1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \begin{document}
5: \newcommand{\up}[1]{\ifmmode^{\rm #1}\else$^{\rm #1}$\fi}
6: \newcommand{\zdot}{\makebox[0pt][l]{.}}
7: \newcommand{\upd}{\up{d}}
8: \newcommand{\uph}{\up{h}}
9: \newcommand{\upm}{\up{m}}
10: \newcommand{\ups}{\up{s}}
11: \newcommand{\arcd}{\ifmmode^{\circ}\else$^{\circ}$\fi}
12: \newcommand{\arcm}{\ifmmode{'}\else$'$\fi}
13: \newcommand{\arcs}{\ifmmode{''}\else$''$\fi}
14:
15: \title{The Araucaria Project. Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheid Variables
16: in the Sculptor Galaxy NGC 55
17: \footnote{Based on observations obtained with the ESO VLT for
18: Large Programme 171.D-0004}
19: }
20: \author{Wolfgang Gieren}
21: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy Group,
22: Casilla 160-C, Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
23: \authoremail{wgieren@astro-udec.cl}
24: \author{Grzegorz Pietrzy{\'n}ski}
25: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy
26: Group,
27: Casilla 160-C,
28: Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
29: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478, Warsaw,
30: Poland}
31: \authoremail{pietrzyn@hubble.cfm.udec.cl}
32: \author{Igor Soszy{\'n}ski}
33: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy Group,
34: Casilla 160-C, Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
35: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478, Warsaw,
36: Poland}
37: \authoremail{soszynsk@astro-udec.cl}
38: \author{Fabio Bresolin}
39: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2680 Woodlawn
40: Drive,
41: Honolulu HI 96822, USA}
42: \authoremail{bresolin@ifa.hawaii.edu}
43: \author{Rolf-Peter Kudritzki}
44: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2680 Woodlawn
45: Drive,
46: Honolulu HI 96822, USA}
47: \authoremail{kud@ifa.hawaii.edu}
48: \author{Jesper Storm}
49: \affil{Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482
50: Potsdam, Germany}
51: \authoremail{jstorm@aip.de}
52: \author{Dante Minniti}
53: \affil{Departamento de Astronomia y Astrofisica, Pontificia Universidad Cat{\'o}lica
54: de Chile, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile}
55: \authoremail{dante@astro.puc.cl}
56:
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59: We have obtained deep images in the near-infrared J and K filters of four fields in the
60: Sculptor Group spiral galaxy NGC 55 with the ESO VLT and ISAAC camera. For 40 long-period
61: Cepheid variables in these fields which were recently discovered by Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al.,
62: we have determined mean J and K magnitudes from observations at two epochs,
63: and derived distance moduli from the observed
64: PL relations in these bands. Using these values together with the previously measured distance moduli
65: in the optical V and I bands, we have determined a total mean reddening of the NGC 55 Cepheids of
66: E(B-V)=0.127 $\pm$ 0.019 mag, which is mostly produced inside NGC 55 itself.
67: For the true distance modulus of the galaxy, our multiwavelength analysis yields
68: a value of 26.434 $\pm$ 0.037 mag (random error),
69: corresponding to a distance of 1.94 $\pm$ 0.03 Mpc. This value is tied to an adopted
70: true LMC distance modulus of 18.50 mag. The systematic uncertainty of our derived
71: Cepheid distance to NGC 55
72: (apart from the uncertainty on the adopted LMC distance) is $\pm$4\%, with the main
73: contribution likely to come from the effect of blending of some of the Cepheids with
74: unresolved companion stars. The distance of NGC 55 derived from our multiwavelength Cepheid
75: analysis agrees within the errors with the distance of NGC 300, strengthening the case
76: for a physical association of these two Sculptor Group galaxies.
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: \keywords{distance scale - galaxies: distances and redshifts - galaxies:
80: individual(NGC 55) - stars: Cepheids - infrared photometry}
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83:
84: The effectiveness of using multiwavelength optical and near-infrared (NIR) observations
85: of Cepheid variables for distance determination of galaxies has been known for a long
86: time (McGonegal et al. 1982; Madore \& Freedman 1991). Only recently however the
87: technical problems with obtaining accurate and reliable NIR photometry for faint objects
88: in dense regions have been solved. Using NIR observations of Cepheids provides a number
89: of advantages for accurate distance work. First, the total and differential reddening
90: is significantly reduced in comparison to the optical bandpasses. Second, the Cepheid
91: PL relation becomes steeper toward longer wavelengths, and its intrinsic dispersion
92: becomes smaller, both factors helping in deriving a more accurate distance. Third,
93: metallicity effects on the PL relation in the near-IR are expected to be less important than at
94: optical wavelengths (Bono et al. 1999). Fourth, and very importantly from an observational
95: point of view, the amplitudes of variability are significantly smaller in the NIR
96: than at optical wavelengths, so even random single-epoch observations
97: approximate the mean magnitude reasonably well. If the period and optical light curve
98: of a Cepheid is accurately known, it is possible to derive its mean magnitude in the NIR bands
99: with an impressive 1-2\% accuracy from just one single-epoch observation (Soszy{\'n}ski
100: et al. 2005).
101:
102: Simultaneously studying NIR and optical PL relations of Cepheids provides another
103: important advantage. By combining the observed distance moduli in the optical
104: and NIR it is possible to derive both the total reddening and the true distance modulus
105: with very high accuracy. This has been demonstrated in the previous papers of
106: this series which reported the distances to NGC 300 (Gieren et al. 2005a), IC 1613
107: (Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al. 2006a), NGC 6822 (Gieren et al. 2006) and NGC 3109 (Soszy{\'n}ski
108: et al. 2006) derived by this method. For all these galaxies, we were able to determine
109: their distances with respect to the LMC with a $\sim$3\% accuracy from our technique. The
110: multiband closure on the total reddening estimates, through the use of the Wesenheit function
111: and near-infrared data, has made it possible to achieve these accuracies.
112:
113:
114: NGC 55 is a highly inclined late-type galaxy classified as SB(s)m
115: in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. It bears some resemblance to the LMC and is one of the
116: approximately 30 known members of the Sculptor Group (Jerjen et al. 2000).
117: NGC 55 was included in the list of target galaxies of our ongoing
118: Araucaria Project (Gieren et al. 2005b) because of its relative proximity which allows accurate
119: photometry and spectroscopy of the different stellar distance indicators scrutinized
120: in our project, and because existing oxygen abundance determinations from H II regions indicate a low
121: metallicity of about 0.25 solar, close to the SMC (e.g. Lee et al. 2006, and references therein) which makes NGC 55
122: the lowest-metallicity spiral galaxy in our sample. This is important because one of our
123: main goals in the Araucaria Project is to determine the effect of metallicity on the various stellar methods
124: of distance determination we are investigating. Also, color images of NGC 55 clearly suggested
125: the existence of an abundant young stellar population in this galaxy, suggesting the presence
126: of abundant blue supergiant and Cepheid populations, both types of objects being very useful
127: for distance determination. In fact, we have discovered more than 100 blue supergiants in
128: NGC 55 and have obtained low-resolution spectra for abundance analysis with VLT/FORS. The abundance
129: results we will obtain from these data will give us an opportunity of independently check
130: on the nebular oxygen abundances, and will allow us to determine the distance of the galaxy
131: with the Flux-Weighted Gravity-Luminosity Relation introduced by Kudritzki et al. (2003).
132:
133: There are several distance determinations to NGC 55 based on different methods in
134: the literature, which have been collected in Table 4. They will be briefly discussed
135: in section 4. These previous distance estimates
136: have yielded results which range from 1.34 Mpc (Pritchet et al. 1987) to 2.30 Mpc (Van de Steene
137: et al. 2006). This considerable discrepancy hints at relatively large errors
138: in one or several of these previous determinations, and a more accurate distance determination
139: was therefore clearly desirable. Since no previous surveys for Cepheid variables
140: had been conducted in NGC 55, we have carried out such a wide-field Cepheid survey
141: in optical V and I filters which resulted in the discovery of 143 Cepheids
142: (Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al. 2006b; hereafter Paper I).
143: From 130 Cepheids with periods longer than 10 days, we constructed PL relations
144: in V, I and the reddening-independent (V-I) Wesenheit band, yielding as a best estimate
145: of the distance to NGC 55 a value of 1.91 $\pm$ 0.10 Mpc.In this paper, we extend the
146: light curve coverage for 40 Cepheids in NGC 55 to the NIR J and K bands. We then utilize the
147: multiband VIJK data for these stars for an accurate determination of the total (average)
148: interstellar extinction to the Cepheids in NGC 55, and determine an improved distance
149: to the galaxy. As mentioned above, the extension of the Cepheid work to the NIR is a fundamental step to reduce
150: the systematic error in the Cepheid distance, mostly by decreasing the sensitivity of the result
151: to reddening and effects of metallicity on the period-luminosity relation.
152:
153: The paper is composed as follows. In section 2 we describe the NIR observations, data reductions
154: and calibration of our photometry. In section 3 we derive the J- and K-band Cepheid PL relations
155: in NGC 55 from our data and determine the true distance modulus to NGC 55 from a multiwavelength
156: analysis. In section 4, we discuss our results, and in section 5 we summarize our conclusions.
157:
158:
159:
160: \section{Observations, Data Reduction and Calibration}
161:
162: We used deep J- and K-band images recorded with the 8.2 m ESO Very Large Telescope equipped
163: with the Infrared Spectrometer and Array Camera (ISAAC). Figure 1 shows the location of the four
164: 2.5 x 2.5 arcmin fields observed in service mode on 7 nights between 18-07-2004 and 21-09-2004.
165: The coordinates of the field centers were chosen in such a way as to maximize the number
166: of Cepheid variables observed and optimize their period distribution. Each field was
167: observed in both NIR bands two times, on two different nights, and therefore at different
168: pulsation phases of the Cepheids in these fields. The observations were carried out
169: using a dithering technique, with a dithering of the frames following a random pattern
170: characterized by typical offsets of 15 arcsec. The final frames in the J and K bands
171: were obtained as a co-addition of 24 and 164 single exposures obtained with integration times
172: of 30 and 15 s, respectively. Thus, the total exposure time for a given observation was
173: 12 minutes in J and 41 minutes in K. The observations were obtained under excellent seeing conditions,
174: typically around 0.5 arcsec. Standard stars on the UKIRT system (Hawarden et al. 2001) were
175: observed along with the science exposures to allow an accurate transformation of the instrumental
176: magnitudes to the standard system.
177:
178: The images were reduced using the program JITTER from the ECLIPSE package developed by ESO to reduce
179: near-IR data. The point-spread function (PSF) photometry was carried out with the DAOPHOT and
180: ALLSTAR programs. The PSF model was derived iteratively from 20 to 30 isolated bright stars following
181: the procedure described by Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al. (2002). In order to convert our profile
182: photometry to the aperture system, aperture corrections were computed using the same stars
183: as those used for the calculation of the PSF model. The median of the aperture corrections obtained
184: for all these stars was finally adopted as the aperture correction for a given frame. The aperture
185: photometry for the standard stars was performed with DAOPHOT using the same aperture as the one
186: adopted for the calculation of the aperture corrections.
187:
188: The astrometric solution for the observed fields was performed by cross-identification of the
189: brightest stars in each field with the Infrared Digitized Sky Survey 2 (DSS2-infrared) images.
190: We used programs developed by Udalski et al. (1998) to calculate the transformations between
191: the pixel grid of our images and equatorial coordinates of the DSS astrometric system. The internal
192: error of the transformation is less than 0.3 arcsec, but systematic errors of the DSS coordinates
193: can be up to about 0.7 arcsec.
194:
195: In order to perform an external check on our photometric zero points, we tried to compare the
196: magnitudes of stars in the 2MASS Point Source Catalog located in our NGC 55 fields with
197: our own photometry. Unfortunately, even the brightest stars in our dataset whose photometry is
198: not affected by nonlinearity problems are still very close to the faint magnitude limit of
199: the 2MASS catalog and have 2MASS magnitudes with formal errors of $\sim$0.2 mag. Moreover,
200: all our NGC 55 fields are located in regions of high stellar density (see Figure 1), and most
201: of the 2MASS stars turn out to be severely blended as seen at the higher resolution of our VLT/ISAAC images.
202: It was therefore not possible to carry out a reliable comparison of the two photometries. However,
203: since our reduction and calibration procedure is extremely stable, we should have achieved the same
204: typical zero point accuracy we were able to achieve in the previous near-infrared studies
205: of Local Group galaxies where a comparison with 2MASS magnitudes for a common set of stars
206: was possible. From this argument, we expect that our photometric zero points are determined
207: to better than $\pm$0.03 mag in both J and K filters.
208:
209: Our four fields in NGC 55 contain a subset of 40 of the 143 Cepheids reported in Paper I. All
210: individual observations in J and K we obtained are presented in Table 1 which lists the star's IDs,
211: heliocentric Julian day of the observations, and the measurements in J and K with their
212: standard deviations. For most of the Cepheids we collected two observations per given filter.
213: For some objects we obtained only one observation in the J or K band as a consequence
214: of the locations of these objects close to the edge of the observed field.
215:
216:
217:
218: \section{Near-Infrared Period-Luminosity Relations}
219:
220: All individual J and K measurements reported in Table 1 were transformed to the mean magnitudes
221: of the Cepheids using the recipe given by Soszy{\'n}ski et al. (2005). The corrections to derive
222: the mean magnitudes from the observed random-phase magnitudes were calculated by taking advantage of
223: the complete V- and I-band light curves from Paper I, exactly in the way
224: as described in the Soszy{\'n}ski et al. paper.
225: For the vast majority of the Cepheids,
226: the mean J and K magnitudes determined from the two individual random-phase magnitudes agree
227: very well. We were helped by the fact that the optical observations in Paper I, and the near-IR
228: followup observations reported in this paper have been obtained relatively close in time (1-2 years),
229: reducing the effect inaccurate periods will have on the calculations of the phases of the NIR
230: observations. For most of our objects, the difference between the mean magnitudes derived from the two
231: independent random-phase JK measurements was comparable to the standard deviations of the individual
232: observations.
233:
234: Table 2 gives the intensity mean J and K magnitudes of the individual Cepheids. Each value was
235: calculated as the average of the individual determinations of the mean magnitude. In Table 2
236: we also provide the periods (from Paper I) and uncertainties on the mean magnitudes (which contain the
237: contribution of a 0.03 mag intrinsic error coming from the transformation of the random-phase
238: to the mean magnitudes; see Soszy{\'n}ski et al. 2005).
239:
240: In Figure 2 we show the J- and K-band period-mean magnitude diagrams defined by the NGC 55 Cepheids
241: in our observed fields. From the 40 stars in these diagrams, we excluded 10 objects from the final distance solution;
242: these stars are plotted as open circles in Fig. 2, with their IDs indicated. We excluded these
243: objects from our distance analysis for the reasons given in the following.
244: Variables cep001, cep002 and cep004 have extremely long periods
245: of 176, 152 and 98 days. Cepheids of such long periods, and the corresponding very high luminosities,
246: have long been suspected to deviate from the extension of the linear PL relation
247: defined by Cepheids of shorter periods, in the sense that they are becoming intrinsically
248: fainter than what the linear PL relation would suggest. The empirical evidence for this effect
249: has been discussed by a number of authors (e.g. Gieren et al. 2004; Madore \& Freedman 1991).
250: The position of the three longest-period Cepheids in our sample suggests that the same
251: effect is present in our data, and we therefore prefer to exclude these objects from the distance
252: solution. Particularly cep004 at P=98 days is very underluminous in the J band, whereas in K it is closer
253: to the ridge line. A possible
254: explanation for this behavior is that this variable suffers excessive reddening. This would be consistent
255: with its young age, as derived from a period-age relation (e.g. Bono et al. 2005), which implies that
256: such a long-period Cepheid must still be close to the molecular cloud where it was formed.
257: An additional reason to exclude Cepheids with periods longer than 100 days in our
258: solution is the fact that the fiducial LMC PL relation has not been calibrated with such
259: long-period stars either.
260: The adopted procedure to introduce an upper period cutoff at 100 days is also consistent with our previous
261: Cepheid distance work
262: in the Araucaria Project.
263:
264: Three Cepheids (cep113, cep086 and cep036) are more than one full magnitude brighter in K than
265: the ridge line luminosities at the corresponding periods, and it seems likely that these stars
266: are strongly blended by very red objects. This is supported by the observation that these
267: objects are still over-luminous in the J-band PL relation, but by a smaller amount than in K
268: (lower panel of Fig. 2). All three objects fall very clearly outside the instability strip on the
269: K, J-K CMD, which is shown in Fig. 3, supporting the idea that they are either not classical Cepheids,
270: or stars suffering strong observational anomalies.
271: The images of these three stars obtained on the nights of best seeing
272: do indeed suggest the presence of bright companion stars which are not
273: quite resolved. Yet, it is also possible that these very luminous variables are a different kind of objects,
274: and not blended Cepheids. They are bright enough for near-IR spectroscopy, which would shed
275: more light on the true nature of these objects. Whatever the correct explanation will turn out to be
276: for their excessive brightness, we believe it to be the correct procedure to exclude them
277: from the distance solution.
278: Stars cep079, cep033 and cep013 show very strange PSF profiles which are likely to be caused by
279: unresolved companion stars as well, consistent with their very bright apparent magnitudes, for their
280: respective periods. The only Cepheid we have excluded from the sample without having a specific reason other
281: than its strong deviation, particularly in the K band, from the ridge line is cep023. In K, this
282: object is 1 mag fainter than the ridge line at this period, with a similar effect in the J band.
283: Perhaps cep023 is not a classical Cepheid. It could also be an excessively reddened Cepheid.
284: Below, we show that our distance solution is rather
285: insensitive to the final choice of the sample we are using for the determination of the
286: distance of NGC 55.
287:
288: In Fig. 4, we plot the PL diagrams in J and K for the adopted final sample of 30 Cepheids.
289: Least-squares fits to a line yield slopes of -2.933 $\pm$ 0.133 in K, and -2.843 $\pm$ 0.165
290: in J, respectively. These slopes are shallower than, but within 2 $\sigma$ consistent with
291: the slopes of the Cepheid PL relations in the LMC, which are -3.261 in K, and -3.153 in J (Persson et al. 2004).
292: Following the procedure we have used in our previous papers, we adopt the LMC
293: slopes of Persson et al. (2004) in our fits. This yields the following PL relations for NGC 55: \\
294:
295:
296: J = -3.153 log P + (24.395 $\pm$ 0.048) \hspace*{1cm} $\sigma$ = 0.265 \\
297:
298:
299: K = -3.261 log P + (23.975 $\pm$ 0.041) \hspace*{1cm} $\sigma$ = 0.223 \\
300:
301:
302: The zero points in these relations are very little sensitive to our adopted exclusion of suspect objects. If we
303: retain all 37 Cepheids in the fits except the very strongly and definitively
304: blended objects cep113, cep086 and cep036 (which in the
305: K band are more than a full magnitude brighter than the ridge line luminosity at the respective
306: periods), and even including the Cepheids with periods longer than 100 days,
307: the zero points change only slightly to 24.433 in J and 23.996 in K. However, the uncertainties
308: of the zero points increase
309: substantially, and the dispersions of the PL relations
310: in J and K now increase to 0.405 mag and 0.377 mag, respectively. We are confident that we have cleaned
311: our raw sample of Cepheids in the best possible way to obtain the most reliable values for the zero points
312: of the J- and K-band PL relations, and their uncertainties from our datasets.
313:
314: In order to determine the relative distance moduli between NGC 55 and the LMC, we need to convert the NICMOS (LCO)
315: photometric system used by Persson et al. (2004) to the UKIRT system utilized in this paper.
316: According to Hawarden et al. (2001),
317: there are just zero point offsets between the UKIRT and NICMOS systems (e.g. no color dependences)
318: in the J and K filters, which amount to 0.034 and 0.015 mag, respectively. Applying
319: these offsets, and assuming an LMC true distance modulus of 18.50 as in our previous
320: work in the Araucaria Project, we derive distance moduli for NGC 55 of 26.593 $\pm$ 0.048 mag
321: in the J band, and 26.454 $\pm$ 0.041 mag in the K band.
322:
323: As in our previous papers in this series,
324: we adopt the extinction law of Schlegel et al. (1998) and fit a straight line to the relation
325: $(m-M)_{0} = (m-M)_{\lambda} - A_{\lambda} = (m-M)_{\lambda} - E(B-V) * R_{\lambda}$.
326: Using the distance moduli in the V and I photometric bands derived in Paper I together with
327: the values for the J and K bands calculated above, we obtain
328: for the reddening and the true distance modulus of NGC 55 the following values: \\
329:
330: $ E(B-V) = 0.127 \pm 0.019$
331:
332: $(m-M)_{0} = 26.434 \pm 0.037$,
333:
334: corresponding to a distance of NGC 55 of 1.94 $\pm$ 0.03 Mpc.
335:
336: In Table 3 we give the adopted values of $R_{\lambda}$ and the unreddened distance moduli
337: in each band which are obtained with the reddening value determined in our multi-wavelength
338: approach. The agreement between the de-reddened distance moduli in each band is excellent.
339: In Fig. 5, we plot the apparent distance moduli in VIJK as a function of $R_{\lambda}$, and the
340: best fitting straight line to the data; it is appreciated that the total reddening, and the true distance
341: modulus of NGC 55 are very well determined from this fit.
342:
343:
344: \section{Discussion}
345:
346: Our new distance to NGC 55 derived from optical/near-infrared photometry of Cepheids in this galaxy
347: agrees within the combined 1 $\sigma$ uncertainties with the previous determination from the
348: Tully-Fisher method (Karachentsev et al. 2003), the I-band magnitude of the tip of the red giant
349: branch as derived from HST WFPC2/ACS images (Tikhonov et al. 2005), and with the PNLF distance
350: derived by Van de Steene et al. (2006). Whereas the quoted uncertainty of the TRGB distance is only
351: slightly larger than the Cepheid distance obtained in this paper, the distances coming from the
352: TF and PNLF methods are clearly considerably more uncertain. The most discrepant distance
353: determination from carbon stars in NGC 55 of Pritchet et al. (1987) has probably the largest
354: systematic uncertainty, due to both the use of a non-reliable distance indicator, and
355: of an inadequate spatial resolution of 0.59 arcsec/pixel in their CCD images. The short distance
356: to NGC 55 they derive is likely the result of a strong blending of some of their target carbon
357: stars by nearby stars not resolved in their photometry. The quopted $\pm$ 0.08 Mpc distance
358: uncertainty obviously refers to an intrinsic error and does not account for the systematic
359: uncertainty in this measurement.
360:
361: An exhaustive discussion of the systematic errors which may affect the Cepheid distances
362: derived with our multiwavelength technique was presented in the papers of Gieren et al. (2005a, 2006), and
363: Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al. (2006a) which discussed the multiband Cepheid distance analyses
364: for NGC 300, NGC 6822 and IC 1613. Here we discuss only the most important and specific
365: issues concerning NGC 55. First of all, we have been able to use a number of Cepheids
366: in our present study which is large enough to reduce the effect of a possible inhomogeneous filling of the
367: Cepheid instability strip to a level that its expected effect on the distance of NGC 55
368: is insignificant (particularly as our current results from the NIR are combined with
369: the distance results from the previous optical study in Paper I which were based on more
370: than 100 Cepheid variables). Also, the removal of outliers is not critical in this study-for all but one
371: object we have excluded from the sample we adopted for the distance determination we had strong
372: reasons for the exclusion, and even retaining all objects with the exception of three
373: blends which are recognized as such from our images produces a change in the distance
374: which is less than 2\%.
375:
376: The near-infrared photometry of this paper has confirmed the distance we had derived
377: in Paper I from the reddening-independent (V-I) Wesenheit magnitude within $\pm$2\%. Given the
378: high inclination of NGC 55 with respect to the line of sight and the clear possibility
379: of relatively strong and variable reddening of the Cepheids in this galaxy, it was imperative
380: to confirm the results from the Wesenheit index with near-IR photometry. The results of
381: this paper summarized in Table 3 and Figure 5 suggest that any residual effect of reddening on
382: the distance of NGC 55 determined in this paper is negligible. The importance of this cannot
383: be overstated because in most Cepheid-based distance determinations of late-type galaxies,
384: particularly when infrared data are sparse or not available, intrinsic reddening is likely
385: to be the largest source of systematic error.
386:
387: Another contributor to the possible systematic error of our present distance result
388: is the effect of metallicity on the Cepheid PL relation. In the galaxies so far studied in
389: our project, including NGC 55, we have not found convincing evidence that the slope of the Cepheid PL relation
390: in optical or near-IR bands is {\it not} universal. The results of Gieren et al. (2005c)
391: on the Milky Way and LMC Cepheid PL relations from Cepheid distances determined with the
392: infrared surface brightness technique (Fouqu{\'e} \& Gieren 1997) seem to support the scenario of
393: a universal {\it slope} of the Cepheid PL relation in optical and NIR bands. This is supported
394: by the recent parallax work of Benedict et al. (2007), and van Leeuwen et al. (2007),
395: and also by the very exhaustive recent analysis of Fouqu{\'e} et al. (2007) which all yield
396: results compatible with a constant slope of the PL relation. However, there is also evidence
397: for a possible non-constancy of the PL relation slope, as the kink at a period of 10 days
398: observed in the LMC PL relation in optical bands (e.g. Ngeow \& Kanbur 2006). In the present paper,
399: we find evidence that the slope of the PL relation in NGC 55 in J and K is the same as in other galaxies,
400: strengthening the case for the universality of the PL slope,
401: but this conclusion hinges on the assertion that the objects which are over-bright in K
402: in Fig. 2 are indeed observational anomalies, as discussed in the previous section.
403: Work to settle the question of the universality of the slope of the Cepheid PL relation
404: in a definitive way must certainly continue. We intend to give a much more
405: detailed and quantitative discussion of this issue in a forthcoming paper, and {\it assume}
406: the constancy of the PL relation slopes in the various bands, as we have done in the previous
407: papers of this series.
408: The extent to which the {\it zero point}
409: of the PL relation is affected by metallicity is still an open issue and will be addressed
410: in our project once we will have measured the distances to our target galaxies from other
411: methods as well, particularly from the blue supergiant FGLR (Kudritzki et al. 2003), and from the
412: TRGB method. We therefore prefer to leave an exhaustive discussion of this point to a later stage
413: of our project.
414:
415: As in previous papers in our project, we have applied utmost care to determine the zero points
416: of our photometry as accurately as possible. From the arguments given in section 2 we believe that
417: the zero points are accurate to better than $\pm$0.03 mag, in both J and K. One issue of concern
418: is the effect of crowding and blending of the target Cepheids in NGC 55 on our results. We were
419: fortunate enough to have images of exquisite quality, obtained under excellent seeing conditions
420: at our disposal, and we believe that we were able to identify all Cepheids in our sample whose fluxes are
421: significantly affected by nearby companion stars. It is, however, difficult to quantify the remaining
422: effect blending can still have on our distance result as long as we do not have images of our
423: NGC 55 Cepheids obtained at higher angular resolution. As a guide, however, we can use the results we obtained for
424: another Sculptor galaxy, NGC 300. For this galaxy, a comparison of single-epoch HST-ACS photometry
425: with ground-based photometry suggested that the effect
426: of blending affects the distance determination with our method
427: by less than 2\% (Bresolin et al. 2005). The effect for NGC 55
428: should be similar due to its very similar distance, but could be slightly more serious due to
429: its higher inclination, as compared to NGC 300. We assume that 3\% is a reasonable upper limit
430: for the possible remaining effect of unresolved stars in the Cepheid photometry on the distance result.
431: The effects acts to make the Cepheids too bright and therefore tends to decrease the distance.
432:
433: Probably the largest source of systematic uncertainty on our measured distance to NGC 55 is the value
434: of the adopted distance to the LMC of 18.50 mag to which our distance determination is tied. The
435: uncertainty of this value may exceed 10\% (Benedict et al. 2002).
436: However, if future work changes the currently adopted LMC distance, we can easily
437: adapt the distances of the target galaxies of our project to the new value. The {\it relative} distance moduli will
438: remain unaffected.
439:
440: From this discussion, and from the conclusions about systematic uncertainties presented in the
441: previous papers in this series we conclude that, apart from the systematic uncertainty on the
442: adopted distance to the LMC, the total systematic error on our present distance
443: determination of NGC 55 does not exceed $\sim$4\%. We believe that our combined optical-NIR
444: Cepheid work on NGC 55
445: has brought about a distance determination to this galaxy which is clearly more accurate than
446: the previous attempts to measure the distance to NGC 55 listed in Table 4.
447:
448:
449: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
450: We have carried out the first Cepheid-based distance determination for the Sculptor Group spiral
451: galaxy NGC 55 from deep images in the optical/near-infrared VIJK bands using our multiwavelength
452: approach used in earlier papers of this series. The resulting distance has a random uncertainty
453: of about 2\% and an estimated systematic uncertainty of 4\%, not taking account the
454: uncertainty of the LMC distance to which our NGC 55 distance result is tied. Our distance determination
455: is virtually unaffected by the reddening of the NGC 55 Cepheids which we have determined very
456: accurately in our procedure.
457:
458: In spite of our effort to recognize Cepheids in our database showing
459: clear signs of being blended with nearby stars in our images, and exclude such stars in the distance analysis,
460: it is likely that blending of the remaining Cepheids with non-resolved companion stars
461: is the single most important source of systematic uncertainty in the present study, with an estimated
462: $\sim$3\% effect, with this estimation coming from our former HST-based work on NGC 300, where the blending effect on the
463: Cepheid distance was found to be less than 2\%. The blending effect in the case of NGC 55 is likely to be
464: somewhat more severe due to the larger inclination of the galaxy with respect to the line of sight.
465:
466: Our Cepheid distance to NGC 55 is more accurate than the existing distance estimates from
467: the PNLF, TRGB and Tully-Fisher methods, and constitutes another step in our effort to improve the determination
468: of the metallicity dependence of stellar methods of distance measurement, including Cepheids, from
469: comparative analyses of the distances of a set of Local Group and Sculptor Group galaxies in our
470: Araucaria Project. Such studies will be the subject of forthcoming papers.
471:
472: Within the (small) uncertainties, the Cepheid distances of the Sculptor galaxies NGC 55 and NGC 300 agree.
473: Taking into account the small angular separation of these two galaxies in the sky, the distance
474: of NGC 55 measured in this paper supports the conclusion that both galaxies are physically
475: associated.
476:
477:
478: \acknowledgments
479: WG, GP and DM gratefully acknowledge financial support for this
480: work from the Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP 15010003.
481: Support from the Polish grant N203 002 31/046 is also acknowledged.
482: IS was supported by the Foundation for Polish Science through the Homing Programme.
483: It is a special pleasure to thank the support astronomers at ESO-Paranal
484: for their expert help in the observations, and the ESO OPC for the
485: generous amounts of observing time at VLT allocated to our Large Programme.
486: We thank an anonymous referee for his comments.
487:
488:
489: \begin{references}
490: \reference{} Benedict, G.F., McArthur, B.E., Fredrick, L.W., et al., 2002, \aj, 123, 473
491:
492: \reference{} Benedict, G.F., McArthur, B.E., Feast, M.W., Barnes, T.G., Harrison, T.E.,
493: Patterson, R.J., Menzies, J.W., Bean, J.L., and Freedman, W.L., 2007, \aj, 133, 1810
494:
495: \reference{} Bono, G., Caputo, F., Castellani, V., and Marconi, M, 1999, \apj, 512, 711
496:
497: \reference{} Bono, G., Marconi, M., Cassisi, S., Caputo, F., Gieren, W., and Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G.,
498: 2005, \apj, 621, 966
499:
500: \reference{} Bresolin, F., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., and Kudritzki, R.-P., 2005, \apj, 634, 1020
501:
502: \reference{} Fouqu{\'e}, P., and Gieren, W., 1997, A\&A, 320, 799
503:
504: \reference{} Fouqu{\'e}, P., Arriagada, P., Storm, J., Barnes, T.G., Nardetto, N., Merand, A.,
505: Kervella, P., Gieren, W., Bersier, D., Benedict, G.F., and McArthur, B.E., 2007, A\&A, submitted
506:
507: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Walker, A., Bresolin, F., Minniti, D., Kudritzki, R.P.,
508: Udalski, A., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Storm, J., and Bono, G., 2004, \aj, 128, 1167
509:
510: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P.,
511: Minniti, D., and Storm, J., 2005a, \apj, 628, 695
512:
513: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Bresolin, F., et al., 2005b, Messenger, 121, 23
514:
515: \reference{} Gieren, W., Storm, J., Barnes III, T.G., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G.,
516: and Kienzle, F., 2005c, \apj, 627, 224
517:
518: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Nalewajko, K., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Bresolin, F.,
519: Kudritzki, R.P., Minniti, D., and Romanowsky, A., 2006, \apj, 647, 1056
520:
521: \reference{} Hawarden, T.G., Leggett, S.K., Letawsky, M.B., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 563
522:
523: \reference{} Jerjen, H., Binggeli, B., and Freeman, K., 2000, \aj, 119, 593
524:
525: \reference{} Karachentsev, I.D., et al., 2003, A\&A, 404, 93
526:
527: \reference{} Kudritzki, R.P., Bresolin, F., and Przybilla, N., 2003, \apj, 582, L83
528:
529: \reference{} Lee, H., Skillman, E.D., Cannon, J.M., Jackson, D.C., Gehrz, R.D., Polomski, E.F.
530: and Woodward, C.E., 2006, \apj, 647, 970
531:
532: \reference{} Madore, B.F., and Freedman, W.L., 1991, PASP, 103, 933
533:
534: \reference{} McGonegal, R., McAlary, C.W., Madore, B.F., and McLaren, R.A., 1982, \apj,
535: 257, L33
536:
537: \reference{} Ngeow, C., and Kanbur, S.M., 2006, \apj, 650, 180
538:
539: \reference{} Persson, S.E., Madore, B.F., Krzeminski, W., Freedman, W.L., Roth, M, and Murphy, D.C.,
540: 2004, \aj, 128, 2239
541:
542: \reference{} Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., and Udalski, A., 2002, PASP, 114, 298
543:
544: \reference{} Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P.,
545: Dall'Ora, M., Storm, J., and Bono, G., 2006a, \apj, 642, 216
546:
547: \reference{} Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., et al., 2006b, \aj, 132, 2556 (Paper I)
548:
549: \reference{} Pritchet, C.J., Schade, D., Richer, H.B., Crabtree, D., and Yee, H.K.C., 1987, \apj, 323, 79
550:
551: \reference{} Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., and Davis, M., 1998, \apj, 500, 525
552:
553: \reference{} Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Gieren, W., and Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., 2005, PASP, 117, 823
554:
555: \reference{} Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.P.,
556: and Storm, J., 2006, \apj, 648, 375
557:
558: \reference{} Tikhonov, N.A., Galazutdinova, O.A., and Drozdovsky, I.O., 2005, A\&A, 431, 127
559:
560: \reference{} Udalski, A., Szyma{\'n}ski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Wo{\'z}niak, P.,
561: and \.Zebru\'n, K., 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 147
562:
563: \reference{} Van de Steene, G.C., Jacoby, G.H., Praet, C., Ciardullo, R., and Dejonghe, H., 2006,
564: A\&A, 455, 891
565:
566: \reference{} Van Leeuwen, F., Feast, M.W., Whitelock, P.A., and Laney, C.D., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 723
567:
568: \end{references}
569:
570:
571: \begin{figure}[p]
572: \vspace*{18cm}
573: \special{psfile=fig1.ps hoffset=-20 voffset=0 hscale=85 vscale=85}
574: \caption{The location of the four observed VLT/ISAAC fields in NGC 55 on the DSS
575: blue plate. We observed each field on two different nights. The white dots indicate
576: the Cepheids discovered in our previous optical survey (Paper I).}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579:
580: \begin{figure}[htb]
581: \vspace*{20cm}
582: \special{psfile=fig2a.ps hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=90 vscale=90}
583: \special{psfile=fig2b.ps hoffset=0 voffset=320 hscale=90 vscale=90}
584: \caption{The near-infrared J and K band period-luminosity relations
585: defined by the 40 observed NGC 55 Cepheids.
586: Each mean magnitude was derived from two random-phase
587: observations by the method of Soszy{\'n}ski et al. (2005). Stars which
588: were not used in the
589: distance determination (see text) are indicated by open circles.}
590: \end{figure}
591:
592:
593: \begin{figure}[htb]
594: \vspace*{17cm}
595: \special{psfile=fig3.ps hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=98 vscale=98}
596: \caption{The location of the Cepheid variables in NGC 55 in the K, J-K
597: color-magnitude diagram. The bulk of the variables clearly define
598: the instability strip in its expected position (filled circles).
599: Outliers are a group
600: of four very bright and red stars (open circles), which are objects
601: cep004, 036,
602: 086 and 113 in our database. Cepheids 036, 086 and 113 are the most
603: deviating objects in the K-band PL diagram in Fig. 2, supporting
604: our choice to remove these objects in the distance solution. These
605: objects are either heavily blended by very red and bright objects, or
606: they are not classical Cepheids. There are two additional objects
607: located outside the instability strip (open squares), cep69 and cep81.
608: If all six outliers are removed from the database, the remaining
609: Cepheids lying inside the instability strip define PL relation slopes
610: of -2.81 +/- 0.17 in J, and -2.94 +/- 0.20 in K, which are consistent
611: with the LMC PL relation slopes of Persson et al. within 2 sigma.}
612: \end{figure}
613:
614:
615: \begin{figure}[htb]
616: \vspace*{20cm}
617: \special{psfile=fig4a.ps hoffset=0 voffset=0 hscale=90 vscale=90}
618: \special{psfile=fig4b.ps hoffset=0 voffset=320 hscale=90 vscale=90}
619: \caption{Cepheids in NGC 55 adopted for the near-infrared PL solutions, plotted along with the best-fitting lines.
620: The slopes of the fits were adopted from the LMC, and the zero points determined
621: from our data. }
622: \end{figure}
623:
624:
625: \begin{figure}[p]
626: \special{psfile=fig5.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-350 hscale=85 vscale=85}
627: \vspace{10cm}
628: \caption{Apparent distance moduli to NGC 55 as derived in the VIJK photometric bands,
629: plotted against the ratio of total to selective extinction as adopted from
630: the Schlegel et al. reddening law. The intersection and
631: slope of the best-fitting line give the true distance modulus and the average total
632: reddening, respectively. The data in this diagram suggest that the Galactic reddening law
633: is a very good approximation for NGC 55 as well.}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636:
637:
638: \clearpage
639: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c}
640: %\rotate
641: \tablewidth{0pc}
642: \tablecaption{Journal of the Individual J and K band Observations of NGC 55
643: Cepheids}
644: \tablehead{ \colhead{ID} & \colhead{J HJD} & \colhead{J} & \colhead{$\sigma$}
645: & \colhead{K HJD} & \colhead{K} & \colhead{$\sigma$}\\
646: \colhead{} & \colhead{2400000+} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{2400000+} &
647: \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag}
648: }
649: \startdata
650: cep001 & 53206.335935 & 17.751 & 0.009 & 53206.260866 & 17.285 & 0.013 \\
651: cep010 & 53206.335935 & 18.786 & 0.014 & 53206.260866 & 18.299 & 0.017 \\
652: cep013 & 53206.335935 & 18.602 & 0.013 & 53206.260866 & 17.798 & 0.015 \\
653: cep126 & 53206.335935 & 20.992 & 0.061 & 53206.260866 & 20.132 & 0.072 \\
654: cep002 & 53222.266831 & 17.820 & 0.024 & 53222.299022 & 17.435 & 0.025 \\
655: cep004 & 53222.266831 & 19.682 & 0.028 & 53222.299022 & 18.259 & 0.039 \\
656: cep005 & 53222.266831 & 18.389 & 0.024 & 53222.299022 & 17.781 & 0.023 \\
657: cep009 & 53222.266831 & 18.972 & 0.021 & 53222.299022 & 18.403 & 0.023 \\
658: cep012 & 53222.266831 & 18.739 & 0.025 & 53222.299022 & 18.232 & 0.021 \\
659: cep036 & 53222.266831 & 19.170 & 0.029 & 53222.299022 & 17.779 & 0.044 \\
660: cep055 & 53222.266831 & 19.719 & 0.031 & 53222.299022 & 18.957 & 0.032 \\
661: cep072 & 53222.266831 & 19.911 & 0.039 & 53222.299022 & 19.336 & 0.029 \\
662: cep081 & 53222.266831 & 21.152 & 0.058 & 53222.299022 & 19.914 & 0.060 \\
663: cep002 & 53249.278595 & 17.882 & 0.022 & 53249.200628 & 17.515 & 0.026 \\
664: cep004 & 53249.278595 & 19.631 & 0.037 & 53249.200628 & 18.298 & 0.029 \\
665: cep005 & 53249.278595 & 18.634 & 0.023 & 53249.200628 & 17.918 & 0.023 \\
666: cep009 & 53249.278595 & 18.918 & 0.022 & 53249.200628 & 18.335 & 0.028 \\
667: cep012 & 53249.278595 & 19.213 & 0.028 & 53249.200628 & 18.536 & 0.032 \\
668: cep036 & 53249.278595 & 19.126 & 0.035 & 53249.200628 & 17.854 & 0.027 \\
669: cep055 & 53249.278595 & 19.688 & 0.036 & 53249.200628 & 18.929 & 0.037 \\
670: cep072 & 53249.278595 & 20.117 & 0.039 & 53249.200628 & 19.308 & 0.044 \\
671: cep081 & 53249.278595 & 20.734 & 0.079 & 53249.200628 & 20.047 & 0.120 \\
672: cep020 & 53204.306992 & 19.404 & 0.026 & 53204.228037 & 18.894 & 0.023 \\
673: cep023 & 53204.306992 & 19.924 & 0.032 & 53204.228037 & 19.510 & 0.022 \\
674: cep037 & 53204.306992 & 19.149 & 0.020 & 53204.228037 & 18.603 & 0.016 \\
675: cep039 & 53204.306992 & 19.578 & 0.040 & 53204.228037 & 19.259 & 0.026 \\
676: cep079 & 53204.306992 & 19.308 & 0.035 & 53204.228037 & 18.469 & 0.015 \\
677: cep087 & 53204.306992 & 20.296 & 0.035 & 53204.228037 & 19.862 & 0.027 \\
678: cep098 & 53204.306992 & 20.878 & 0.046 & 53204.228037 & 20.016 & 0.045 \\
679: cep100 & 53204.306992 & 20.691 & 0.057 & 53204.228037 & 20.306 & 0.049 \\
680: cep101 & 53204.306992 & 20.168 & 0.048 & 53204.228037 & 19.850 & 0.030 \\
681: cep138 & 53204.306992 & 21.015 & 0.095 & 53204.228037 & 20.828 & 0.067 \\
682: cep020 & 53223.250368 & 19.430 & 0.020 & 53223.275357 & 18.702 & 0.027 \\
683: cep023 & 53223.250368 & 19.909 & 0.023 & 53223.275357 & 19.456 & 0.034 \\
684: cep037 & 53223.250368 & 19.267 & 0.014 & 53223.275357 & 18.850 & 0.024 \\
685: cep039 & 53223.250368 & 19.796 & 0.027 & 53223.275357 & 19.354 & 0.033 \\
686: cep069 & 53223.250368 & 20.831 & 0.075 & 53223.275357 & 19.645 & 0.068 \\
687: cep079 & 53223.250368 & 19.321 & 0.022 & 53223.275357 & 18.745 & 0.026 \\
688: cep087 & 53223.250368 & 20.298 & 0.024 & 53223.275357 & 19.873 & 0.037 \\
689: cep098 & 53223.250368 & 20.865 & 0.038 & 53223.275357 & 20.482 & 0.105 \\
690: cep100 & 53223.250368 & 20.514 & 0.028 & 53223.275357 & 20.037 & 0.049 \\
691: cep101 & 53223.250368 & 20.193 & 0.029 & 53223.275357 & 19.778 & 0.036 \\
692: cep126 & 53223.250368 & 21.012 & 0.073 & 53223.275357 & 20.528 & 0.126 \\
693: cep138 & 53223.250368 & 21.098 & 0.055 & 53223.275357 & 20.959 & 0.095 \\
694: cep014 & 53246.212176 & 18.745 & 0.028 & 53246.131676 & 18.213 & 0.016 \\
695: cep018 & 53246.212176 & 19.072 & 0.031 & 53246.131676 & 18.439 & 0.023 \\
696: cep033 & 53246.212176 & 19.011 & 0.027 & 53246.131676 & 18.299 & 0.019 \\
697: cep043 & 53246.212176 & 19.889 & 0.057 & 53246.131676 & 19.571 & 0.025 \\
698: cep059 & 53246.212176 & 19.656 & 0.038 & 53246.131676 & 19.080 & 0.021 \\
699: cep044 & 53246.212176 & 19.747 & 0.044 & 53246.131676 & 19.172 & 0.036 \\
700: cep056 & 53246.212176 & 19.753 & 0.076 & 53246.131676 & 19.770 & 0.022 \\
701: cep057 & 53246.212176 & 19.801 & 0.036 & 53246.131676 & 19.081 & 0.030 \\
702: cep064 & 53246.212176 & 20.031 & 0.038 & 53246.131676 & 19.520 & 0.027 \\
703: cep086 & 53246.212176 & 19.554 & 0.019 & 53246.131676 & 18.289 & 0.021 \\
704: cep103 & 53246.212176 & 20.404 & 0.193 & 53246.131676 & 21.037 & 0.037 \\
705: cep113 & 53246.212176 & 19.780 & 0.048 & 53246.131676 & 18.585 & 0.060 \\
706: cep122 & 53246.212176 & 20.896 & 0.067 & 53246.131676 & 20.251 & 0.045 \\
707: cep129 & 53246.212176 & 99.999 & 0.118 & 53246.131676 & 20.168 & 9.999 \\
708: cep014 & 53270.216781 & 18.395 & 0.020 & 53270.125592 & 17.930 & 0.024 \\
709: cep018 & 53270.216781 & 19.435 & 0.027 & 53270.125592 & 18.793 & 0.027 \\
710: cep033 & 53270.216781 & 18.991 & 0.031 & 53270.125592 & 18.086 & 0.045 \\
711: cep043 & 53270.216781 & 19.788 & 0.024 & 53270.125592 & 19.240 & 0.028 \\
712: cep059 & 53270.216781 & 19.811 & 0.032 & 53270.125592 & 19.161 & 0.045 \\
713: cep044 & 53270.216781 & 19.723 & 0.029 & 53270.125592 & 19.277 & 0.037 \\
714: cep056 & 53270.216781 & 19.876 & 0.022 & 53270.125592 & 19.287 & 0.029 \\
715: cep057 & 53270.216781 & 19.892 & 0.035 & 53270.125592 & 19.500 & 0.037 \\
716: cep064 & 53270.216781 & 19.913 & 0.028 & 53270.125592 & 19.452 & 0.031 \\
717: cep086 & 53270.216781 & 19.251 & 0.017 & 53270.125592 & 18.232 & 0.024 \\
718: cep103 & 53270.216781 & 20.504 & 0.048 & 53270.125592 & 20.250 & 0.062 \\
719: cep113 & 53270.216781 & 20.134 & 0.045 & 53270.125592 & 18.482 & 0.029 \\
720: cep122 & 53270.216781 & 20.759 & 0.038 & 53270.125592 & 20.073 & 0.054 \\
721: cep129 & 53270.216781 & 20.649 & 0.040 & 53270.125592 & 20.057 & 0.072 \\
722: cep132 & 53270.216781 & 21.590 & 0.094 & 53270.125592 & 20.881 & 0.096 \\
723: cep142 & 53270.216781 & 21.655 & 0.127 & 53270.125592 & 21.279 & 0.145 \\
724: \enddata
725: \end{deluxetable}
726:
727: \clearpage
728:
729: \begin{deluxetable}{c r c c c c}
730: \tablecaption{Intensity mean J and K magnitudes for 40 Cepheid variables in NGC 55}
731: %\tablewidth{0pt}
732: \tablehead{
733: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{P} &
734: \colhead{$<J>$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm J}$} & \colhead{$<K>$} &
735: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm K}$}\\
736: & \colhead{days} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{mag} &
737: \colhead{mag}
738: }
739: \startdata
740: cep001 & 175.9086 & 17.809 & 0.027 & 17.340 & 0.028 \\
741: cep002 & 152.0943 & 17.884 & 0.034 & 17.497 & 0.036 \\
742: cep004 & 97.7291 & 19.572 & 0.041 & 18.227 & 0.042 \\
743: cep005 & 85.0550 & 18.504 & 0.034 & 17.868 & 0.034 \\
744: cep009 & 73.5323 & 18.898 & 0.033 & 18.328 & 0.036 \\
745: cep010 & 66.8528 & 18.732 & 0.029 & 18.210 & 0.030 \\
746: cep012 & 62.3186 & 18.954 & 0.036 & 18.395 & 0.037 \\
747: cep013 & 57.1544 & 18.509 & 0.028 & 17.737 & 0.029 \\
748: cep014 & 57.0377 & 18.536 & 0.035 & 18.042 & 0.032 \\
749: cep018 & 46.3493 & 19.244 & 0.038 & 18.615 & 0.035 \\
750: cep020 & 44.0077 & 19.481 & 0.034 & 18.839 & 0.035 \\
751: cep023 & 41.7395 & 19.946 & 0.037 & 19.500 & 0.038 \\
752: cep033 & 35.0516 & 19.141 & 0.037 & 18.333 & 0.031 \\
753: cep036 & 32.8210 & 19.059 & 0.041 & 17.734 & 0.044 \\
754: cep037 & 32.4267 & 19.230 & 0.030 & 18.733 & 0.032 \\
755: cep039 & 31.1574 & 19.666 & 0.042 & 19.276 & 0.039 \\
756: cep043 & 29.4512 & 19.869 & 0.050 & 19.501 & 0.036 \\
757: cep044 & 28.0657 & 19.557 & 0.045 & 19.098 & 0.044 \\
758: cep055 & 25.1401 & 19.722 & 0.042 & 19.008 & 0.043 \\
759: cep056 & 24.9857 & 19.951 & 0.033 & 19.348 & 0.036 \\
760: cep057 & 24.5666 & 20.033 & 0.043 & 19.474 & 0.042 \\
761: cep059 & 23.7508 & 19.890 & 0.043 & 19.184 & 0.043 \\
762: cep064 & 22.9247 & 20.130 & 0.042 & 19.593 & 0.038 \\
763: cep069 & 22.2824 & 20.739 & 0.079 & 19.650 & 0.072 \\
764: cep072 & 21.9627 & 20.078 & 0.046 & 19.423 & 0.045 \\
765: cep079 & 20.3942 & 19.410 & 0.038 & 18.709 & 0.033 \\
766: cep081 & 19.8080 & 20.871 & 0.074 & 19.900 & 0.098 \\
767: cep086 & 18.5752 & 19.367 & 0.031 & 18.199 & 0.034 \\
768: cep087 & 18.3966 & 20.517 & 0.039 & 19.964 & 0.041 \\
769: cep098 & 16.9912 & 20.709 & 0.049 & 20.140 & 0.085 \\
770: cep100 & 16.5556 & 20.541 & 0.051 & 20.138 & 0.055 \\
771: cep101 & 16.5403 & 20.289 & 0.047 & 19.913 & 0.042 \\
772: cep103 & 15.8413 & 20.421 & 0.054 & 20.106 & 0.057 \\
773: cep113 & 14.1150 & 19.874 & 0.052 & 18.590 & 0.053 \\
774: cep122 & 12.4326 & 20.857 & 0.060 & 20.231 & 0.056 \\
775: cep126 & 11.9130 & 21.169 & 0.074 & 20.372 & 0.076 \\
776: cep129 & 10.8421 & 20.793 & 0.047 & 20.066 & 0.076 \\
777: cep132 & 10.2913 & 21.338 & 0.097 & 20.703 & 0.099 \\
778: cep138 & 7.9824 & 21.214 & 0.060 & 21.055 & 0.098 \\
779: cep142 & 6.1346 & 21.527 & 0.129 & 21.232 & 0.147 \\
780: \enddata
781: \end{deluxetable}
782:
783: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
784: \tablewidth{0pc}
785: \tablecaption{Reddened and Absorption-Corrected Distance Moduli for NGC
786: 55 in Optical and Near-Infrared Bands}
787: \tablehead{ \colhead{Band} & $V$ & $I$ & $J$ & $K$ & $E(B-V)$ }
788: \startdata
789: $m-M$ & 26.835 & 26.685 & 26.559 & 26.439 & -- \nl
790: ${\rm R}_{\lambda}$ & 3.24 & 1.96 & 0.902 & 0.367 & -- \nl
791: $(m-M)_{0}$ & 26.423 & 26.436 & 26.444 & 26.392 & 0.127 \nl
792: \enddata
793: \end{deluxetable}
794:
795: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}
796: \tablewidth{0pc}
797: \tablecaption{Table 4. Previous Distance Determinations to NGC 55}
798: \tablehead{ Distance [Mpc] & Method & Reference}
799: \startdata
800: 1.34 +/- 0.08 & Carbon stars & Pritchet et al. 1987 \nl
801: 1.8 +/- 0.2 & Tully-Fisher & Karachentsev et al. 2003 \nl
802: 2.12 +/- 0.10 & TRGB & Tikhonov et al. 2005 \nl
803: 2.30 +/- 0.35 & PNLF & Van de Steene et al. 2006 \nl
804: 1.91 +/- 0.10 & Cepheids, VI & Pietrzynski et al. 2006b \nl
805: 1.94 +/- 0.08 & Cepheids, VIJK & this paper \nl
806: \enddata
807: \end{deluxetable}
808:
809:
810: \end{document}
811:
812:
813:
814: \end{document}
815: