3329: \label{figure_si}}

3330: \end{figure}

3331: 

3332: \begin{figure}

3333: \epsscale{0.9}

3334: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3335: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/ca_feh_all.ps}

3336: \plotone{f17.ps}

3337: \caption[]{[Ca/Fe] is shown for all of the candidate EMP stars

3338: with HIRES spectra analyzed by the 0Z project to date, including

3339: the present sample.  C-rich stars are not shown. The solid horizontal line denotes

3340: the Solar ratio.  The plot includes well studied Galactic globular clusters,

3341: mostly from analyses by J.~Cohen and her collaborators, as well as

3342: samples of halo field stars from the sources indicated on the symbol key

3343: in the lower right of the figure.

3344: side of the plot.  Note the highly anomalous position of HE1424$-$0241,

3345: the star with the smallest [Ca/Fe]. 

3346: \label{figure_ca}}

3347: \end{figure}

3348: 

3349: \begin{figure}

3350: \epsscale{0.9}

3351: % Comment out the following line to embed the PS figure into the manuscript

3352: % \plotone{/scr2/jlc/hamburg_survey/paper_lowest_2006/plots/cayrel_diff_v2.ps}

3353: \plotone{f18.ps}

3354: \caption[]{The difference for log[$\epsilon$(X) between the our results

3355: and those of the First Stars project \citep{cayrel04} for three stars.

3356: We adopt the stellar parameters used by \cite{cayrel04} but use our

3357: own $gf$ values and set of $W_{\lambda}$, except for CD$-$38~245, for which we have

3358: no HIRES spectra, and for which we adopt those from the First Stars project.

3359: The dashed line represents the mean difference for Fe~I for the three

3360: stars.

3361: \label{figure_cayrel_diff}}

3362: \end{figure}

3363: 

3364: 

3365: 

3366: \end{document}

3367: 

3368: