1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{txfonts}
4: \usepackage{epsf,epsfig}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6: \usepackage{subfigure}
7: \citestyle{apj}
8:
9: \def\fdeg{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\circ$}}
10: \def\farcs{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}}
11: \def\farcm{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}}
12: \def\degr{\hbox{$^\circ$}}
13: \def\arcmin{\hbox{$^\prime$}}
14: \def\arcsec{\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
15: \def\sun{\hbox{$\odot$}}
16: \def\logg{\hbox{$\log g$}}
17: \def\Teff{\hbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}
18: \def\fh{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm h}$}}
19: \def\fm{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}}
20: \def\fs{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm s}$}}
21: \def\hou{^{\rm h}}
22: \def\min{^{\rm m}}
23: \def\ssec{^{\rm s}}
24: \def\fbol{\hbox{$F_{\rm bol}$}}
25: \def\i{{\rm i}}
26: \def\ud{{\rm d}}
27:
28: \newcommand{\simle}{\mbox{$\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}$}}
29: \newcommand{\simge}{\mbox{$\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}$}}
30:
31:
32:
33: \slugcomment{For submission to ApJ}
34:
35:
36: \shorttitle{Multi-wavelength, multi-epoch angular diameters of six Mira variables.}
37: \shortauthors{Woodruff et al.}
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: \title{The Keck Aperture Masking Experiment: Multi-wavelength observations of 6 Mira Variables.}
42:
43:
44: \author{H. C. Woodruff\altaffilmark{1},
45: P. G. Tuthill\altaffilmark{1},
46: J. D. Monnier\altaffilmark{2},
47: M. J. Ireland\altaffilmark{3},
48: T. R. Bedding\altaffilmark{1},
49: S.~Lacour\altaffilmark{1},
50: W. C. Danchi\altaffilmark{4} , \and
51: M. Scholz\altaffilmark{1,5}}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia}
54: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Department of Astronomy,
55: 500 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1090, USA}
56: \altaffiltext{3}{Planetary Science, Caltech, 1200 E. California Blvd, Pasadena CA 91125 USA}
57: \altaffiltext{4}{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Infrared Astrophysics,
58: Code 685, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA }
59: \altaffiltext{5}{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Astrophysik der Universit\"at Heidelberg, Albert-Ueberle-Str. 2, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}
60:
61:
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: The angular diameters of six oxygen rich Mira-type long-period variables have been measured at various near-infrared (NIR)
65: wavelengths using the aperture masking technique in an extensive observing program from 1997 Jan to 2004 Sep.
66: These data sets span many pulsation cycles of the observed objects and represent the largest study of multi-wavelength, multi-epoch interferometric
67: angular diameter measurements on Mira stars to date.
68: The calibrated visibility data of $o$~Cet, R Leo, R Cas, W Hya, $\chi$ Cyg and R Hya are fitted using a uniform disk brightness distribution model
69: to facilitate comparison between epochs, wavelengths and with existing data and theoretical models.
70: The variation of angular diameter as a function of wavelength and time are studied, and
71: cyclic diameter variations are detected for all objects in our sample.
72: These variations are believed to stem from time-dependent changes of density and temperature
73: (and hence varying molecular opacities) in different layers of these stars.
74: The similarities and differences in behaviour between these objects are analyzed and discussed in the context of existing theoretical models.
75: Furthermore, we present time-dependent 3.08\,$\mu$m angular diameter measurements, probing for the first time these zones of probable dust formation,
76: which show unforeseen sizes and are consistently out of phase with other NIR layers shown in this study.
77: NIR light-curves were recovered, and show the distinctive phase lag in the maxima of $\approx$ 0.2 (compared to the visual maximum),
78: similar to the lag found by, e.g. \cite{SMITH02} and \cite{NAD01}.
79: The S-type Mira $\chi$ Cyg exhibits significantly different behaviour compared to the M-type Miras in this study,
80: both in its NIR light-curves and its diameter pulsation signature.
81: Our data show that the NIR diameters predicted by current models are too small and need to incorporate additional and/or enhanced opacity mechanisms.
82: Also, new tailored models are needed to explain the behaviour of the S-type Mira $\chi$ Cyg.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85:
86: \keywords{
87: instrumentation: interferometers --
88: techniques: interferometric --
89: stars: late-type --
90: stars: AGB and post-AGB --
91: stars: fundamental parameters --
92: stars: individual: Mira
93: stars: individual: R Hya
94: stars: individual: Chi Cyg
95: stars: individual: W Hya
96: stars: individual: R Leo
97: stars: individual: R Cas}
98:
99: \section{Introduction}
100:
101:
102: Mira variables are pulsating M-type giants with very extended stellar atmosphere and mass-loss rates of up to $10^{-4}$M$_{\sun}/{\rm yr}$ (e.g. \citealt{JK90}).
103: Multi-wavelength studies allow us to probe the atmospheric structure, including H$_2$O and dust shells.
104: Optical and near-infrared (NIR) interferometry has been able to constrain fundamental parameters
105: such as intensity distributions, effective temperatures and diameters, and the dependence of these on wavelength and pulsation phase
106: (e.g., \citealt{HAN95}; \citealt{VANB}; \citealt{PER}; \citealt{YOU00};\citealt{HOF02}; \citealt{THOM}; \citealt{WOO}).
107: Interferometric studies of Mira stars conducted over multiple epochs
108: and spanning a range of wavelengths have helped to address fundamental questions such
109: as the pulsation mode of these stars (e.g., \citealt{WOO};\citealt{FED05}), the
110: molecular and dust abundances in the atmosphere (e.g. \citealt{ISTW,ISW,IS06}),
111: the characteristics of the circumstellar environment (e.g. \citealt{DAN94}) and photospheric/circumstellar asymmetries (e.g. \citealt{RAG06}).\\
112:
113: Interferometry, together with a host of other observational techniques, has gradually been making advances
114: into our understanding of the basic physics of these stars.
115: For example, there is now consensus that Miras pulsate in the fundamental mode,
116: based on photometry, e.g., MACHO observations (see \citealt{woodM}), and spectroscopy (see \citealt{SW}) in addition to interferometry.
117: However, the structure and composition of the stellar atmosphere
118: still shows surprising results when investigated in detail.
119: \cite{RAG06} have, e.g., detected $H$ band asymmetric brightness distributions in about 29\% of their sample of nearby asymptotic giant branch stars,
120: substantiating another level of complexity in the structure of this class of objects.
121:
122: In this paper we present the most comprehensive interferometric study of Miras to date,
123: encompassing 6 nearby objects, observed at up to 19 different phases in 4 filters.
124: With this homogeneous data-set, we are able to examine phase-dependent
125: variations in Miras' atmospheric structure and are in a position to investigate long term effects that span several pulsation cycles.
126: By observing in the NIR (especially within the $J$, $H$ and $K$ bandpasses), we can sample molecular strata near the continuum-forming layers that
127: are often close to the position of the Rosseland layer ($\tau_{\rm Ross}=1$, cf. \citealt{SCH03} and references therein).\\
128:
129: Theoretical models describe the molecular layering in the atmosphere and its variation with time (e.g. \citealt{BSW}; \citealt{HSW}; \citealt{ISTW,ISW}),
130: and make predictions of observables such as light-curves, diameters and intensity distributions.
131: With our extensive database we can challenge existing models and motivate the development of a more complete physical picture of Mira variables.
132: Ultimately, the aim of interferometric observations like these is to calibrate the theoretical models so that fundamental parameters of Miras can be
133: derived from simple observables, enabling studies of stellar populations beyond the solar neighbourhood.
134:
135:
136:
137:
138: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{observations}
139: \subsection{Aperture-masking Observations}
140:
141: Our sample of 6 Miras contains only nearby objects, all of which have revised Hipparcos distances (see Table \ref{objects}).
142: The objects were chosen for their large angular diameters and NIR brightness.
143: Observations were performed with the 10\,m Keck I telescope at a range of
144: NIR wavelengths (see Table \ref{filters}) using the Near Infrared Camera (NIRC).
145: The telescope pupil was converted into a sparse interferometric array by placing
146: aperture masks in the beam in front of the infrared secondary mirror, allowing
147: the recovery of the Fourier amplitudes and closure phases for baselines up
148: to 9.8\,m.
149: For a detailed discussion of mask design, observing
150: methodology, scientific rationale and implementation, we refer to \cite{TUT00}. \\
151:
152: For this work we used non-redundant masks with 15 or 21 holes
153: configured to deliver near-optimal sampling of the Fourier plane (\citealt{GOL71}).
154: Data-sets consisting of 100 140\,msec exposures were taken, alternating between the target of interest
155: and nearby calibrator stars. The latter were chosen to have well characterized, smaller apparent sizes (see Table \ref{calibrators}).
156: The data were recorded at 19 different epochs spanning more than 7 years, delivering
157: good coverage through the pulsation cycles of the objects observed.
158: Tables \ref{tbl-obs_ocet} to \ref{tbl-obs_rhya} list these observations.
159:
160:
161: \begin{deluxetable}{lcclc}
162: \tablewidth{0pt}
163: \tablecaption{\label{objects}
164: Observed objects
165: }
166: \tablehead{
167: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{Spectral} & \colhead{Distance}& \colhead{Distance}\\
168: &\colhead{[days]} &\colhead{Type Range} & \colhead{[pc]} & \colhead{reference}\\
169: }
170: \startdata
171: $o$~Cet & 332 & M5-9e & $107\pm6$ & 1\\
172: R Leo & 312 & M6-9.5e & $82\pm5$ & 1\\
173: R Cas & 430 & M6-10e & $100\pm5$ & 2\\
174: W Hya & 385 & M7.5-9ep & $78\pm3$ & 1\\
175: $\chi$ Cyg& 408 & S6-S9(MSe) & $149\pm11$ & 1\\
176: R Hya & 380 & M6-9eS(Tc) & $118\pm7$ & 1\\
177: \enddata
178: \tablerefs{Object Period from the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO) visual light curves (A.A. Henden et al. 2006, private communication),
179: M Spectral Type Range from \cite{SLOANPRICE} and $\chi$ Cyg Spectral Type from \cite{KEE80},
180: Distances from (1) \cite{KNAPP} or (2) \cite{POU02}
181: }
182: \end{deluxetable}
183:
184:
185: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
186: \tablewidth{0pt}
187: \tablecaption {\label{filters}
188: Table of filters}
189: \tablehead{
190: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{Keck/NIRC} & \colhead{Centre Wavelength } & \colhead{Bandwidth } \\
191: &\colhead{Filter Name} & \colhead{[$\mu$m]} &\colhead{[$\mu$m]} \\
192: }
193: \startdata
194: z\,1.08 &HeI & 1.083 & 0.014\\
195: J\,1.24 &OII & 1.236 & 0.011 \\
196: H\,1.65 &FeII & 1.647 & 0.018 \\
197: K\,2.26 &Kcont & 2.260 & 0.050 \\
198: &H221 & 2.261 & 0.0239 \\
199: L\,3.08 &PAHcs & 3.082 & 0.101 \\
200: L\,3.31 &PAH & 3.310 & 0.063 \\
201: \enddata
202:
203: \end{deluxetable}
204:
205:
206: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
207: \tablewidth{0pt}
208: \tablecaption{\label{calibrators}
209: Calibrator stars with estimated diameters
210: }
211: \tablehead{
212: \colhead{Calibrator} & \colhead{Spectral} & \colhead{Adopted UD} & \colhead{Reference}\\
213: &\colhead{Type} &\colhead{Angular Diameter [mas]} &\\
214: }
215: \startdata
216: $\alpha$~Cet & M1.5III & $11.7\pm0.6$ &1 \\
217: $\alpha$ Ari & K2III & $5.9\pm0.6$ & 1 \\
218: $\alpha$ Cas & K0III & $5.3\pm0.1$ & 2 \\
219: $\beta$~Cet & K0III & $6.7\pm0.5$ & 4 \\
220: $\alpha$ Hya & K3II-III & $9.1\pm0.1$ &3 \\
221: $\pi$ Leo & M2III & $4.6\pm0.3$ & 5 \\
222: $\alpha$ Lyn & K7III & $7.2\pm0.6$ & 1\\
223: 2 Cen & M4.5III & $14.7$ & 6 \\
224: $\gamma$ Sge & M0III & $6.0\pm0.6$ & 1\\
225: $\delta$ Sgr & K3III & $6.9\pm0.9$ & 7\\
226: 4 Cas & M1III & $4.3$ & 6 \\
227: $\epsilon$ Cyg & K0III & $4.3\pm0.4$ & 2 \\
228: $\delta$ Oph & M0.5III & $10.1\pm0.5$ & 8\\
229: Vega & A0V & $3.1\pm0.1$ & 9\\
230: $\xi$ Cyg & K4.5I & $7.5\pm0.6$ & 10\\
231: $\gamma$ Hya & G8III & $3.0\pm0.2$ & 11\\
232: $\pi$ Hya & K2III & $3.9\pm0.2$ & 4 \\
233: \enddata
234: \tablerefs{(1) \cite{DYCK98}; (2) \cite{MOZ91}; (3) \cite{MOZ03}; (4) from CHARM catalog \citep{CHARM};
235: (5) \cite{RIDG79}; (6) \cite{DUMM}; (7) \cite{MON04}; (8) \cite{PER98};
236: (9) \cite{HAN74}; (10) \cite{DYCK96}; (11) from CHARM2 catalog \citep{CHARM2}
237: }
238:
239: \end{deluxetable}
240:
241:
242: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}
243: \tablewidth{0pt}
244: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_ocet}
245: Observations of $o$~Cet}
246: \tablehead{
247: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
248: & \colhead{-2450000} & & \colhead{ [mas] } & \colhead{ [mas] } & \colhead{[mas] } & \colhead{ [mas] } & \\
249: }
250: \startdata
251: 1997Dec16 & 800 & 0.94 & 22.2$\pm1.0$ &27.5$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.2}}$ & 31.0$\pm1.9$ & 58.8$\pm1.5$ &$\alpha$~Cet \\
252:
253: 1998Sep29 & 1056 & 1.71 & 29.1$\pm2.2$ & 33.3$\pm1.6$& 37.0$\pm1.2$ & 57.7$\pm1.1$ & $\alpha$~Cet \\
254:
255: 1999Jan05 & 1184 & 2.10 & 25.6$\pm1.3$ &27.6$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.3}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.1}}$ & 31.8$\pm1.8$ & 61.4$\pm1.3$ &$\alpha$~Cet \\
256: & & & & & &61.5$\pm1.2$&\\
257: & & & & & &61.5$\pm1.3$&\\
258: & & & & & &61.5$\pm1.2$&\\
259:
260:
261: 1999Jul29 & 1390 & 2.72 & 29.4$\pm1.9$ & 32.9$\pm1.7$ & 36.9$\pm1.2$ & 53.2$\pm1.4$ &$\alpha$~Cet\\
262:
263: 2000Jan25 & 1570 & 3.26 & &30.1$\pm2.6$ & 33.1$\pm1.3$ & 58.3$\pm1.4$&$\alpha$~Cet\\
264:
265: 2000Jun23 & 1720 & 3.71 & 29.9$\pm1.9$ & 38.1$\pm1.8$ & & 56.9$\pm1.3$& $\alpha$ Ari\\
266: & & & & & &58.2$\pm1.0$&\\
267:
268: 2001Jul29 & 2121 & 4.92 & &30.1$\pm1.9$ & 33.8$\pm2.7$ & 58.7$\pm5.0$ &$\alpha$ Cas , $\alpha$~Cet \\
269:
270: 2002Jul23 & 2479 & 5.98 & 24.8$\pm2.1$ & 26.6$\pm0.5$ & 34.9$\pm1.5$ & 61.5$\pm2.3$&$\alpha$~Cet\\
271:
272: 2004Sep14 & 3262 & 8.30 & 27.1$\pm1.0$ & 29.3$\pm1.6$ & 32.3$\pm1.2$ & 59.0$\pm1.4$ &$\alpha$~Cet , $\beta$~Cet\\
273: & & & & & 31.8$\pm0.9$ & 57.5$\pm1.2$ &\\
274: & & & & & & 57.4$\pm1.1$ &\\
275: & & & & & & 58.2$\pm1.9$&\\
276: & & & & & & 57.8$\pm1.1$&\\
277: & & & & & & 57.9$\pm1.4$ &\\
278:
279:
280: \enddata
281: \end{deluxetable}
282:
283:
284:
285: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
286: \tablewidth{0pt}
287: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_rleo}
288: Observations of R Leo}
289: \tablehead{
290: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
291: & \colhead{-2450000} & & \colhead{[mas] } & \colhead{[mas] } & \colhead{ [mas] } & \colhead{[mas] } & \\
292: }
293: \startdata
294: 1997Jan29&478&0.05&31.0$\pm1.1$ &29.6$\pm1.9$ & 30.3$\pm2.6$&52.1$\pm1.5$ & $\alpha$ Hya , $\pi$ Leo\\
295: & & &32.6$\pm1.5$ & & 32.9$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.3}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.2}}$ &52.8$\pm1.4$ &\\
296: & & & & & & 55.6$\pm1.7$ &\\
297: & & & & & & 54.6$\pm1.4$ &\\
298: & & & & & &53.8$\pm1.2$ &\\
299: & & & & & &54.5$\pm1.5$ &\\
300:
301: 1997Dec16&800&1.14 & 30.0$\pm1.1$ & &31.4$\pm1.7$ & 47.8$\pm1.8$ & $\alpha$ Hya\\
302: & & & 29.9$\pm1.2$ & & & &\\
303:
304:
305: 1998Apr14&918&1.54 & & 32.9$\pm1.4$ & 32.3$\pm1.8$ & 49.2$\pm1.6$ &$\alpha$ Lyn\\
306:
307: 1998Jun04& 970 & 1.71 & 33.1$\pm2.0$& 29.7$\pm2.0$ & 32.6$\pm1.9$& 50.7$\pm1.6$ &$\alpha$ Lyn\\
308:
309: 1999Jan05&1213&2.40& & &33.9$\pm0.9$ & &$\pi$ Leo\\
310:
311: 1999Feb04&1213&2.49& 31.2$\pm1.8$ & 33.2$\pm2.0$ & 35.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.3}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.9}}$ & 50.9$\pm1.9$ &$\alpha$ Hya\\
312:
313: 1999Apr25&1295&2.75& 29.6$\pm1.4$ &29.1$\pm0.8$ & 34.6$\pm1.3$ & 53.3$\pm1.5$ & $\alpha$ Lyn, $\pi$ Leo\\
314: & & & & & 34.1$\pm1.4$ & &\\
315:
316:
317:
318: 2000Jan25 &1570 &3.64& & 34.6$\pm1.6$ & 33.1$\pm1.7$ & 52.6$\pm0.7$ &$\alpha$ Lyn\\
319: & & & & & &52.1$\pm0.8$ &\\
320:
321:
322:
323: 2000Jun23 &1720&4.12& & 29.3$\pm2.1$ & 31.2$\pm1.9$ & 55.4$\pm1.8$ &$\pi$ Leo\\
324:
325:
326: 2001Jun11 &2073 &5.24& 31.5$\pm1.3$ & 33.5$^{\mbox{\tiny+4.6}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.8}}$ & 30.7$^{\mbox{\tiny+4.5}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.8}}$ & 56.5$\pm2.0$ &$\pi$ Leo , $\alpha$ Lyn, 2 Cen\\
327:
328: 2003May12&2772&7.48& & 36.2$\pm1.1$ & 37.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+5.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.4}}$ & & $\pi$ Leo\\
329:
330: 2004May28&3154 &8.71& & 30.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.0}}_{\mbox{\tiny-1.8}}$ & 32.1$\pm1.7$ & 56.4$\pm1.4$ & $\pi$ Leo\\
331:
332:
333: 2005May26&3516 &9.88& & 28.9$\pm2.0$ & 31.5$\pm1.5$ & & $\pi$ Leo\\
334:
335: \enddata
336: \end{deluxetable}
337:
338:
339: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
340: \tablewidth{0pt}
341: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_rcas}
342: Observations of R Cas}
343: \tablehead{
344: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
345: & \colhead{-2450000} & & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{ [mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \\
346: }
347: \startdata
348: 1997Dec08 &802&0.67& & &30.0$\pm1.5$ & &$\alpha$ Cas\\
349:
350: 1998Jun04 & 970&1.06& 25.0$\pm1.2$& 23.2$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.1}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.7}}$ & 24.2$\pm1.6$ &44.8$\pm2.2$&$\gamma$ Sge, $\alpha$ Cas\\
351:
352: 1998Sep29&1056&1.27& 24.5$\pm1.5$ & 27.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.2}}$ & & 41.1$\pm3.0$ & $\alpha$ Cas\\
353:
354: 1999Jan05&1184& 1.57& 24.4$\pm1.8$ & 23.9$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.8}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.4}}$ & 28.2$\pm1.2$ & 44.1$\pm1.8$ & $\alpha$ Cas\\
355:
356: 1999Jul29 &1390& 2.04& 24.1$\pm1.8$ & 22.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.0}}$ & 28.5$\pm1.4$ & 48.3$\pm1.5$ & $\alpha$ Cas\\
357:
358: 2000Jan25&1570&2.46& &27.7$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.0}}$ & 29.7$\pm1.2$ & & $\alpha$ Cas\\
359:
360: 2000Jun23&1720&2.81& 24.9 $\pm1.4$& 26.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.6}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.3}}$ & 28.9$\pm1.9$ & 46.2$\pm1.6$ &$\alpha$ Cas\\
361:
362: 2001Jun11&2073&3.63& &26.5$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.2}}$ & 27.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+5.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.5}}$ & & $\alpha$ Cas\\
363: & & & & & 27.6$^{\mbox{\tiny+5.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.5}}$ & &\\
364: & & & & & 27.7$^{\mbox{\tiny+5.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.3}}$ & &\\
365:
366: 2001Jul29&2121&3.74& & 25.5$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.7}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.4}}$ & 26.1$\pm2.1$ & &$\alpha$ Cas\\
367:
368: 2002Jul23 &2479 &4.58& & 29.5$\pm0.9$ & 29.6$\pm1.5$ & 42.0$\pm2.0$ & $\alpha$ Cas\\
369: & & & & 27.4$\pm0.9$ & & &\\
370:
371: 2003May12&2772&5.26& &23.3$\pm2.3$ & 22.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+14.3}}_{\mbox{\tiny-7.7}}$ & &$\delta$ Sgr\\
372: & & & & 24.4$\pm1.4$ & 29.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+8.0}}_{\mbox{\tiny-6.0}}$ & &\\
373:
374: 2004May28&3154&6.14& & 23.2$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.9}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.5}}$ & 24.6$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.0}}$ & 48.9$\pm1.5$ &4 Cas\\
375:
376:
377: 2004Sep2&3262&6.39&27.6$\pm0.9$ &26.8$^{\mbox{\tiny+1.8}}_{\mbox{\tiny-1.6}}$&25.2$\pm1.5$&42.2$\pm1.3$& $\beta$~Cet , $\alpha$ Cas ,$\epsilon$ Cyg \\
378: & & & 26.6$\pm1.1$ & 26.5$\pm1.8$ & 24.5$\pm1.3$ & 40.5$\pm2.1$ &\\
379: & & & & 27.9$\pm2.0$ & & &\\
380:
381:
382: \enddata
383: \end{deluxetable}
384:
385: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
386: \tablewidth{0pt}
387: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_whya}
388: Observations of W Hya}
389: \tablehead{
390: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
391: & \colhead{-2450000} & & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \\
392: }
393: \startdata
394: 1997Jan29&478&0.53&41.9$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.2}}$&38.9$\pm1.8$& 42.4$\pm1.8$& 62.3$\pm1.4$& $\delta$ Oph\\
395: &&&42.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+4.1}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.2}}$&38.3$\pm1.0$&42.5$\pm2.2$& 61.7$\pm1.1$&\\
396: & & & & & 41.9$\pm1.8$& 60.3$\pm1.0$&\\
397: & & & & & 39.4$\pm2.0$& 60.6$\pm1.5$&\\
398: & & & & & 39.7$\pm2.7$&&\\
399: & & & & & 41.4$\pm2.2$&&\\
400:
401: 1998Apr14&918&1.76& 32.8$\pm2.4$ & 34.2$\pm1.7$& 37.4$\pm1.8$& 62.3$\pm1.2$& $\alpha$ Lyn, 2 Cen\\
402: && & & 34.6$\pm2.0$&39.8$\pm1.4$&&\\
403: && & & &36.7$\pm1.2$&&\\
404:
405: 1998Jun04&970&1.90& 32.0$\pm2.3$& 33.6$\pm1.8$ & 36.4$\pm$1.1& 62.7$\pm1.0$& 2 Cen\\
406:
407: 1999Jan05&1184& 1.50& & &43.0$\pm1.4$ &&2 Cen\\
408: &&& & &41.8 $\pm1.2$ &&\\
409: &&& & & 42.4$\pm1.7$ &&\\
410: &&& & &42.6 $\pm1.8$ &&\\
411:
412: 1999Feb05&1213&2.58& 39.3$\pm3.0$& 41.6$\pm1.2$& 42.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.7}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.5}}$& 63.2$\pm1.2$& 2 Cen\\
413: & & & & &43.8$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.2}}$&&\\
414:
415:
416: 1999Apr25&1295&2.79& 35.2$\pm3.5$& 38.1$\pm2.4$& 41.0$\pm1.0$&&2 Cen\\
417: & & & & 36.7$\pm2.2$&36.6$\pm1.6$&&\\
418: & & & & 36.3$\pm1.7$&&&\\
419: & & & & 36.8$\pm1.8$&&&\\
420:
421: 1999Jul29&1390&3.04& & 34.8$\pm1.6$&36.7$\pm0.9$ && 2 Cen\\
422:
423: 2000Jan25&1570&3.53& 47.1$\pm2.7$& 43.2$\pm1.5$ & & 64.5$\pm1.1$& 2 Cen\\
424: & & & & &45.9$\pm0.8$& &\\
425:
426: 2000Jun23 &1720&3.94& & 35.0$\pm1.8$ & & 68.5$\pm1.6$ & 2 Cen\\
427:
428:
429: 2001Jun11&2073&4.88& 34.5$\pm3.7$& 36.0$\pm1.8$& 41.7$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.1}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.9}}$& 65.3$\pm1.4$& $\alpha$ Lyn, 2 Cen\\
430: & & & & & 39.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.1}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.9}}$&&\\
431:
432:
433: 2003May12&2772&6.66& & 40.6$\pm1.3$& 44.2$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.8}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.3}}$ && 2 Cen\\
434:
435: 2004May28&3154&7.56& & 39.1$\pm1.5$ & 41.5$\pm1.4$& 65.7$\pm1.2$& 2 Cen\\
436: & & & & &41.4$\pm1.2$&&\\
437:
438: 2005May26&3516&8.55& &38.4$\pm1.9$ &43.8$\pm1.4$ && 2 Cen\\
439:
440: \enddata
441: \end{deluxetable}
442:
443:
444: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
445: \tablewidth{0pt}
446: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_xcyg}
447: Observations of $\chi$ Cyg}
448: \tablehead{
449: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
450: & \colhead{-2450000} & & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \\
451: }
452: \startdata
453:
454: 1998Jun04&970 0&0.59& 21.3$\pm2.8$ & 19.5$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.9}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.1}}$ & 23.0$\pm2.1$& 45.6$\pm3.0$& $\gamma$ Sge\\
455:
456: 1998Sep29&1056&0.87& & 21.2$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.9}}$ & 26.1$\pm2.7$& 46.0$\pm4.0$& $\gamma$ Sge\\
457:
458: 1999Jul29&1390&1.62& 21.6$\pm1.6$& 22.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.7}}$ & 28.2$\pm1.5$& 42.4$\pm3.0$& $\gamma$ Sge, Vega\\
459: & & & & & & 43.7$\pm2.8$&\\
460:
461: 2000Jun23&1720&2.48& & 23.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.0}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.6}}$ & 25.1$\pm2.2$& 39.5$\pm2.4$&$\gamma$ Sge, $\xi$ Cyg\\
462: & & & & & 24.9$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.3}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.1}}$& 41.0$\pm2.7$&\\
463:
464: 2001Jun11&2073&3.36& 25.4$\pm1.9$& 26.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.8}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.5}}$& 30.4$^{\mbox{\tiny+4.7}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.1}}$& 45.5$\pm2.5$& $\gamma$ Sge\\
465:
466: 2002Jul23&2479&4.36& 28.5$\pm2.7$& 27.5$\pm1.0$ & 29.6$\pm1.6$& 44.3$\pm2.5$& $\gamma$ Sge\\
467:
468: 2003May12&2772&5.07& & 28.1$\pm2.0$& 42.1$^{\mbox{\tiny+4.4}}_{\mbox{\tiny-3.9}}$& 46.5$\pm2.6$& $\epsilon$ Cyg\\
469:
470: 2004May28&3154&6.01& & 24.7$^{\mbox{\tiny+3.0}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.7}}$& 33.8$\pm3.5$ & 53.1$\pm4.0$& Vega\\
471:
472: 2004Sep23&3262&6.31& 24.8$\pm1.2$& 26.7$\pm2.0$ & 33.0$\pm2.3$& 50.5$\pm3.9$& $\gamma$ Sge\\
473:
474: \enddata
475: \end{deluxetable}
476:
477: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
478: \tablewidth{0pt}
479: \tablecaption{\label{tbl-obs_rhya}
480: Observations of R Hya}
481: \tablehead{
482: \colhead{Date} & \colhead{JD} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &\colhead{UD$_{\rm J\,1.24}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm H\,1.65}$}& \colhead{UD$_{\rm K\,2.26}$}&\colhead{UD$_{\rm L\,3.08}$}&\colhead{Calibrators}\\
483: & \colhead{-2450000} & &\colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \colhead{[mas]} & \\
484: }
485: \startdata
486: 1997Jan29&478&0.70& 26.2$\pm1.9$&& 26.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.8}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.5}}$ & 40.0$\pm2.1$& $\delta$ Oph\\
487:
488:
489: 1999Jan05&1184&2.56& & & 24.3$\pm2.3$ & & $\gamma$ Hya\\
490: & & & & & 27.7$\pm0.9$&&\\
491: & & & & & 27.4$\pm1.0$&&\\
492: & & & & & 24.0$\pm1.9$&&\\
493:
494: 1999Feb05&1213&2.64& & 30.0$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.2}}_{\mbox{\tiny-2.0}}$&&& $\pi$ Hya\\
495:
496:
497: 1999Apr25&1295&2.86& & 24.1$\pm2.9$&28.0$\pm2.2$&& 2 Cen\\
498:
499: 2000Jan25&1570&3.58& & & 31.0$\pm1.3$ && 2 Cen\\
500:
501: 2003May28&2772&6.74& & &27.2$^{\mbox{\tiny+9.0}}_{\mbox{\tiny-6.3}}$ & & 2 Cen\\
502:
503: \enddata
504: \end{deluxetable}
505:
506:
507: \subsection{Extraction of Visibilities}\label{dr}
508: %
509:
510: The procedures for extracting the visibility amplitudes, as well as
511: engineering and performance details, are documented in
512: \cite{MON99t} and \cite{TUT00}, while recent scientific applications
513: of the data pipeline can be found in \cite{MON02} and \cite{TUT02}.
514: In principle, the pupil geometry of the telescope mimics the operation of a separate-element
515: interferometer array, and the data collection and analysis are similar to standard methods for interferometry
516: experiments such as speckle imaging.
517: The short-exposure images are dark-subtracted, flat-fielded and cleaned of pattern noise.
518: Power spectra are then computed frame by frame as the squared modulus of the Fourier transform.
519: Stellar fringes appear as discrete peaks in such power spectra, with the origin occupied by a peak
520: whose height is proportional to the squared flux in the frame.
521: Squared visibilities are found by dividing the power at the spatial frequency of the fringes by
522: that at the origin and then normalizing with the corresponding signal from the calibrator spectrum.
523: The uncertainty associated with the squared visibilities is derived from the scatter in each ensemble of
524: 100 exposures.\\
525:
526: \subsection{Seeing Correction}\label{seco}
527:
528: For all baselines and for all target and calibrator stars considered in
529: this paper, the dominant noise sources were seeing and windshake (wind-induced telescope wobble).
530: When the atmospheric conditions vary between observing the source and its calibrator, the overall ratio
531: changes between the fringe power and the total flux on the detector.
532: As clarified by \cite{MON04}, for aperture-masking data this change is
533: nearly constant as a function of baseline for baselines longer
534: than the coherence length ( $\approx$ 0.5 m at K\,2.26 band).
535: This means the visibility function will approach a non-unity value at short baselines.
536: We took the visibility at the origin to be a free parameter in our studies, an assumption that does not
537: affect our fitting procedures as long as there is no significant flux coming from over-resolved structures ($>$ 0".5).
538: Seeing and windshake also lowered the mean visibility V and increased its variance on each baseline.
539: However, the quantity $\frac{{\rm Var}(V)}{<V^2>}$ was independent of the stellar brightness and
540: the degree to which it was resolved by the baseline in question, only depending on seeing and windshake.
541: We partially corrected for the effects of seeing and windshake using the method described by \cite{IRE2006},
542: which entails empirically fitting a function of the form $V = V_0 \exp(-k \frac{{\rm Var}(V)}{<V^2>})$ to
543: individual star observations and correcting visibilities for each target
544: and calibrator star prior to dividing the target with calibrator visibilities.
545: We used a conservative value for $k$ of 0.8 (which may
546: have under-corrected for the effects of seeing and windshake) and smoothed
547: the function $\frac{{\rm Var}(V)}{<V^2>}$ in the $u-v$ plane in order to minimise
548: errors in applying this correction (for further details see \citealt{IRE2006}).
549: We evaluated the effectiveness of this correction by comparing the calibrated visibilities
550: of unresolved stars with and without seeing correction, which turned out to improve the calibration process.
551: The apparent angular diameters were closer to the true values after the seeing/windshake correction
552: on $>70\%$ of the stars examined (see Figure \ref{windshake}).
553: Only on 3 object observations with very bad windshake did the algorithm
554: cause a marginal worsening of the miscalibration (5\,mas).
555:
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561:
562:
563:
564: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
565: \begin{center}
566: \epsscale{2.2}
567: \plotone{f1.eps}
568: \end{center}
569: \caption{Left: Calibrated visibilities (without azimuthal averaging) of an unresolved target star ($\alpha$ Ari).
570: Due to the effects of variable seeing and/or windshake, the object appears to have an UD angular diameter of 23\,mas.
571: Right: The same data with the seeing correction applied, showing that these data are now consistent with an unresolved source. }
572: \label{windshake}
573: \end{figure*}
574: Figure \ref{typical} shows typical data obtained from the masking experiment.
575: The targets were seldom fully resolved,
576: making image reconstruction only possible for those objects with the largest angular diameters (e.g. W Hya).
577: These results will be presented in a subsequent paper.
578: The two dimensional visibilities showed no significant deviation from circular symmetry (except for W Hya), possibly due to
579: the lack of high spatial frequencies sampled by our $<$10\,m baselines.
580: Since W Hya's deviation from circular symmetry is smaller than the UD angular diameter error,
581: we made the assumption that all the stars are spherical and the data were azimuthally averaged.
582:
583:
584: To keep the representation of the data homogeneous, our quantitative analysis is based on fitting simple uniform disk (UD)
585: models to the azimuthally averaged Fourier data.
586: We concentrate on the four filters which provide most of the temporal coverage in our observations, namely
587: L\,3.08, K\,2.26, H\,1.65 and J\,1.24, considering the other filters only in Section \ref{atmos}.
588: Here, e.g., L\,3.08 indicates that the filter covers a sub-interval of the L bandpass of the conventional UBV filter system
589: and is centered at 3.08\,$\mu$m (Table \ref{filters}). Note that the K\,2.26 bandpass encompasses two very similar filters,
590: both centered at 2.26\,$\mu$m with slightly different bandwidths.
591:
592:
593: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
594: \begin{center}
595: \epsscale{2.3}
596:
597: \plottwo{f2a.eps} {f2b.eps}
598:
599: \plottwo{f2c.eps} {f2d.eps}
600:
601: \plottwo{f2e.eps} {f2f.eps}
602:
603:
604: \end{center}
605: \caption{Azimuthally averaged squared visibility functions for $o$~Cet, R Leo, R Cas, W Hya, $\chi$ Cyg and R Hya at various visual phases
606: Results for the different filters are offset for clarity.
607: The very large apparent diameters in the L\,3.08 filter can be attributed mainly to the H$_2$O opacity, as first suggested and observed by \cite{TUT00b}. The diameters correspond to best-fit UD models.}
608: \label{typical}
609: \end{figure*}
610:
611:
612: Calibrator stars nearby in the sky and measured interleaved
613: with the target observation are used to estimate the system transfer function,
614: a standard practise in interferometry described in detail by \cite{MG_MIRA_05},
615:
616: The visibility amplitude was calibrated by dividing the target visibilities
617: by the calibrator star visibilities, after first correcting for the estimated sizes of the calibrators (Table \ref{calibrators}).
618:
619: \subsection{Uniform Disk diameters}
620:
621: Although the true stellar intensity profile is not a UD, fitting the observed visibilities
622: with this simple profile still provides a useful estimate of the apparent size of the target.
623: Our longest baseline was just under 10\,m, and so we are resolving low-resolution structure in the target star's intensity profile.
624: This makes it difficult to differentiate between a UD, a fully-darkened disk, a Gaussian or a more complex intensity distribution.
625: We chose UD diameters to allow comparison of findings with existing literature and to avoid the difficulties encountered when deriving more sophisticated diameters (cf. \citealt{HSW};\citealt{SCH03}).
626: If the ``true'' intensity distribution is known, or a predicted model distribution is to be compared with the data, different radius definitions can be easily converted from and to a UD radius.
627:
628: In various stars, the J\,1.24-band curves show some deviation from the UD model at around $3\times10^6$\,rad$^{-1}$, which could
629: indicate the presence of dust causing scattering in the outer layers, leading to a smaller "true" photospheric diameter (see Figure \ref{typical})
630: than derived with a simple UD model fit.
631: In addition, due to their larger angular diameters (especially in the L\,3.08 filter), W Hya and possibly $o$~Cet were also resolved enough to
632: detect further deviations of the intensity distribution from the simple UD shape to be compared with model predictions.
633: They are also possible targets for imaging after recovering the closure-phase information
634: in addition to the Fourier amplitudes.
635: These comparisons with more complex models and interpretations will be addressed in a future paper.
636:
637: \subsection{Estimation of Seeing Miscalibration}\label{error}
638:
639: Given that the seeing correction described in Section \ref{seco} leaves some residual error and
640: assuming that the dominant error term is the uncertainty introduced by variations in the seeing between measurements of targets and calibrators,
641: we undertook a separate study which assessed the robustness and repeatability of the calibration process to seeing-induced miscalibration.
642: If the seeing remains constant, then calibrating (i.e., dividing) the visibility function from successive datasets taken on the same object
643: should yield the visibility function of a point source (i.e V$^2 =1$).
644: In the case of changing atmospheric conditions, considerable differences in the transfer function can appear between consecutive datasets.
645: The error induced by such fluctuations can be measured from observations of a single object
646: (either target or calibrator) taken through the same filter at different times during one night.\\
647: Once again, we chose to fit a UD model to the data, a natural candidate to fit the error introduced by the change in seeing throughout one observing night.
648: This allows us to estimate atmospheric uncertainties by applying the same fitting procedure as was used for the rest of our data,
649: reducing the risk of biases introduced by the fitting method.
650:
651: Asymmetric errors were calculated by calibrating the target with a UD of the derived diameter.
652: These errors pertain to the respective filters, and if no object was observed twice in one night in the same band,
653: the maximum global error is assumed.
654:
655: The data in Figure \ref{typical} demonstrate another well known problem: that of calibration near the so-called seeing spike.
656: Note how the azimuthally averaged visibility points at short baselines can deviate considerably from the otherwise uniform shape of the visibility curve.
657: As the calibration of these large fluctuations at low spatial frequencies is highly challenging,
658: we fitted our models only to the spatial frequencies in Fourier space corresponding to baselines of 2m or more.
659:
660:
661: \subsection{NIR photometry}\label{lc}
662:
663: In the course of the data reduction, we extracted the total received flux for both science objects and calibrators.
664: With this we were able to retrieve contemporaneous photometry data in the the same bands as
665: our angular diameter measurements.
666: These measurements complement the photometry by \cite{WHI}, which does not cover our
667: full range of observations, and provide a powerful tool to monitor NIR light-curves.
668: The small differences between the \cite{WHI} photometry and our measurements can be attributed to our use of filters of differing bandpass and center wavelength(see Table \ref{filters}).
669:
670: \begin{figure*}
671:
672: \epsscale{2.5}
673: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
674: \plottwo{f3c.eps}{f3d.eps}
675: \plottwo{f3e.eps}{f3f.eps}
676:
677:
678:
679:
680: \caption{All Figures: Our NIR photometry folded with the visual pulsation period, shown with \cite{WHI} $JHK$ photometry and visual light-curves.
681: The J\,1.24,H\,1.65,K\,2.26 and L\,3.08 fluxes extracted from Nirc masking are represented by red asterisks, blue diamonds, green triangles and black squares respectively.
682: \citealt{WHI} J (red crosses), H (green crosses) and K photometry data (red crosses) are shown where available. Visual data kindly supplied by the AAVSO. }
683: \label{jhk_whitelock_nirc}
684: \end{figure*}
685:
686:
687:
688:
689:
690:
691:
692:
693: \section{Results}
694:
695:
696:
697: \subsection{Light-curves}\label{lightc}
698:
699: Figure \ref{jhk_whitelock_nirc} shows our NIR photometry plotted as a function of pulsation phase, together with the $JHK$ photometry
700: of \cite{WHI} and AAVSO visual photometry (A.A. Henden et al. 2006, private communication).
701: As an approximation based on the appearance of the light curves, we fitted our NIR photometry data with simple sinusoidal functions (not shown in the figures),
702: with the exception of R Hya, where the light curve was too incomplete.
703: Although these fits are only approximations, they provide a useful tool to examine the dates of maxima and minima as a function of wavelength.
704: The NIR magnitude vs. phase curves are certainly not strictly sinusoidal,
705: but depending on the star and the bandpass they can be approximated by a sine function.
706: Our photometry shows a small lag of up to 0.07 cycles in the maxima of light curves from the J\,1.24 to the H\,1.65 and from the H\,1.65 to the K\,2.26 filters,
707: as well as less pronounced or non-existing lags near visual minimum,
708: confirming the findings of \cite{SMITH02}, as can be seen in Figure \ref{jhk_whitelock_nirc}.
709: The reported phase shift of $\approx0.15-0.22$ with which the NIR maxima lag behind
710: visual maxima typical for M-type Miras (\citealt{NAD01}, \citealt{SMITH02}) is also clearly seen in our data.
711: Also in accordance with the findings of \cite{SMITH02}, we find that the maxima in longer wavelengths (i.e. in the $L$ band)
712: occur before the $K$ maxima but after the visual maxima for all of our objects except for W Hya, where the $L$ light curve is too peculiar
713: to be fitted with a sine function.\\
714:
715: Both Visible and NIR lightcurves given in Figure \ref{jhk_whitelock_nirc}
716: span the observation period of each object and clearly illustrate the substantial differences
717: between the cycle amplitudes and pulsation periods.
718:
719:
720: \subsection{Multi-wavelength, multi-epoch UD angular diameters}
721:
722: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
723: \epsscale{1.7}
724: \plotone{f4a.eps}
725: \plotone{f4b.eps}
726:
727: \caption{
728: Uniform disk angular diameters for $o$~Cet (upper panel) and R Leo (lower panel), folded with pulsation phase.
729: The symbols with error bars show UD diameters for the J\,1.24, H\,1.65, K\,2.26 and L\,3.08 filters and the dotted
730: lines show the best-fitting sinusoids.
731: The dots show the visual magnitude from the AAVSO database averaged into ten-day bins (A.A. Henden et al. 2006, private communication), taken during the period of our observations.
732: Data have been replicated for two cycles to clarify the sinusoidal pulsation.
733: }
734: \label{lc_diam_ocet_rleo}
735: \end{figure*}
736:
737:
738: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
739: \epsscale{1.7}
740: \plotone{f5a.eps}
741: \plotone{f5b.eps}
742:
743: \caption{Same as figure \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo} but for R Cas (upper panel) and W Hya (lower panel)}
744: \label{lc_diam_rcas_whya}
745: \end{figure*}
746:
747:
748: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
749: \epsscale{1.7}
750: \plotone{f6a.eps}
751: \plotone{f6b.eps}
752:
753: \caption{Same as figure \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo} but for $\chi$ Cyg (upper panel) and R Hya (lower panel)}
754: \label{lc_diam_xcyg_rhya}
755: \end{figure*}
756:
757:
758: Figures \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo} to \ref{lc_diam_xcyg_rhya} show the UD angular diameters of the sample of Miras at various
759: visual phases (see Tables \ref{tbl-obs_ocet} to \ref{tbl-obs_rhya}), folded with phase, together with visual photometry data from the AAVSO (A.A. Henden et al. 2006, private communication).\\
760: Near-infrared pulsations of Mira stars have been observed interferometrically before, e.g. by \cite{TUT95}; \cite{PER};
761: \cite{YOU00}; \cite{THOM}; \cite{WOO}; \cite{FED05};\cite{RAG06}, though never with the wavelength, phase and cycle coverage of this study.
762: We have detected diameter variations for all Miras in this study.
763: As discussed for the light-curves in Section \ref{lightc}, the physical diameter vs. phase curves are certainly not strictly sinusoidal.
764: Nonetheless, a sinusoidal shape of the curve can be observed, and although not perfect, the sine curves fitted to the data have been included to guide the eye.\\
765: With the extensive coverage of phases and cycles in four filter bandpasses,
766: it becomes possible to probe the stellar atmosphere both for geometric pulsation of the continuum forming layers (the so-called photosphere),
767: and for contamination of the continuum by molecular blanketing.
768: This allows us to further constrain existing theoretical models and to make more sophisticated demands on future models.
769: R Hya will be exempt from further discussion as the data sampling is too sparse (see Figure \ref{lc_diam_xcyg_rhya}, lower panel).\\
770:
771: \epsscale{2.5}
772: \section{Discussion}
773:
774: \begin{figure}[htbp]
775: \begin{center}
776: \epsscale{1.0}
777: \plotone{f7.eps}
778: \caption{Near-infrared spectrum of Mira R Cha at two different pulsation phases (1996May26 at phase 0.6 and 1996March3 at phase 0.3) from \cite{LW}, showing the position and shape of the z\,1.08, J\,1.24, H\,1.65 and K\,2.26 filters.
779: The J\,1.24 and H\,1.65 filters penetrate to layers that lie closer to the continuum forming photosphere, whereas the K\,2.26 filter sees
780: a portion of the spectrum that is more contaminated by molecular opacities. }
781: \label{NIRspec}
782: \end{center}
783: \end{figure}
784: %
785: \begin{figure}[htbp]
786: \begin{center}
787: \epsscale{1.1}
788: \plotone{f8.eps}
789: \caption{Infrared ISO spectrum of R Cas at various phases, from \cite{ARI02} (Figure 2), with the position and shape of the L\,3.08 and L\,3.31 filters (Table \ref{filters}) overlaid. The stronger absorption,
790: mainly due to H$_2$O molecules, in the L\,3.08 filter comes from cooler strata (and thus further away from the continuum forming layers) and leads
791: to the measurement of greater angular diameters. See text (Section \ref{atmos})}
792: \label{Lspec}
793: \end{center}
794: \end{figure}
795: %
796: \begin{figure}[htbp]
797: \begin{center}
798: \epsscale{1.1}
799: \plotone{f9.eps}
800: \caption{Diameter vs. wavelength relationship for $o$~Cet measured at visual phases 0.1, 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9. All visual phase measurements carry a binning error of $\pm$ 0.1}
801: \label{diamp1}
802: \end{center}
803: \end{figure}
804: %
805: %
806:
807:
808: \subsection{Effects of Molecular Absorption on Multi-wavelength Diameter Observations}\label{atmos}
809:
810: Figure \ref{NIRspec} shows the NIR spectrum of a Mira (R Cha) at two different pulsation phases, with the position and shape of the z\,1.08, J\,1.24, H\,1.65 and K\,2.26 filters,
811: and Figure \ref{Lspec} shows the ISO spectrum of R Cas, with the position and shape of the L\,3.08 and L\,3.31 filters.
812: The narrow band filters J\,1.24 and H\,1.65 should show little molecular contamination by absorption bands, i.e. they are close to sampling the
813: continuum-forming layers (see, e.g., \citealt{TLSW}), whereas the contamination effect should be more prominent in the
814: K\,2.26 and in particular in the $L$-band filters (see, e.g., \citealt{JS}; \citealt{MEN02}; \citealt{ISTW,ISW}).\\
815: Within the L band, our filters (L\,3.08 and L\,3.31) sample portions with different molecular absorption lines,
816: originating mainly from H$_2$O (but also from OH and SiO, \citealt{MEN02}) in Mira atmospheres.
817: The L\,3.08 bandpass lies deeper in the absorption feature than the L\,3.31 bandpass.
818: The photons seen through the L\,3.08 filter should therefore originate from cooler strata that lie higher in the stellar atmosphere than the L\,3.31 photons.\\
819:
820: Figure \ref{diamp1} shows the diameter vs. wavelength relationship for $o$~Cet at four different phases.
821: It clearly shows the effect of varying absorption features on the perceived diameter.
822: As our filters coincidentally sample more opaque (contaminated) layers with increasing wavelength,
823: there is a perceived diameter increase as a function of wavelength, with the exception of
824: the J\,1.24 and L\,3.31 filters, which lie further out of the molecular absorption bands sampled by the z\,1.08 and L\,3.08 filters, respectively.
825: This increase of diameter with wavelength is obvious throughout the pulsation cycle for $o$~Cet,
826: all other Miras showing excursions from the J\,1.24 $>$ H\,1.65 $>$ K\,2.26 diameter trend at some phases.
827: In particular R Leo seems to show a much more complex layering (see Section \ref{rleo} with Figure \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo}).
828: All stars in our sample show a large ($>30$\%) increase in UD diameter between the K\,2.26 filter and the L\,3.08 filter,
829: first noted in the case of R Aqr by \cite{TUT00b}.
830: This increase indicates that the L\,3.08 filter samples a molecular layer at a considerable distance from the photosphere.
831: The distance between the layers varies with phase and will be further discussed for each object individually,
832: as it differs greatly from star to star.
833:
834:
835:
836: \subsection{Phase dependence of Multi-wavelength Near-Infrared Diameters}\label{phase_diam}
837: %%%%%%
838: %%%%%%
839: %%%%%%
840: The distinction between true photospheric pulsation, i.e.~the upward and downward motion of the continuum forming layers,
841: and the effects of molecular blanketing is not trivial to unravel, even with high angular resolution data.
842: The varying molecular opacity is dictated by density changes as a shock front travels through the stellar atmosphere and temperature
843: changes due to variations in the radiation field, causing molecules to dissociate and re-form (cf. \citealt{SCH03} and references therein).
844: These more or less opaque strata which vary with the pulsation phase (and between cycles) can make it difficult to derive the near-UD
845: diameter of the underlying geometrically pulsating continuum layer, veiling the geometric amplitude and the phase of pulsation.
846: As the brightness distributions of Miras are more complex than simple UDs,
847: changes in molecular opacities of different layers may be capable of mimicking changes in our derived diameters,
848: complicating the interpretation of our data.
849: The behaviour of the S-type Mira $\chi$ Cyg differs from the other Miras in our sample in various respects and will be discussed separately.\\
850:
851: Of the three filters within the $JHK$ bands, the atmospheric opacity reaches its highest values in the contaminated
852: (albeit less contaminated than the standard $K$ bandpass) filter K\,2.26
853: throughout most of the pulsation cycle, as evidenced in Figures \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo}-\ref{lc_diam_xcyg_rhya} by the large angular diameters.
854: This increased molecular opacity has been predicted by various models (e.g. \citealt{JS}; \citealt{ISTW,ISW}; \citealt{IS06}) and has been observed by, e.g., \cite{MG_MIRA_05}.\\
855:
856:
857: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
858: \begin{center}
859: \epsscale{2.2}
860: \plotone{f10.eps}
861: \caption{Relative angular diameter variation as a function of phase for the 5 M-type Miras in this study.
862: The sine curves represent fits to the ensemble of angular diameters divided by the mean angular diameter for each star.
863: The data has been averaged into phase bins and is repeated to show two cycles for better recognition of the pulsation pattern.
864: The results for the different filters are offset for clarity.}
865: \label{adb}
866: \end{center}
867: \end{figure*}
868:
869: A diagnostic observable from our data which is more robust against sources of systematic errors (e.g. change in seeing, wind induced wobble of the telescope, calibrator characteristics)
870: is the relative diameter variation.
871: Figure \ref{adb} shows the relative UD diameter variation as a function of phase for the 5 M-type Miras in this study, averaged into phase bins.
872: The relative UD diameters were obtained by dividing each object's measured angular diameters by its mean,
873: and the errors are representative of the scatter within each phase bin.\\
874: The data illustrate the homogeneity within this sample of Miras, and allow us to investigate systematic
875: differences between the observed bandpasses.
876: In order to extract phase offsets and relative pulsation amplitudes in each filter, we fitted sinusoid cycloids to the combined data,
877: without implying that the objects vary in such a simple fashion.\\
878:
879: The ensemble shows a systematic phase-shift of the relative UD diameter variation with wavelength, not unlike
880: the trend reported for the light-curves in section \ref{lightc}.
881: The J\,1.24, H\,1.65, and K\,2.26 UD diameters reach their minimum at approximately phases 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 respectively.
882: The L\,3.08 bandpass diameters behaves differently, and will be examined in more detail at the end of this section.
883: This disagrees with theoretical model predictions by \cite{ISTW, ISW}, where the diameter minimum should occur
884: at roughly phases 0.7-0.8 for all bandpasses, but is comparable to the findings of \cite{THOM}, who followed the M-type
885: Mira S Lac through its pulsation cycle in various sub-filters of the $K$ band.
886: Using the sample as a single ``artificial'' Mira also allows us to verify the relative diameter pulsation amplitude for S Lac of \cite{THOM},
887: who report a 12\%-21\% peak-to-peak sinusoid amplitude in the $K$-band, with our value of 14\% peak-to-peak pulsation in the K\,2.26-band.
888: The peak-to-peak sinusoidal pulsation amplitudes for the J\,1.24, H\,1.65 and L\,3.08 bandpasses are 14\%, 22\% and 6\% respectively,
889: also disagrees with theoretical models which predict much higher amplitudes (cf. \citealt{ISTW,ISW}).
890:
891:
892:
893: According to current models (e.g. \citealt{ISTW,ISW}), more contaminated layers (such as the ones sampled by the K\,2.26 and L\,3.08 bandpasses)
894: should experience slightly greater diameter pulsation amplitudes.\\
895: This trend cannot be seen in our observations: the layer experiencing the greatest diameter pulsation is the less contaminated H\,1.65 layer.
896: Explanations for this could be:\\
897: (i) The relatively narrow width of our K\,2.26 filter compared to the standard $K$ filter used in the models,
898: combined with the position of our central wavelength in a possible minimum of molecular contamination as reported by \cite{THOM}.\\
899: (ii) A periodic change of optical depth of a layer, offset in phase to the photospheric pulsation, could result in large variations of the observed pulsation amplitude.\\
900: (iii) The assumed spherical symmetry could be significantly violated in the outer, more contaminated, layers (cf. \citealt{RAG06} and references therein), effectively causing departures from model predictions
901: (cf., e.g., \citealt{HOF00};\citealt{IRE2004}).\\
902: (iv) The theoretical models need revision to accommodate for these observations.\\
903: Higher molecular opacity can be expected at near-minimum phases, when the outer layers are cooler and more molecules are formed (see, e.g., \citealt{ISTW,ISW}).
904: For our sample stars (with the exception of $\chi$ Cyg), the maximum apparent $JHK$ UD angular diameter values are typically found near minimum visual phase,
905: supporting existing model interpretations.\\
906:
907: A diagnostic observable from our data which is more robust against sources of systematic errors (e.g. change in seeing, wind induced wobble of the telescope, calibrator characteristics)
908: are the relative diameter ratios.
909: Figure \ref{fracs} shows the UD diameter ratio between the different filters for all our sample stars plotted vs. phase.
910: There is no obvious dependence on pulsation phase of the H\,1.65/J\,1.24
911: quotient, though there is noteworthy scatter for our sample of 5 Miras (R Hya was never observed simultaneously in both filters) that might mask a minor phase effect .
912: The mean value of this diameter ratio is
913:
914: \begin{equation}
915: \overline{R_{\rm H\,1.65/J\,1.24}}=1.02\pm0.10
916: \end{equation}
917:
918: \noindent which agrees, to within errors, with the value of $\overline{R_{\rm H/J }}=1.08\pm0.09$ reported by \cite{MG_MIRA_05}.
919: The lack of a phase dependent signature indicates a closeness in temperature and opacity variations,
920: as can also be derived from the closeness in phase and pulsation amplitude seen in Figure \ref{adb}.
921: The diameter ratio close to unity shows the geometric closeness of the two layers.
922:
923: Note that of all stars, $o$~Cet is the only one that has a ratio that includes some phase dependent effects and is slightly smaller than unity.
924:
925: The ratio between the K\,2.26 and H\,1.65 filters has a more pronounced pulsation phase signature (see Figure \ref{fracs}, center panel),
926: which reflects more complex and disjoint temperature and opacity changes between these two layers.
927: The ratio reaches its minimum (i.e. H\,1.65 UD $>$ K\,2.26 UD) before minimum light and its maximum at maximum light.
928: In order to compare our data with the observations of \cite{MG_MIRA_05}, we also calculated the mean diameter ratio to be
929:
930:
931: \begin{equation}
932: \overline{R_{\rm K\,2.26/H\,1.65}}=1.11\pm0.11,
933: \end{equation}
934:
935: \noindent a mean ratio marginally larger that the H\,1.65/J\,1.24 mean ratio.
936: Again, our data agree, to within errors, with the value of $\overline{R_{\rm K'/H }}=1.12\pm0.09$ reported by \cite{MG_MIRA_05}.\\
937:
938:
939:
940:
941: \begin{figure}[htbp]
942: \begin{center}
943: \epsscale{1.1}
944: \plotone{f11a.eps}
945: \plotone{f11b.eps}
946: \plotone{f11c.eps}
947: \caption{Angular diameter ratios for all Miras in this study. The solid lines indicate the mean ratio and the dashed lines indicate the standard deviation of the sample.
948: The data is repeated to show two cycles for better recognition of the pulsation pattern.}
949: \label{fracs}
950: \end{center}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953:
954: As mentioned earlier, the L\,3.08 angular diameter behaves differently.
955: It reaches minimum values at minimum light and the best fit to the diameter pulsation
956: is shifted by 0.5 cycle compared with the H\,1.65 pulsation, albeit at a much smaller relative pulsation amplitude.
957: As the lower panel of Figure \ref{fracs} shows, this phase shift and the UD diameter ratio between the
958: two layers seems to be similar for all Miras in our sample (including $\chi$ Cyg).
959: For consistency sake, we calculated the mean diameter ratio to be
960:
961: \begin{equation}
962: \overline{R_{\rm L\,3.08/H\,1.65}}=1.81\pm0.24.
963: \end{equation}
964:
965: This unusual UD diameter variation has never been observed before and
966: raises questions about the mechanism of the observed pulsation in the L\,3.08 layer.
967: The L\,3.08 light-curve follows a similar trend to the $JHK$ light-curves, possibly indicating a
968: temperature devolution similar to the lower layers, and as the inner layers of the star
969: are shrinking and heating up, the outer layers are either expanding or becoming increasingly opaque.
970: Whether opacity effects or dynamic motion of these outer layers (or both) are responsible for this surprising behaviour is the
971: subject for model interpretations and will be the subject of a subsequent study.
972:
973:
974:
975:
976:
977:
978:
979:
980:
981:
982:
983:
984: \subsection{Individual Stars}\label{indi}
985:
986: Of the 6 Miras observed, 4 have observational phase coverage suitable for further comparisons with pulsation models ($o$~Cet, R Leo, R Cas and $\chi$ Cyg).
987: The Miras studied differ substantially in behaviour regarding pulsation amplitudes, diameter-wavelength relationships and
988: diameter-phase relationships
989:
990: In this section we discuss the results of this study for each individual star, emphasising the main differences
991: and similarities found in this subset.
992:
993: \subsubsubsection{$o$~Cet}\label{ocet}
994:
995: The prototype of Mira stars is one of the most observed variable stars,
996: due to its brightness, amplitude (V$\approx10-3$, A.A. Henden et al. 2006, private communication) and closeness ($107\pm6$ pc, \citealt{KNAPP}).
997: Its size in different bandwidths (e.g. \citealt{HAN95};\citealt{MEN02};\citealt{WOO}), optical spectra (\citealt{JOY54}),
998: lightcurves in different colors (e.g. \citealt{WHI}; \citealt{NAD01}; AAVSO),
999: asymmetries (e.g. \citealt{KAR}, \citealt{TUT99}), and companion star (e.g. \citealt{KAR97};\citealt{WOO06};\citealt{IRE07}) have been subject to intense research.\\
1000:
1001:
1002: Figure \ref{lc_diam_ocet_rleo} shows the UD diameter variation in the J\,1.24, H\,1.65 and K\,2.26 bandpasses
1003: as nearly synchronous (within the 0.1 phase shift shown in Figure \ref{adb}), sinusoidal pulsations, with an apparent phase shift to the diameter pulsation in the L\,3.08 bandpass.
1004: The UD diameter vs. phase curves agree well with the fitted sine functions, with reduced $\chi^2$ for
1005: J\,1.24, H\,1.65, K\,2.26 and L\,3.08 having the values 1.45, 1.17, 1.02 and 0.80 respectively.
1006: The shift of $\approx0.5$ cycles between the sine curves fitted to the diameter vs. phase in the H\,1.65 and the L\,3.08 bandpasses
1007: has never been observed nor predicted, and can also be observed in R Leo, R Cas and W Hya.
1008: A similar shift, though not as pronounced, can be seen in $\chi$ Cyg\\
1009: The UD diameters vary between $22.2\pm1.0$ and $29.9\pm1.9$ mas ($\approx 35\%$) in the J\,1.24 bandpass,
1010: and between $53.2\pm1.4$ and $61.5\pm2.3$ mas ($\approx 16\%$) in the L\,3.08 bandbass.
1011: The K\,2.26 UD angular diameter values lie in the range of $31.0\pm 1.9$\,mas near V-maximum and $37.0\pm1.2$\,mas at phase 0.7.
1012: These values agree with the interferometric UD diameters within the K-band of \cite{RIDG} (phase 0.8)
1013: and \cite{WOO} (phases 0.1-0.4, see Table \ref{ext_diams}).
1014: Our UD angular diameters are generally larger than those measured by \cite{MEN02} (phases 0.9-0.0).
1015: This is most likely due to to the larger spatial frequencies (i.e. longer baselines) at which their measurements where made,
1016: combined with the known departure of $o$~Cet's brightness distribution from UD (cf. \citealt{WOO}). \\
1017: Our K\,2.26 UD diameters are also larger than the molecular layer diameters obtained by
1018: \cite{PER04} (24.95$\pm0.10$ to $26.84\pm0.06$\,mas) at similar phases by fitting ad hoc
1019: scenarios (a photosphere surrounded by an emissive and absorbing layer) to $K$ and $L'$ interferometric data.
1020: This is to be expected, as their visibilities also show obvious departures from simple models, and fitting the same data to a brightness distribution
1021: consisting of a central object with a bright molecular shell would yield smaller diameters than a UD fit.
1022: Note that these very simple scenarios are not always unique and a new ad hoc parameter set has to be determined for each observation,
1023: making a comparison awkward.
1024: $o$ Cet shows little cycle-to-cycle variation throughout our data, although this could be attributed to the observing of a stable
1025: era of its pulsation, and might have been different if observed, e.g., 10 years earlier.
1026:
1027:
1028: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
1029: \tablewidth{0pt}
1030: \tablecaption {\label{ext_diams}
1031: Published interferometric UD angular diameters in the K band for the stars in this study}
1032: \tablehead{
1033: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{Reference} & \colhead{Angular} & \colhead{Centre Wavelength } & \colhead{Bandwidth } & \colhead{Visual} \\
1034: & &\colhead{Diameter [mas]} & \colhead{[$\mu$m]} &\colhead{[$\mu$m]} &\colhead{Phase} \\ }
1035: \startdata
1036: $o$ Cet&\cite{RIDG} &36.1$\pm1.4$ & 2.2 & 0.4 &0.8 \\
1037: &\cite{MEN02} &28.79$\pm0.10$ &2.2 &0.44&0.9\\
1038: & &25.73$\pm0.09$&2.03 &$\approx0.1$&0.0\\
1039: & &25.13$\pm0.08$&2.15 &$\approx0.1$&0.0\\
1040: & &25.19$\pm0.12$&2.22 &$\approx0.1$&0.0\\
1041: & &29.22$\pm0.12$&2.39 &$\approx0.1$&0.0\\
1042: & &24.40$\pm$0.11&2.16 &0.32&0.0\\
1043: &\cite{WOO} &29.24$\pm$0.30&2.2 &0.4&0.1\\
1044: & &29.53$\pm$0.30&2.2 &0.4&0.2\\
1045: & &30.49$\pm$0.30&2.2 &0.4&0.3\\
1046: & &33.27$\pm$0.33&2.2 &0.4&0.4\\
1047: \hline
1048: R Leo&\cite{GIA91} \tablenotemark{*} &33.0$\pm1.3$& 2.16 &0.03&0.2\\
1049: &\cite{PER} &28.18$\pm0.05$&2.16 &0.32&0.2\\
1050: & &30.68$\pm0.05$&2.16 &0.32&0.3\\
1051: &\cite{TEJ99} \tablenotemark{*} &34$\pm2$ &2.36 &0.46&0.4\\
1052: &\cite{MON04} &30.3$\pm0.3$&2.26\&2.16 &0.05\&0.32&0.6-0.7\\
1053: &\cite{MG_MIRA_05}&29.91$\pm0.27$&2.16 &0.32&0.4\\
1054: &\cite{FED05} &28.1$\pm0.05$&2.2 &0.4&0.1\\
1055: & &26.2$\pm$0.01&2.2 &0.4&0.0\\
1056: \hline
1057: R Cas&\cite{VANB02} &22.03$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.13}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.14}}$&2.2&0.4& 0.8\\
1058: \hline
1059: W Hya&\cite{MON04} &42.5$\pm0.7$&2.26\&2.16 &0.05\&0.32&0.5\\
1060: &\cite{MG_MIRA_05}&39.9$\pm0.2$&2.16 &0.32&0.6\\
1061: \hline
1062: $\chi$ Cyg&\cite{MEN02} &23.24$\pm0.08$ &2.16&0.32&0.38\\
1063: \hline
1064: R Hya&\cite{MG_MIRA_05}&23.9$\pm0.5$&2.16 &0.32&0.8\\
1065: & &25.8$\pm0.2$&2.16 &0.32&0.8\\
1066: \enddata
1067: \tablenotetext{*}{obtained by lunar occultation}
1068: \end{deluxetable}
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072: The L\,3.08 $>>$ K\,2.26 $>$ H\,1.65 $>$ J\,1.24 layering of monochrome diameters is strictly monotonous,
1073: unlike, e.g., R Leo, where the sequence of UD diameters seems to invert during the pulsation cycle.
1074: The fact that $o$~Cet appears largest in the JHK filters approximately at visual phase 0.6, roughly coinciding with the minimum of the NIR and visual light curves (see Section \ref{lightc}) is in accordance with various model interpretations (e.g. \citealt{JS};\citealt{ISTW,ISW};\citealt{IS06}).
1075: The unusual behaviour of the L\,3.08 layer, as described in Section \ref{phase_diam}, will be further discussed in Section \ref{sum} and in a follow on paper.
1076:
1077:
1078:
1079: \subsubsubsection{R Leo}\label{rleo}
1080:
1081:
1082: Although R Leo has a similar period (310 days), V magnitude range ($4.4-11.3$, \citealt{KHO98}) and spectral type as $o$~Cet,we found significant differences in this study.
1083: The pulsation amplitudes of layers in different bandpasses and their phases with respect to one another seem to show a more complex trend than $o$~Cet's atmosphere.
1084: The pulsation is less pronounced than $o$~Cet's in the NIR, with UD diameters varying between $29.6\pm1.4$ and $33.1\pm2.0$ mas ($\approx 12\%$) in the J\,1.24 bandpass,
1085: which shows the largest relative pulsation amplitude.
1086: The cycle-to-cycle variation in the diameter pulsation is significant in the K\,2.26 bandpass (compared to, e.g., $o$~Cet).
1087: Again, this effect could be due to mere coincidence, and only long term ($>20$ years) observation campaigns can ascertain this variability.
1088: This makes it difficult to compare our $K$ UD diameter measurements with values found in the literature (see Table \ref{ext_diams}).
1089: There is nonetheless an overall agreement with cited UD radii except for the long baseline UD angular diameters of \cite{FED05}.
1090: This can be due to the same effect as described in Section $o$~Cet concerning the long baseline measurements of \cite{MEN02}.
1091: With our H\,1.65 measurements we are able to disambiguate the two possible solutions (due to ambiguous model fitting)
1092: for the $H$-band diameter found by \cite{MG_MIRA_05}.
1093: Due to the seeming lack of cycle-to-cycle dependence in this bandpass, we can reject their smaller angular diameter of 23.8$\pm0.3$\,mas at phase 0.4 and
1094: substantiate their larger diameter of 32.4$\pm0.4$\,mas\\
1095:
1096: The variation between $47.8\pm1.8$ and $56.5\pm2.0$\,mas ($\approx 18\%$) in the L\,3.08 bandpass shows a steady increase in diameter
1097: between 97Dec16 and 01Jun11 and no significant diameter change up to 3 pulsation cycles later.
1098: This gradual increase in angular diameter over 4 cycles may be
1099: understandable in terms of the non-cyclic time evolution of positions of outer
1100: mass zones of pulsation models over several successive cycles (cf. Figures 1 of
1101: Ireland et al. 2004a, b), which affect the position and physics of water shells.
1102: This interpretation is supported by the steady brightening of the visual photometry maxima during the same 4 cycles in which the UD diameter
1103: increases, indicating variability in timescales longer than the pulsation phase.
1104: The pulsation signature of the L\,3.08 bandpass shows nonetheless the general $\approx0.5$ phase lag compared to the H\,1.65 band, albeit with
1105: a larger uncertainty in the least squares sinusoidal fit (reduced $\chi^2=1.38$).\\
1106:
1107:
1108:
1109:
1110:
1111: \subsubsubsection{R Cas}\label{rcas}
1112:
1113: Of the two Miras with the longest periods in our sample, R Cas (430 days) also exhibits the latest spectral type. In fact, at minimum visual pulsation phase it defines the spectral type M10 (see \citealt{LOCK71}).
1114: It seems to follow the model-predicted phase-diameter trend of larger diameters around minimum light
1115: in the H\,1.65 filter, albeit with some cycle-to-cycle uncertainty. The scatter is considerably greater in the J\,1.24 and K\,2.26 filters,
1116: but the same trend is still present.
1117: Note that the relative phase shift of diameter maxima from shorter to longer wavelengths in $JHK$ is very distinctive,
1118: even when the uncertainties introduced by cycle-to-cycle variations in the diameter pulsations are taken into account.
1119: The position of the L\,3.08 layer also follows the pattern of the other M-type Miras, in that it seems to pulsate with
1120: a 0.5 phase shift to the H\,1.65 layer.
1121: \cite{VANB02} measured a $K$ UD angular diameter of 22.03$^{\mbox{\tiny+2.13}}_{\mbox{\tiny-4.14}}$\,mas at phase 0.81, which
1122: does not agree with our diameter of 28.9$\pm1.9$ at the same pulsation phase but agrees with the diameter measured at roughly the
1123: same phase in a different cycle (26.1$\pm2.1$ at phase 0.74), another indicator of noticeable cycle-to-cycle variation.\\
1124:
1125:
1126: \subsubsubsection{W Hya}\label{whya}
1127: At a distance of 78$\pm$3 pc (\citealt{KNAPP}), W Hya is the closet and best resolved Mira in our sample.
1128: We observe a relatively time independent K\,2.26 angular diameter of $\approx40\pm5$\,mas in the phase range $\Phi=0.53-0.88$.
1129: Because of W Hya's low declination and proximity to the ecliptic, and because the period is close to 1 year,
1130: the phase coverage only spans half the pulsation cycle (see Table \ref{tbl-obs_whya}).
1131: In this short time interval, covering only 0.44 phases, the J\,1.24 diameter shrinks from 47.1$\pm2.7$\,mas to $32.0\pm2.3$\,mas, a 32\% decrease, whereas the
1132: H\,1.65 diameter decreases by 22\% and the K\,2.26 diameter shows a decrease of $\approx$20\%.\\
1133: The previously measured UD angular diameters in the $K$-band by \cite{MON04} and \cite{MG_MIRA_05} (see Table \ref{ext_diams}) are consistent
1134: with our measurements. The $H$-band diameter of \cite{MG_MIRA_05} (31.3$\pm0.3$\,mas) is slightly smaller than our derived H\,1.65 UD angular diameters,
1135: which is most likely due to the same effects of long baseline interferometry as described for $o$~Cet and R Leo.
1136: Although all Mira intensity distributions show deviations from a UD profile, we can clearly detect those only in W Hya.
1137: This could be due to the presence of dust emission and/or the partially resolved brightness distribution of
1138: extended molecular layers in the upper atmosphere.
1139:
1140: The largest L\,3.08 angular diameter is found around maximum visual light,
1141: where the J\,1.24 and H\,1.65 diameters are smallest.
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145: \subsubsubsection{$\chi$ Cyg}\label{xcyg}
1146: The Mira in our sample with the second longest pulsation period, $\chi$ Cyg (408 days) is the only S-type Mira
1147: ,albeit with M-type characteristics (cf. \citealt{KEE80}).
1148: It deviates noticeably from the M-type Miras in many ways.
1149: The visual light-curve of $\chi$ Cyg is well known for its particularly large magnitude range, and
1150: its near-IR colours are also all unusually red, as observed by \cite{WHI}.
1151: The L\,3.08 mean magnitude, in particular, is comparable to \textit{or brighter than} that of K\,2.26,
1152: whereas for all other Miras in our study the L\,3.08 magnitudes lie in the rage between the H\,1.65 and the K\,2.26 light-curves.\\
1153:
1154: The relative diameter pulsation amplitude is larger in all filters than that of the other Miras in this paper, and the
1155: derived UD angular diameters show small cycle-to-cycle variation.
1156: There are no model predictions for S-type Miras to date, and we can only speculate whether or not
1157: this behaviour is related to the fundamental stellar parameters or to the fact that differing C to O ratio lead to
1158: significant changes in H$_2$O formation characteristics (cf. \citealt{OHN04}) and more stable opacity structures.
1159:
1160:
1161: While the L\,3.08 UD diameter pulsation follows the same trend as $o$~Cet, R Leo, R Cas and W Hya,
1162: in that it reaches maximum amplitude around maximum visual light, the $JHK$ diameters show a somewhat different behaviour.
1163: Note that the shapes of the visibility curves deviate increasingly from a UD profile with increasing wavelength.
1164: The K\,2.26 and H\,1.65 UD angular diameters reach their maximum values just after maximum light, at phase 0.1-0.2,
1165: coinciding with the maximum of the correspondent light curves. This may indicate a heavy contamination of these
1166: filters by molecular layers in the star's atmosphere.
1167: On the other hand, the J\,1.24 band data infers a smaller UD diameter with its maximum around minimum light, as observed in
1168: the other Miras in our sample, suggesting a deeper view into $\chi$ Cyg's atmosphere.
1169:
1170: \cite{YOU00} only detected a slight variation in the $J$-band angular diameters,
1171: albeit over a very small phase coverage.
1172: If we fit a sine curve to our derived J\,1.24 angular diameters, then we find that \cite{YOU00} measurements lie roughly symmetrically around the
1173: diameter pulsation minimum, a factor that could explain the lack of diameter variation in their studies.
1174: We converted the $J$-band Gaussian FWHM from \cite{YOU00} to UD angular diameters using the UD to Gaussian ratio
1175: $R\approx1.5$ calculated by \cite{BURNS}, and find that the diameters approximately
1176: match our simple sine curve predictions.
1177: \cite{MEN02} report a $K'$ (centered at 2.16\,$\mu$m, 0.32$\mu$m wide) UD angular diameter of 23.24$\pm0.08$\,mas for $\chi$ Cyg on 2000 May, at variable phase 0.38.
1178: On June of the same year (phase 0.48) we obtained a K\,2.26 diameter of 25.0$\pm2.2$, in reasonable agreement.
1179: In the next two subsequent years (both at phase 0.36) we observed UD diameters of approximately 30\,mas,
1180: an increase in diameter of 20\% over one cycle, which might be linked to transient opacity structures.
1181:
1182:
1183:
1184:
1185: \section{Summary}\label{sum}
1186:
1187:
1188: We have measured the diameters and NIR light-curves of 6 Miras stars at up to 19 separate phases in 4 filters, the first study of this magnitude.
1189: We present the first narrowband 3.08\,$\mu$m light-curves of Miras.
1190: The NIR light-curves can be approximated by a sine function and confirm the phase shift of $\approx 0.15 - 0.22$ by which the NIR maxima
1191: lag behind the visual maxima previously reported by \cite{NAD01} and \cite{SMITH02}.
1192: In addition we find a NIR photometric flux relation: J\,1.24 $<$ H\,1.65 $<$ K\,2.26, in
1193: agreement with the $JHK$ observations of \cite{WHI} and \cite{SMITH02}.
1194: The L\,3.08 fluxes in our sample are slightly less or equal to
1195: the K\,2.26 fluxes, except for $\chi$ Cyg, where the L\,3.08 magnitudes are of the comparable to the ones
1196: in the K\,2.26 bandpass.
1197:
1198: We found no correlation between NIR photometry and UD diameter cycle-to-cycle variations,
1199: yet found some correlation between the L\,3.08 UD diameters and the visual light-curves (see section R Leo).\\
1200: All observed stars show variations of their UD angular diameters as a function of pulsation phase.
1201: We find the UD diameter relation J\,1.24 $<$ H\,1.65 $<$ K\,2.26 to be an average value only,
1202: with deviations throughout the pulsation cycle, revealing the complexity of phase dependant opacity contamination from molecules in different layers.
1203: Of the Miras in our sample, only $o$~Cet shows this strict layering throughout its cycle, in agreement with theoretical models
1204: designed to represent $o$~Cet (see \citealt{JS}).\\
1205: The pulsation amplitude also does not follow the model-predicted dependency on molecular opacity (\citealt{ISTW,ISW}).
1206: The layers exhibiting the largest relative variation in UD diameter (6\%-18\%) were those seen through the H\,1.65 and J\,1.24 filters,
1207: which should display less molecular contamination and thus less diameter variation.
1208: The K\,2.26 layer has UD diameters pulsation amplitudes between 4\% and 7\%.\\
1209: The molecular layer probed by the L\,3.08 bandpass is significantly further from the photosphere than the $JHK$ layers.
1210: It varies in UD angular diameter by as little a 4\% and as much as 8\%, with a 0.5 phase offset to the H\,1.65 pulsation,
1211: and is between 1.5 and 2.5 times larger than the H\,1.65 UD angular diameter, depending on the pulsation phase.
1212: This behaviour has not been observed before, and detailed models are needed to understand it.\\
1213:
1214: Another quantity predicted by models are the diameters in different wavelengths at different phases.
1215: When comparing the two stars whose parameters are thought to resemble the model input parameters the most,
1216: R Leo and $o$ Cet (both with revised Hipparcos parallaxes, see \citealt{KNAPP}), with model predictions (\citealt{ISTW,ISW}),
1217: we find that our UD diameters are significantly too large in the K\,2.26 bandpass.
1218: This could be explained by too high model effective temperatures, but a more careful, model based interpretation is needed
1219: to understand this effect.\\
1220: Given the small baselines ($<$ 10\,m) used in this experiment, it is remarkable how consistent the data is for the M-type Miras.
1221: It is even more surprising how different the S-type Mira $\chi$ Cyg appears to be when it's mutli-wavelength pulsation signature is analyzed.
1222: The H\,1.65 and K\,2.26 UD angular diameters are smallest around minimum light, contrary to all models and previous observations of M-type Miras.
1223: Further work with these data, including model comparisons with individual stars, imaging and asymmetry studies, will be presented in subsequent publications.
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233:
1234:
1235: \acknowledgments
1236:
1237: This work has been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation
1238: , the Australian Research Council and the Deutsche
1239: Forschungsgemeinschaft (HCW, MS). The data presented herein were
1240: obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a
1241: scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology,
1242: the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space
1243: Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
1244: financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
1245: We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research.
1246: We also thank Albert Jones and Peter Williams for the W Hya light curve data.
1247:
1248:
1249: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1250: \bibliography{REFPAPER}
1251:
1252:
1253: \clearpage
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258:
1259:
1260: \end{document}
1261:
1262: