1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
2: \shorttitle{Bow Shock at Nearby Star $\delta$ Velorum}
3: \shortauthors{G\'asp\'ar et al.}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Modeling the Infrared Bow Shock at $\delta$ Velorum: Implications for Studies
8: of Debris Disks and $\lambda$ Bo\"otis Stars}
9:
10: \author{A.\ G\'asp\'ar, K.\ Y.\ L.\ Su, G.\ H.\ Rieke, Z.\ Balog}
11: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
12: \email{agaspar@as.arizona.edu}
13: \author{I.\ Kamp}
14: \affil{Space Telescope Science Division of ESA, STScI, 3700 San Martin Drive,
15: Baltimore, MD 21218}
16: \author{J.\ R.\ Mart\'inez-Galarza}
17: \affil{Leiden Observatory, Universiteit Leiden, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands}
18: \author{K.\ Stapelfeldt}
19: \affil{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
20: CA 91109}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23:
24: We have discovered a bow shock shaped mid-infrared excess region in front
25: of $\delta$ Velorum using $24 ~\micron$ observations obtained with the Multiband
26: Imaging Photometer for {\it Spitzer} (MIPS). The excess has been classified as a
27: debris disk from previous infrared observations. Although the bow shock morphology was only
28: detected in the $24 ~\micron$ observations, its excess was also resolved
29: at $70 ~\micron$. We show that the stellar heating of
30: an ambient interstellar medium (ISM) cloud can produce the measured flux.
31: Since $\delta$ Velorum was classified as a debris disk star previously,
32: our discovery may call into question the same classification of other stars. We model
33: the interaction of the star and ISM, producing images that show the same geometry and surface
34: brightness as is observed. The modeled ISM is $\sim 15$ times overdense relative
35: to the average Local Bubble value, which is surprising considering the close proximity
36: ($24 ~{\rm pc}$) of $\delta$ Velorum.
37:
38: The abundance anomalies of $\lambda$ Bo\"otis stars have been previously explained
39: as arising from the same type of interaction of stars with the ISM.
40: Low resolution optical
41: spectra of $\delta$ Velorum show that it does not belong to this stellar class. The
42: star therefore is an interesting testbed for the ISM accretion theory of the $\lambda$
43: Bo\"otis phenomenon.
44:
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{stars: evolution -- stars: imaging -- stars: individual (HD 74956,
48: $\delta$ Velorum) -- ISM: kinematics and dynamics -- infrared: ISM -- radiation
49: mechanisms: thermal, shockwaves}
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: Using {\it IRAS} data, more than a hundred main-sequence stars have been
54: found to have excess emission in the $12$ - $100 ~\micron$ spectral range
55: \citep{beckman93}. Many additional examples have been discovered with {\it ISO} and
56: {\it Spitzer}. In most cases the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) can be fitted
57: by models of circumstellar debris systems of thermally radiating dust grains with
58: temperatures of $50$ to $200~{\rm K}$. Such grains have short lifetimes around stars:
59: they either get ground down into tiny dust particles that are then
60: ejected by radiation pressure, or if their number density is low they are brought into
61: the star by Poynting-Robertson drag. Since excesses are observed around stars that are
62: much older than the time scale for these clearing mechanisms, it is
63: necessary that the dust be replenished through collisions between
64: planetesimals and the resulting collisional cascades of the products of
65: these events both with themselves and with other bodies. Thus, planetary
66: debris disks are a means to study processes occurring in hundreds of
67: neighboring planetary sys\-tems. {\it Spitzer} observations are revealing a general
68: resemblance in evolutionary time scales and other properties to the events
69: hypothesized to have occurred in the early Solar System.
70:
71: Although the planetary debris disk hypothesis appears to account for a large
72: majority of the far infrared excesses around main-sequence stars, there are
73: two alternative possibilities. The first is that very hot gas around the
74: stars is responsible for free-free emission \citep[e.g.,][]{cote87,su06}.
75: The second possibility is that the excesses arise thro\-ugh heating of
76: dust grains in the interstellar medium around the star, but not
77: in a bound structure such as a debris disk. \cite{kalas02} noticed
78: optical reflection nebulosities around a number of stars with Vega-like excesses.
79: These nebulosities show asymmetries that would not be typical of disks, they have
80: complex, often striated structures that are reminiscent of the Pleiades
81: reflection nebulosities, and they are much too large in
82: extent to be gravitationally bound to the stars \citep[see][]{gorlova06}.
83:
84: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}
85: \tablecolumns{8}
86: \tablewidth{0pt}
87: \tablecaption{The parameters of $\delta$ Velorum \label{tab:par}}
88: \tablehead{
89: \colhead{$F_{24}$\tablenotemark{$\ast$}} & \colhead{$F_{70}$\tablenotemark{$\ast$}} &
90: \colhead{$\rho_{\rm ISM}$} & \colhead{$v_{\rm rel}$} & \colhead{$F_{{\rm star} 24}$\tablenotemark{$\dagger$}}&
91: \colhead{$F_{{\rm star} 70}$\tablenotemark{$\dagger$}} & \colhead{$F_{{\rm excess} 24}$\tablenotemark{$\ddagger$}}& \colhead{$F_{{\rm excess} 70}$\tablenotemark{$\ddagger$}}\\
92: \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{($10^{-24}$g cm$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &
93: \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)}}
94: \startdata
95: $1569\pm42$ & $237\pm50$ & $5.8\pm0.4$ & $36\pm4$ & $1277$ & $147$ & $174$ & $141$ \\
96: \enddata
97: \tablenotetext{$\ast$}{Observed fluxes with the large aperture}
98: \tablenotetext{$\dagger$}{Photospheric values - not including G star component}
99: \tablenotetext{$\ddagger$}{Modeled excesses at large aperture}
100: \end{deluxetable*}
101:
102: Dynamical rather than stationary interactions with the ISM are more interesting
103: \citep{char91}. Originally, it was proposed that ISM dust grains could interact
104: directly with material in debris disks \citep{lissauer89,whitmire92}.
105: However, it was soon realized that photon pressure from
106: the star would repel interstellar grains, resulting in grain-free zones with
107: possible bow-shock geometry around luminous stars \citep{arty97}.
108:
109: This scenario has been proposed to account for the abundance anomalies
110: associated with $\lambda$ Bo\"otis stars. These are late B to early F-type,
111: Population I stars with surface underabundances of most Fe-peak elements
112: and solar abundances of lighter elements, such as C, N, O and S.
113: In the diffusion/accretion model \citep{venn90,kamp02,paunzen03},
114: it is suggested that the abundance anomaly occurs when
115: a star passes through a diffuse interstellar cloud. The radiation pressure
116: repels the grains, and hence much of the general ISM metals, while the gas
117: is accreted onto the stellar surface. While the star is within the cloud, a
118: mid-infrared excess will result from the heating of the interstellar dust;
119: however, after the star has left the cloud the abundance anomalies may
120: persist for $\sim 10^6 ~{\rm yr}$ in its surface layers \citep{turcotte93}
121: without an accompanying infrared excess.
122:
123: There have been few opportunities to test the predictions for dynamical
124: interactions of main-sequence stars with the ambient interstellar
125: medium. \cite{france07} have studied a bow shock
126: generated by the O$9.5$ runaway star HD $34078$. \cite{ueta06} describe the bow
127: shock between the mass loss wind of the AGB star R Hya and the ISM. \cite{noriega97}
128: identified $58$ runaway OB stars with an observable bow shock structure
129: using high resolution {\it IRAS} $60 ~\micron$ emission maps.
130: \cite{rebull07} discovered that the young B5 star HD 281159 is interacting with the
131: ISM, producing spherical shells of extended IR emission centered on the star with a
132: spike feature pointing from the star into the shells.
133: None of these cases correspond to the type of situation that might be mistaken
134: for a debris disk, nor which would be expected to produce a $\lambda$ Bo\"otis
135: abundance pattern.
136:
137: $\delta$ Velorum is a nearby ($\sim 24~{\rm pc}$) stellar system (at least five
138: members)\footnote{It is a complex multiple system: \cite{otero00,hanbury74,horch00,
139: argyle02,tango79, kellerer07}}, with modest excess in the {\it IRAS} data. It has
140: been classified as an A-type star with a debris disk system
141: \citep[e.g.,][]{aumann85,aumann88,cote87,chen06,su06}. \cite{otero00} observed a
142: drop in the primary component's brightness ($\sim 0\fm3$) and showed that it is an
143: eclipsing binary with probably two A spectral type components. With the available
144: data, \cite{argyle02} computed the system's parameters. They suggested that the
145: eclipsing binary (Aa) consists of two A dwarfs with spectral types A1V and A5V and
146: masses of $2.7$ and $2.0 ~{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and with separation of $10$ mas.
147: The nearby B component is a G dwarf with mass around $1 ~{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and
148: separation of $0\farcs6$ from the main component. There is also another binary
149: (CD component) at $78''$ from the star.
150:
151: In \S 2, we report measurements demonstrating that this star is producing a bow
152: shock as it moves through an interstellar cloud as hypothesized by \cite{arty97}.
153: In \S 3, we model this behavior using simple dust
154: grain parameters and show satisfactory agreement with expectations for the
155: ISM and properties of the star. We discuss these results in \S 4, where
156: we show that the star is most likely not part of the $\lambda$ Bo\"otis stellar class.
157: Thus, $\delta$ Velorum provides a test of the diffusion/accretion hypothesis for
158: $\lambda$ Bo\"otis behavior.
159:
160: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
161:
162: We present observations of $\delta$ Velorum at $24$ and $70 ~\micron$
163: obtained with the Multiband Imaging Photometer for {\it Spitzer} (MIPS) as part of three
164: programs: PID 57 (2004 Feb 21), PID 20296 (2006 Feb 22, Apr 3) and PID 30566 (2006
165: June 12). For PID 57, we used $3$ second exposures at four dither positions with
166: a total integration time of 193 seconds.
167: The other observations at $24 ~\micron$ (PID 20296) were done in standard
168: photometry mode with 4 cycles at 5 sub-pixel-offset cluster positions and 3 sec
169: integrations, resulting in a total integration of 902 sec on source for each of the
170: two epochs. The star HD 217382 was observed as a PSF standard (AOR ID 6627584) for PID
171: 57, with the same observational parameters. The observation at $70 ~\micron$
172: (PID 30566) was done in standard photometry default-scale mode with 10 sec
173: integrations and 3 cycles, resulting in a total integration of 335 sec on source.
174:
175: The binary component Aa was not in eclipsing phase according to the eph\-e\-me\-ris
176: equations by \cite{otero00} at either epoch. The period of the eclipse is
177: $\sim 45.16 ~ {\rm days}$, and the system was $\sim 13 ~ {\rm days}$ before a
178: primary minimum at the first, $\sim 3 ~ {\rm days}$ before one at the second and
179: $\sim 7.7 ~ {\rm days}$ before one at the third epoch for the $24 ~\micron$
180: observations. The $70 ~\micron$ observation was $2.53 ~ {\rm days}$ before a secondary
181: minimum.
182:
183: The data were processed using the MIPS instrument team Data Analysis
184: Tool \citep[DAT,][]{gordon05} as described by \cite{engelbracht07} and \cite{gordon07}.
185: Care was taken to minimize instrumental artifacts
186: (details will be discussed in an upcoming paper, Su et al.\ 2007, in preparation).
187:
188: \begin{figure*}[ht]
189: \figurenum{1}
190: %\epsscale{1.16}
191: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4868]{f1a_1.eps} % scale=0.505
192: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4868]{f1b_1.eps} % scale=0.505
193:
194: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4646]{f1c_1.eps} % scale=0.481
195: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.4868]{f1d_1.eps} % scale=0.505
196: \caption{The panels show $24 ~\micron$ images of $\delta$ Velorum. All images are in logarithmic scaling,
197: the FOV is $\sim 2\farcm74 \times 2\farcm34$. The scaling of the images are: $-0.5$ -- $4 ~{\rm MJy~sr}^{-1}$.
198: \textit{Top-left panel:} The original observed composite image from the $2^{\rm nd}$ and $3^{\rm rd}$ epochs.
199: \textit{Top-right panel:} PSF oversubtracted image, which shows
200: the bow shock structure far from the star.
201: \textit{Bottom-left panel:} The intensity scaled PSF subtracted image (first epoch), which shows the bow shock structure close
202: to the star. This image shows the orientation of the images and the proper motion direction of the star.
203: The arrow bisecting the bow shock contour shows the calculated direction of the modeled relative velocity.
204: \textit{Bottom-right panel:} Same image as the bottom-left panel, but with intensity contours plotted. The intensity
205: contours are at $0.25$, $1.0$, $1.75$, $2.5$ and $3.25 ~{\rm MJy~sr}^{-1}$ from the faintest to the brightest, respectively. The contours
206: show that the extended emission consists of incomplete spherical shells, centered on $\delta$ Velorum.}
207: \label{fig:im}
208: \end{figure*}
209:
210: Fitting the model described later demands flux
211: measurements within a constant large external radius (see details in \S 3). Therefore,
212: photometry for the target was extracted using aperture photometry with a single
213: aperture setting. The center for the aperture
214: photometry at both $24$ and $70 ~\micron$ was determined by fitting and centroiding a
215: 2-D Gaussian core. A radius of $56\farcs025$ was used for both wavelengths, with sky
216: annulus between $68\farcs95$ and $76\farcs34$. The aperture size was chosen to be large
217: enough to contain most of the flux from the bow shock, but small enough to exclude the CD
218: component to avoid contamination. The CD component was bright at $24 ~\micron$ at a
219: distance of $78''$ from the AaB components, but could not be detected at $70 ~\micron$.
220: Aperture corrections were not applied because of the large size of the aperture.
221: Conversion factors of $1.068\times10^{-3}$ and
222: $1.652\times10^1 ~{\rm mJy}~{\rm arcsec}^{-2}~{\rm MIPS\_UNIT}^{-1}$ were used to transfer
223: measured instrumental units to physical units at $24$ and $70 ~\micron$, respectively.
224:
225: Faint extended asymmetric nebulosity offset from the central star is apparent at
226: $24 ~\micron$, with the dark Airy rings partially filled in. Using standard aperture
227: and point-spread-function (PSF) fitting photometry optimized for a point source, the
228: total flux is $1420\pm42 ~{\rm mJy},$ $\sim 1.12$ times the expected photospheric
229: flux, which was determined by fitting a Kurucz model \citep{kurucz93}
230: to the optical and near infrared photometry and extrapolating it to $24$ and $70 ~\micron$.
231: The large aperture photometry value is greater by another factor
232: of $\sim 1.1$, which puts it above the expected photospheric flux by a factor of $\sim 1.25$.
233: The final photometry measurements (using the large aperture setting) are listed
234: in Table \ref{tab:par}. We also list the modeled photospheric flux of the star and
235: the modeled value of the IR excess. Since the measured excess depends on the aperture
236: used, to avoid confusion we do not give a measured excess value, only the photospheric flux
237: which can be subtracted from any later measurements. The photospheric flux given in
238: Table \ref{tab:par} does not include the contribution from the G dwarf ($90$ and
239: $10 ~{\rm mJy}$ at $24$ and $70 ~\micron$, respectively). The top left panel in
240: Figure 1 shows the summed image from epochs 2 and 3, to demonstrate the asymmetry suggested
241: even before PSF subtraction.
242:
243: For the first epoch $24 ~\micron$ image, the reference star image was subtracted
244: from the image of $\delta$ Velorum, with a scale factor chosen as the maximum value
245: that would completely remove the image core without creating significant negative flux
246: residuals. The deeper exposures from the second and third epochs were designed to
247: reveal faint structures far from the star, where the observed PSF is difficult to
248: extract accurately. Therefore, we used simulated PSFs (from STinyTim \citep{krist02})
249: and the MIPS simulator \footnote{Software designed to simulate MIPS data, including
250: optical distortions, using the same observing templates used in flight.}. Because
251: bright structures nearly in the PSF contribute to the residuals at large distances,
252: we oversubtracted the PSF to compensate. The first epoch PSF subtracted
253: $24 ~\micron$ image is shown in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{fig:im} and the
254: composite from epochs 2 and 3 in the upper right.
255:
256: The PSF subtracted images in Figure \ref{fig:im} show that the asymmetry is caused by
257: a bow shock. As shown in the lower left, the head of the
258: bow shock points approximately toward the direction of the stellar proper motion. The
259: bottom right panel shows the excess flux contours and that it consists of incomplete
260: spherical shells centered on $\delta$ Velorum. Combined with the upper right image, there is also a
261: parabolic cavity, as expected for a bow shock. The stagnation points (where photon pressure
262: equals gravitational force) of the grains in the bow shock are within $\sim 200 ~{\rm AU}$
263: of the star, according to the observations. A notable feature in the upper right is the
264: wings of the bow shock, which are detectable to $\sim 1500 ~{\rm AU}$.
265:
266: \begin{figure}[ht]
267: \figurenum{2}
268: \begin{center}
269: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.664]{f2a.eps}
270: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.195]{f2b.eps}
271: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.195]{f2c.eps}
272: \caption{The panels show the $70 ~\micron$ image of $\delta$ Velorum. All images are scaled logarithmically from
273: $-0.5$ -- $3 ~{\rm MJy~sr}^{-1}$. The FOV is $\sim 2\farcm46 \times 3\farcm03$. The orientation
274: of the images is the same as in Figure \ref{fig:im}. {\it First panel:}
275: the observed image. {\it Middle panel:} the PSF subtracted image. The residual flux seems
276: close to being concentric. {\it Last panel:} the intensity contours. They suggest that there is a faint concentric
277: $70 ~\micron$ excess further from the star that fades at the cavity region behind the star.}
278: \label{fig:70}
279: \end{center}
280: \end{figure}
281:
282: The $70 ~\micron$ observation is shown in Figure \ref{fig:70}. The PSF subtraction
283: (scaled to the point source flux of $125 ~{\rm mJy}$) does not reveal the bow shock
284: structure at this wavelength, only that there is extended excess. The total flux of the
285: residual of the PSF subtracted image is $119 ~{\rm mJy}$. The intensity contours ({\it
286: last panel}) suggest that the $70 ~\micron$ excess fades at the cavity behind the
287: star, but the effect is small. The geometry and direction of the bow shock are
288: discussed in more detail in \S 3.2.
289:
290: \section{The Bow Shock Model}
291:
292: Based on a previous suggestion by \cite{venn90}, \cite{kamp02} proposed a
293: physical model to explain the abundance pattern of $\lambda$ Bo\"otis stars through
294: star-ISM interaction and the diffusion/accretion hypothesis. Their model is based on a
295: luminous main-sequence star passing through a diffuse ISM cloud. The star blows the
296: interstellar dust grains away by its radiation pressure, but accretes the interstellar
297: gas onto its surface, thus establishing a thin surface layer with abundance anomalies.
298: So long as the star is inside the cloud, the dust grains are heated to produce excess
299: in the infrared above the photospheric radiation of the star.
300: Mart\'inez-Galarza et al.\ (2007, in prep.) have developed a model of this process and
301: show that the global spectral energy distributions of a
302: group of $\lambda$ Bo\"otis type stars that have infrared excesses are consistent with
303: the emission from the hypothesized ISM cloud. Details of the model can be found in
304: their paper. Here we adapt their model and improve its
305: fidelity (e.g., with higher resolution integrations), and also model the surface
306: brightness distribution to describe the observed bow shock seen around $\delta$ Velorum.
307:
308: \subsection{Physical description of the model}
309:
310: The phenomenon of star-ISM interactions generating bow shocks was first
311: studied by \cite{arty97}. They showed that the radiative pressure force on a
312: sub-micron dust grain can be many times that of the gravitational force as it
313: approaches the star. The scattering surface will be a parabola with the star at the
314: focus point of the parabolic shaped dust cavity. Since the star heats the grains
315: outside of the cavity and close to the parabolic surface, an infrared-emitting bow
316: shock feature is expected.
317:
318: The shape of the parabola (for each grain size) can be given in terms of the distance
319: between the star (focus) and the vertex. This so-called avoidance radius (or the
320: $p/2$ parameter of the scattering parabola) can be calculated from energy conservation
321: to be \citep{arty97}:
322: \begin{equation}
323: r_{\rm av}^a=\frac{2\left(\beta^a -1\right){\rm G}M}{v_{\rm rel}^2},
324: \end{equation}
325: where $a$ is the radius of the particle, $M$ is the mass of the star and $v_{\rm rel}$
326: is the relative velocity between the star and the dust grains.
327:
328: \begin{figure*}[ht]
329: \figurenum{4}
330: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.54]{f4a_1.eps}
331: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.54]{f4b_1.eps}
332: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.54]{f4c_1.eps}
333: \caption{The panels show the $24 ~\micron$ morphology of the bow shock viewed at different inclinations, starting
334: from $90^{\circ}$ ({\it left}), $70^{\circ}$ ({\it middle}) and $50^{\circ}$ ({\it right}).}
335: \label{fig:slides}
336: \end{figure*}
337:
338: $\beta^a$ is the ratio of photon pressure to gravitational force on a grain and it is
339: given by \citep{burns79}:
340: \begin{equation}
341: \beta^a=0.57 Q_{\rm pr}^a\frac{L/L_{\odot}}{M/M_{\odot}}\left(\frac{a}{\micron}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{\delta}{{\rm g}~{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1},
342: \end{equation}
343: where $\delta$ is the bulk density of the grain material and $Q_{\rm pr}^a$ is the
344: radiation pressure efficiency averaged over the stellar spectrum.
345: $Q_{\rm pr}^a(\lambda)$ can be expressed in terms of grain properties
346: \citep[absorption coefficient $Q_{\rm ab}^a(\lambda)$, scattering coefficient
347: $Q_{\rm sca}^a(\lambda)$ and the scattering asymmetry factor
348: $g=\left<\cos\alpha(\lambda)\right>$,][]{burns79,henyey38}:
349: \begin{equation}
350: Q_{\rm pr}^a(\lambda)= Q_{\rm ab}^a(\lambda)+ Q_{\rm sca}^a\left(1-g\right),
351: \end{equation}
352: which gives
353: \begin{equation}
354: Q_{\rm pr}^a = \frac{\int{Q_{\rm pr}^a(\lambda)B(T_{\ast},\lambda)}{\rm d}\lambda}{\int{B(T_{\ast},\lambda)}{\rm d}\lambda},
355: \end{equation}
356: where $B(T_{\ast},\lambda)$ is the Planck function. We adopted astronomical silicates in
357: our model with $\delta = 3.3 ~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$ from \cite{draine84} and
358: \cite{laor93}. We considered a MRN \citep{mathis77} grain size distribution in our
359: model:
360: \begin{equation}
361: {\rm d}n = C a^{-\gamma}{\rm d}a,
362: \end{equation}
363: where $C$ is a scaling constant and $n$ is the number density of the cloud with
364: $\gamma=3.5$ and grain sizes ranging from $0.005$ -- $0.25 ~{\rm \micron}$.
365:
366: With these equations we are able to model the avoidance cavity for a grain that
367: encounters a star with known mass, luminosity and relative velocity. The model
368: describes a situation where the expelled grains are instantly removed from the system
369: rather than drifting away, but this only causes a minor discrepancy in the wing and
370: almost none in the apex of the parabola compared to the actual case. In the actual
371: scenario only those particles get scattered back upstream that encounter the central
372: star with small impact parameter ($\sim r_{\rm av}^a/2$). This means that most of the
373: grains will get expelled toward the wings, where the grains go further out and emit less
374: infrared excess, thus their contribution to the total flux will be small.
375:
376: The model determines the number density of certain grain sizes and the position of their
377: parabolic avoidance cavity. Outside of the cavity we assumed a constant number density
378: distribution for each grain size. To calculate the surface brightness of the system and
379: its SED we assumed a thermal equilibrium condition, with wavelength dependent absorption
380: and an optically thin cloud.
381:
382: \subsection{Model Geometry and Parameters}
383:
384: The model described in \S 3.1 gives the distribution and temperature for each
385: grain size. This model was implemented in two ANSI C programs. The first program fits
386: the SED of the system to the observed photometry points, while the second program
387: calculates the surface brightness of the system. The fitted photometry included uvby,
388: UBV, {\it HIPPARCOS} V band, 2MASS, {\it IRAS} and MIPS ($24$ and $70 ~\micron$) data.
389: We subtracted the $24$ and $70 ~\micron$ flux contributed by the G star
390: ($90$ and $10 ~{\rm mJy}$, respectively) from the MIPS observations, because we wanted
391: to model the system consisting of the two A stars and the bow shock.
392:
393: \begin{figure}[ht]
394: \figurenum{3}
395: \begin{center}
396: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.55]{f3.eps}
397: \caption{The nomenclature of the angles of the system. The heavy line is the grain avoidance parabola. $\varphi$ is the rotation angle of the system on the plane
398: of the sky (our initial guess was $4^{\circ}$ N from the calculated direction of relative motion shown in
399: Figure \ref{fig:im}), $\iota$ is the inclination and ${\rm r}_{\rm av}$ is an avoidance radius. The observer is viewing from
400: the axis pointing to the bottom left.}
401: \label{fig:angles}
402: \end{center}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405: \begin{figure*}[ht]
406: \figurenum{5}
407: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.88]{f5a_1.eps} %scale=1.165
408: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.895]{f5b.eps} %sclale=0.895
409: \caption{{\it Left panel:} The $\chi^2$ phase space for $\rho_{\rm dust}$ vs.\ ${\rm v}_{\rm rel}$ with constrained $r_{\rm ext}=1366 ~{\rm AU}$. {\it Right panel:} The $\rho$ vs.\ $v_{\rm rel}$ phase space ({\it left
410: panel}) cut at $v_{\rm rel} = 36 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$.}
411: \label{fig:chi}
412: \end{figure*}
413:
414: The input parameters are: stellar radius, mass-to-luminosity ratio (MLR), relative
415: velocity of cloud and star, ISM dust density, cloud external radius and the distance of
416: the system. The stellar radius, MLR and the distance can be constrained easily. We
417: determined the best-fit Kurucz model \citep{kurucz93} by fitting the photometry points
418: at wavelengths shorter than $10 ~\micron$. Since the distance is known to high accuracy
419: from {\it HIPPARCOS} we can determine the radius and thus the luminosity of the star
420: precisely. The mass was adopted from \cite{argyle02}. The G dwarf's luminosity is only
421: 1\% of the system, so leaving the star out does not cause any inconsistency. Its mass is only 17\% of
422: the total mass, which can only cause minor changes in the determined final relative velocity,
423: but none in the final surface brightness or the computed ISM density.
424: The model then has three variable parameters: the density of the ISM grains
425: ($\rho_{\rm dust}$ - does not include gas), the relative velocity between the cloud and the star
426: ($v_{\rm rel}$) and the external radius of the cloud ($r_{\rm ext}$). The model should describe
427: the total flux from exactly the area used for our photometry. The aperture
428: radius of $56\farcs025$ ($1366 ~{\rm AU}$ at the stellar distance of
429: $24.45 ~{\rm pc}$) was used as $r_{\rm ext}$. Both programs
430: calculate the $Q_{\rm pr}^a$, $\beta^a$, $r_{\rm av}^a$, $n$ values and then the
431: temperature at $r_{\rm av}^a$ for each grain size.
432:
433: The SED modeling program decreases the temperature value from the one at $r_{\rm av}$
434: by $0.01 ~{\rm K}$ steps and finds the radius for that corresponding grain temperature.
435: The program does not include geometrical parameters such as the inclination or the
436: rotation angle of the system, since these are irrelevant in calculating the total flux.
437: It calculates the contribution to the emitting flux for every grain size from every
438: shell to an external radius ($r_{\rm ext}$) and adds them up according to wavelength.
439:
440: The program that calculates the surface brightness uses a similar algorithm as the SED
441: program, but it calculates the temperature at $1 ~{\rm AU}$ distance steps from
442: $r_{\rm av}^a$ for every grain size and calculates the total flux in the line of sight
443: in $1 ~{\rm AU}^2$ resolution elements.
444:
445: The total inclination $\iota$ of the bow shock was not included as a parameter, since
446: by eye the observed images seemed to show an inclination of $\iota \approx 90^{\circ}$
447: (a schematic plot of the angle nomenclature is shown in Figure \ref{fig:angles}). This
448: approximation is strengthened by the radial velocity of the star, which is only
449: $\sim 2 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ compared to the tangential velocity of
450: $\sim 13 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$. This assures that the motion of the system is close to
451: perpendicular to the line of sight. However, we have found that the bow shock has similar
452: appearance for a significant range of angles ($\pm 20^{\circ}$) relative to $\iota = 90^{\circ}$.
453: We illustrate this in Figure \ref{fig:slides}. If the relative velocity vector
454: would have a $70^{\circ}$ (or $110^{\circ}$) inclination it would only cause minor differences
455: in the modeled velocity ($\Delta v_{\rm rel}\approx 3 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$) and ISM density ($\Delta
456: \rho_{\rm ISM}\approx 0.2\times10^{-24}~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$). At an
457: inclination of $50^{\circ}$, the ``wings'' spread out and the bright rim at the apex starts to
458: become thin.
459:
460: With interstellar FeII and MgII measurements \cite{lallement95} showed that the Local
461: Interstellar Cloud (LIC) has a heliocentric velocity of $26 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ moving
462: towards the galactic coordinate $l_{II}=186\pm3^{\circ}$, $b_{II}=-16\pm3^{\circ}$.
463: Since $\delta$ Velorum is at $l_{II}\approx272^{\circ}$, $b_{II}\approx-7^{\circ}$, the
464: LIC is also moving perpendicular to our line of sight at the star and in the direction
465: needed to reach a high relative velocity between the star and cloud. \cite{crawford98}
466: showed a low velocity interstellar Ca K line component in the star's spectrum with
467: $v_{\rm helio}=1.3\pm0.4~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$, which also proves that the ISM's motion is
468: perpendicular to our line of sight at $\delta$ Velorum. The offset of the proper motion
469: direction of the star from the head direction of the bow shock by a few degrees could be
470: explained by the ISM velocity. A simple vectorial summation of the star and the ISM
471: velocities should give a net motion in the direction of the bow shock.
472:
473: \begin{figure*}[ht]
474: \figurenum{7}
475: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.165]{f7a.eps} %scale=1.165
476: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.91]{f7b.eps} %scale=.91
477: \caption{{\it Left panel:} $\chi^2$ in the phase space of $\varphi$ vs.\ $v_{\rm rel}$. {\it Right panel:} The phase space cut at $\varphi=-4^{\circ}$, showing the best
478: fit for $v_{\rm rel}$.}
479: \label{fig:bestrot}
480: \end{figure*}
481:
482: \begin{figure}[ht]
483: \figurenum{6}
484: \begin{center}
485: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.68]{f6.eps}
486: \caption{The value of $r_{\rm av}$ as a function of grain size. The solid lines are curves for a silicate bulk density of
487: $3.3 ~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$, while the dashed ones are
488: for $2.2 ~{\rm g~ cm}^{-3}$. The curves are for $v_{\rm rel}$ values of $25$, $30$, $35$, $40$ and $45 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ from top to bottom, respectively.}
489: \label{fig:ravvsgr}
490: \end{center}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: \subsection{Results}
494: We first tried to find the best fitting SED to the photometry points
495: corresponding to wavelengths larger than $10 ~\micron$ (MIPS, {\it IRAS}) with $\chi^2$
496: minimization in the $v_{\rm rel}$ vs.\ $\rho_{\rm dust}$ phase space. We defined $\chi^2$ as:
497: \begin{equation}
498: \chi^2=\sum\frac{\left({\rm F}_{\rm obs}-{\rm F}_{\rm calc}\right)^2}{\sigma_{\rm obs}^2}
499: \end{equation}
500: The $\chi^2$ phase space with $r_{\rm ext}=1366 ~{\rm AU}$ showed no minimum (Figure
501: \ref{fig:chi}, {\it left panel}). The interpretation of the diagram is as follows: if
502: the relative velocity is small, then the avoidance radius will be large. Consequently
503: the grains will be at relatively low temperature and the amount of dust required to
504: produce the observed flux increases. On the other hand, if the relative velocity is
505: large, then the grains can approach closer to the star and heat up to higher temperatures.
506: As a result a smaller dust density is enough to produce the observed flux. Therefore,
507: the combination of the density of the cloud and the relative velocity can be well
508: constrained by the broad-band SED alone, but not each separately.
509:
510: By using surface brightness values from the observations and the model calculations we
511: were able to determine the $v_{\rm rel}$ parameter and thus eliminate the degeneracy
512: of the model. Since the bow shock is a parabolic feature it has only one variable, the
513: avoidance radius ($r_{\rm av}^a$), which is the same as the $p/2$ parameter of the
514: parabola (with $p$ being the distance between the focus point and the vertex). The value
515: of $r_{\rm av}^a$ does change as a function of grain size, but the head of the bow shock
516: will be near the value where the avoidance radius has its maximum as a function of grain
517: size. As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:ravvsgr}, the avoidance radius has a maximum at
518: $\sim 0.06 ~\micron$ grain size. The value of the avoidance radius on the other hand
519: only depends on the relative velocity between the ISM cloud and the star. This way we
520: can constrain the second parameter of the model ($v_{\rm rel}$). The relative velocity
521: has to be set so that the avoidance radius of the $\sim 0.06 ~\micron$ grain is around
522: half the parabola parameter value. This method gives a value that only approximates the
523: true one, but it can be used as an initial guess.
524:
525: The $v_{\rm rel}$ parameter was constrained by comparing the PSF subtracted image
526: ``wings'' with model images. Within a range of $\pm 6 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ of our initial
527: guess ($v_{\rm rel}= 35 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$) with $1 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ steps, we
528: generated images of the surface brightness distribution to a radius of $2500 ~{\rm AU}$.
529: The computational time for a total $5000 \times 5000 \times 5000 ~{\rm AU}$ data cube
530: was long, so we only calculated to a depth of $250 ~{\rm AU}$, keeping the field of
531: view (FOV) $5000 \times 5000 ~{\rm AU}$. The fluxes of the generated images were normalized
532: (to ensure that the geometry was the main constraint of the fit and not surface
533: brightness variations) and rotated to angles $\varphi=\pm 20^{\circ}$ with $1^{\circ}$
534: steps. After rotation, both the model images and the observed image were masked with
535: zeros where there was no detectable surface brightness in the observed image.
536:
537: \begin{figure*}[ht]
538: \figurenum{11}
539: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.321]{f11a_1.eps} %scale=0.335
540: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.321]{f11b_1.eps} %scale=0.335
541: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.321]{f11c_1.eps} %scale=0.335
542:
543: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.306]{f11d_1.eps} %scale=0.32
544: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.306]{f11e_1.eps} %scale=0.32
545: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.306]{f11f_1.eps} %scale=0.32
546: \caption{{\bf Top row:} \textit{Left panel:} Observed $24 ~\micron$ image. \textit{Center panel:} Model $24 ~\micron$ image including both stellar photosphere and bow shock.
547: \textit{Right panel:} Model image subtracted from observed.
548: {\bf Bottom row:} \textit{Left panel:} Observed $70 ~\micron$ image. \textit{Center panel:} Model $70 ~\micron$ image including both stellar photosphere and bow shock.
549: \textit{Right panel:} Model image subtracted from observed. The FOV is $\sim 2\farcm7 \times 2\farcm1$, N is up and E to the left.}
550: \label{fig:24-70model}
551: \end{figure*}
552:
553: \begin{figure}[ht]
554: \figurenum{8}
555: \begin{center}
556: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.68]{f8.eps}
557: \caption{The final ISM density was determined from the best fitting surface brightness image. This plot shows the $\chi^2$ of the fits of the model to the observed image, where
558: $\rho_{\rm calculated}$ is the initial guess from Figure \ref{fig:chi} {\it right panel} and $\rho_{\rm fitted}$ is fitted density using surface brightness values.}
559: \label{fig:bestrho}
560: \end{center}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: The $\chi^2$ of the deviations of the model from the observed image were calculated.
564: We were able to constrain the rotation angle of the model and the relative velocity of
565: the cloud to the star. The $\chi^2$ values in the $\varphi$ vs.\ $v_{\rm rel}$ phase
566: space are shown in Figure \ref{fig:bestrot} ({\it left panel}). The small values at
567: large rotation angles are artifacts due to the masking. The best-fit rotation angle is
568: at $\varphi=-4^{\circ}$ to our initial guess, which means that the direction of motion
569: is $143^{\circ}$ (CCW) of N. This is just $21^{\circ}$ from the proper motion direction.
570: The ISM velocity predicted from vectorial velocity summation to fit this angle is
571: $24 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$, which is close to the ISM velocity value calculated by
572: \cite{lallement95}. The tangential velocity direction of the ISM from the summation is
573: $\sim 47^{\circ}$ CW of N, which is pointing only $4\fdg5$ south from the galactic
574: plane.
575:
576: The $v_{\rm rel}$ parameter and its error are calculated by fitting a Gaussian to the
577: phase space values at $\varphi=-4^{\circ}$ (Figure \ref{fig:bestrot}, {\it right panel}).
578: One $\sigma$ errors are given by values at $\Delta\chi^2=1$. The fits give
579: $v_{\rm rel}= 35.8 \pm 4.0 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$. Figure \ref{fig:chi} shows that if
580: $v_{\rm rel}$ is constrained, then we can also determine the density of the cloud from
581: simple SED modeling. The vertical cut of Figure \ref{fig:chi} ({\it left panel}) at
582: $v_{\rm rel}= 36 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ is shown in the {\it right panel} of the
583: same Figure.
584: $\rho_{\rm dust} = 6.43 \times 10^{-26} ~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$ is derived from this fit,
585: which gives an original ISM density of $6.43 \times 10^{-24}~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$ assuming
586: the usual 1:100 dust to gas mass ratio. This $\rho_{\rm dust}$ is an upper estimate of
587: the actual value, since the model computes what density would be needed to give the
588: observed brightness using a $r_{\rm ext}$ radius sphere. Since the line-of-sight
589: distribution of the dust is not cut off at $r_{\rm ext}$, we used
590: $\rho_{\rm dust} = 6.43 \times 10^{-26}~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$ as an initial guess; a range
591: of density values was explored with model images.
592:
593: Since the surface brightness scales with the density, only one image had to be computed,
594: which could be scaled afterwards with a constant factor. The resultant $\chi^2$
595: distribution is shown in Figure \ref{fig:bestrho}. The calculated best fitting ISM
596: density is $5.8 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-24}~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$, assuming the average 1:100
597: dust to gas mass ratio. The error was calculated at $\Delta\chi^2=1$. This density
598: ($n\sim 3.5 ~{\rm atoms~cm}^{-3}$) is only moderately higher than the average galactic ISM
599: density ($\sim 1 ~{\rm atom~cm}^{-3}$). The calculated surface brightness images for
600: the three MIPS wavelengths are shown in Figure \ref{fig:surf}. The closest stagnation
601: point is for the $0.005 ~\micron$ grains at $64 ~{\rm AU}$, while the furthest is at
602: $227 ~{\rm AU}$ for $0.056 ~\micron$ grains. The temperature coded image in Figure
603: \ref{fig:color} shows the surface brightness temperature of the bow shock (i.e.\ the
604: temperature of a black body, that would give the same surface brightness in the MIPS
605: wavelengths as observed). Table \ref{tab:par} shows good agreement between the model
606: and the measured values.
607:
608: \begin{figure}[ht]
609: \figurenum{9}
610: \begin{center}
611: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.117]{f9a_2.eps}
612: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.117]{f9b_2.eps}
613: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.117]{f9c_2.eps}
614:
615: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.2658]{f9d_2.eps}
616: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=2.812]{f9e.eps}
617: \caption{\textit{Top panels:} Calculated high resolution surface brightnesses for $24$, $70$ and $160 ~\micron$, respectively. \textit{Bottom panels:}
618: The $24$ and $70 ~\micron$ image with MIPS resolution, convolved with STinyTim PSFs. The images are not rotated to the same angle as the observed bow shock.}
619: \label{fig:surf}
620: \end{center}
621: \end{figure}
622:
623: \begin{figure}[ht]
624: \figurenum{10}
625: \begin{center}
626: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.46]{f10color_1.eps}
627: \caption{Image (online version in color) of the bow shock generated by the model computations. The image's FOV is $2\farcm41 \times 2\farcm41$. The colorscale shows
628: the integrated surface brightness temperature of the bow shock (and not the radial temperature gradient of the grains) in Kelvins.}
629: \label{fig:color}
630: \end{center}
631: \end{figure}
632:
633: The original observed images at $24 ~\micron$ and $70 ~\micron $ were compared to the
634: model. We generated model images with high resolution that included the bow shock and
635: the central star with its photospheric brightness value at the central pixel. We
636: convolved these images with a $1.8$ native pixel boxcar smoothed STinyTim PSF
637: \citep[see][]{engelbracht07}. These images were subtracted from the
638: observed ones (Figure \ref{fig:24-70model}). The residuals are small and generally
639: consistent with the expected noise. Finally, the best fitting SED of the system
640: ($r_{\rm ext}=1366 ~{\rm AU}$) is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:sed}.
641: The total mass of the dust inside the $r_{\rm ext}=1366 ~{\rm AU}$ radius is
642: $M_{\rm dust} = 1.706\times10^{24}~{\rm g}$ ($0.023 ~M_{\rm Moon}$).
643:
644: \section{Discussion}
645: \subsection{Bow Shock Model Results}
646:
647: \begin{figure}[ht]
648: \figurenum{12}
649: \begin{center}
650: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.68]{f12.eps}
651: \caption{The best fit SED. The window in the upper-right corner is a magnified part of the SED between $20$ and $80 ~\micron$. The plotted fluxes are $24$ and
652: $70 ~\micron$ MIPS and $25$ and $60 ~\micron$ IRAS, with errorbars. The $9.7 ~\micron$ silicate feature in the model SED of the ISM cloud is very faint and
653: on a bright continuum. The flux from the G dwarf has been subtracted from the $24$ and $70 ~\micron$ MIPS observations.}
654: \label{fig:sed}
655: \end{center}
656: \end{figure}
657:
658: Our model gives a consistent explanation of the total infrared excess and the
659: surface brightness distribution of the bow shock structure at $\delta$ Velorum. The
660: question still remains how common this phenomenon is among the previously identified
661: infrared-excess stars. Is it possible that many of the infrared excesses found around
662: early-type stars result from the emission of the ambient ISM cloud? The majority of
663: infrared excess stars are distant and cannot be resolved, so we cannot answer for sure.
664: However the excess at $\delta$ Velorum is relatively warm between $24$ and $70 ~\micron$
665: (${\rm F}(24) \sim 0.17 ~{\rm Jy}$, ${\rm F}(70) \sim 0.14 ~{\rm Jy}$), and such
666: behavior may provide an indication of ISM emission. This possibility will be analyzed in
667: a forthcoming paper. Another test would be to search for ISM spectral features. The ISM
668: $9.7 ~\micron$ silicate feature of the dust grains would have a total flux of
669: $\sim 1 ~{\rm mJy}$ for $\delta$ Velorum. Since the $\sim 1 ~{\rm mJy}$ flux would originate
670: from an extended region and not a point source that could fit in the slit of IRS, it would be nearly
671: impossible to detect with {\it Spitzer}. Only a faint hint of the excess is visible in the
672: $8 ~\micron$ IRAC images, consistent with the small output predicted by our model.
673:
674: \subsection{ISM Interactions}
675:
676: To produce a bow shock feature as seen around $\delta$ Velorum, the star needs
677: to be luminous, have a rather large relative velocity with respect to
678: the interacting ISM, and be passing through an ISM cloud. A relative velocity of
679: $\sim 36~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ is not
680: necessarily uncommon, since the ISM in the solar neighborhood has a space velocity of
681: $\sim 26~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ \citep{lallement95} and stars typically move with similar
682: speeds. If the ISM encountering the star is not dense enough the resulting excess will
683: be too faint to be detected. The Sun and its close ($\sim 100~{\rm pc}$) surrounding are
684: sitting in the Local Bubble
685: \citep[${\rm n(HI)}< 0.24 ~{\rm cm}^{-3}$, ${\rm T} \approx 7500 ~{\rm K}$,][]{lallement98,jenkins02}.
686: This cavity generally lacks cold and neutral gas up to $\sim 100 ~{\rm pc}$. The density
687: we calculated at $\delta$ Velorum is $\sim 15$ times higher than the average value
688: inside the Local Bubble. Observations over the past thirty years have shown that this
689: void is not completely deficient of material, but contains filaments and cold clouds
690: \citep{wennmacher92,herbstmeier98,jenkins02,meyer06}. \cite{talbot77} calculated that an
691: average galactic disk star of solar age has probably passed through about 135 clouds of
692: ${\rm n(HI)} \ge 10^2 ~{\rm cm}^{-3}$ and about 16 clouds with
693: ${\rm n(HI)} \ge 10^3 ~{\rm cm}^{-3}$. Thus the scenario that we propose for $\delta$
694: Velorum is plausible.
695:
696: \subsection{Implications for Diffusion/Accretion Model of $\lambda$ Bo\"otis Phenomenon}
697:
698: \cite{holweger99} list $\delta$ Velorum as a simple A star, not a $\lambda$
699: Bo\"otis one. We downloaded spectra of the star from the Appalachian State University
700: Nstars Spectra Project \citep{gray06}. The spectra of $\delta$ Velorum, $\lambda$
701: Bo\"otis (prototype of its group) and Vega (an MK A0 standard) are plotted in Figure
702: \ref{fig:spectr}. The metallic lines are generally strong for $\delta$ Velorum. One of
703: the most distinctive characteristics of $\lambda$ Bo\"otis stars is the absence or
704: extreme weakness of the MgII lines at $4481$ \AA{} \citep{gray88}. Although the MgII
705: line seems to be weaker than expected for an A0 spectral type star, it still shows high
706: abundance, which confirms that $\delta$ Velorum is not a $\lambda$ Bo\"otis type star
707: (Christopher J. Corbally, private communication). The overall metallicity ratio for
708: $\delta$ Velorum is $\left[{\rm M}/{\rm H}\right]=-0.33$, while for $\lambda$ Bo\"otis
709: it is $\left[{\rm M}/{\rm H}\right]=-1.86$ \citep{gray06}. The G star's contribution to
710: the total abundance in the spectrum is negligible, because of its relative faintness. We
711: used spectra from the NStars web site to synthesize a A1V/A5V binary composite spectrum and
712: found only minor differences from the A1V spectrum alone. Thus, the assigned metallicity
713: should be valid.
714:
715: \begin{figure}[ht]
716: \figurenum{13}
717: \begin{center}
718: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.68]{f13.eps}
719: \caption{The spectra of $\delta$ Velorum (bottom line), Vega (middle line) and $\lambda$ Bo\"otis (top line).}
720: \label{fig:spectr}
721: \end{center}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724: These results show that at $\delta$ Velorum, where we do see the ISM interacting with a star,
725: there is no sign of the $\lambda$ Bo\"otis phenomenon or just a very mild effect.
726: \cite{turcotte93} modeled that an accretion rate of $\sim 10^{-14} ~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ is
727: necessary for a $T_{\rm eff}=8000~{\rm K}$ main sequence star to show the spectroscopic
728: characteristics of the phenomenon. The $\lambda$ Bo\"otis abundance pattern starts to
729: show at $10^{-15} ~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and ceases at
730: $10^{-12}~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$. To reach an ISM accretion of
731: $10^{-15}~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ a collecting area of $2 ~{\rm AU}$ radius would be
732: needed with our modeled ISM density and velocity.
733: For an accretion of $10^{-14}$, $10^{-13}$ and $10^{-12} ~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$
734: collecting areas of $6.5$, $20$ and $65 ~{\rm AU}$ radii are needed, respectively.
735:
736: With the accretion theory of \cite{bondi44}, we get an accretion rate of
737: $6.15 \times 10^{-15}~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ for $\delta$ Velorum. Thus, the accretion rate for
738: this star is probably not high enough to show a perfect $\lambda$ Bo\"otis spectrum, but should be high
739: enough for it to show some effects of accretion. This star is an exciting
740: testbed for the diffusion/accretion model of the $\lambda$ Bo\"otis phenomenon.
741:
742:
743: \section{Summary}
744:
745: We observe a bow shock generated by photon pressure as $\delta$ Velorum moves
746: through an interstellar cloud. Although this star was thought to have a debris disk, its
747: infrared excess appears to arise at least in large part from this bow shock. We present
748: a physical model to explain the bow shock. Our calculations reproduce the observed
749: surface brightness of the object and give the physical parameters of the cloud. We
750: determined the density of the surrounding ISM to be
751: $5.8 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-24} ~{\rm g~cm}^{-3}$. This corresponds to a number density of
752: $n \approx 3.5 ~{\rm atoms ~cm}^{-3}$, which means a $\sim 15$ times overdensity relative to
753: the average Local Bubble value. The cloud and the star have a relative velocity of
754: $35.8 \pm 4.0 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$. The velocity
755: of the ISM in the vicinity of $\delta$ Velorum we derived is consistent with LIC
756: velocity measurements by \cite{lallement95}. Our best-fit parameters and measured fluxes
757: are summarized in Table \ref{tab:par}.
758:
759: \cite{holweger99} found that $\delta$ Velorum is not a $\lambda$ Bo\"otis star. The
760: measurements from the Nstars Spectra Project also confirm this. Details regarding the
761: diffusion/accretion time scales for a complex stellar system remain to be elaborated.
762: Nevertheless, our {\it Spitzer} observations of $\delta$ Velorum provide an interesting
763: testbed and challenge to the ISM diffusion/accretion theory for the $\lambda$ Bo\"otis
764: phenomenon.
765:
766: \acknowledgments
767: Based on observations with \textit{Spit\-zer Space Telescope}, which is
768: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA
769: contract 1407. Support for this work was provided by NASA through Contract Number 1255094
770: issued by JPL/Caltech. This research made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,
771: Strasbourg, France. We would like to thank the help of A.\ Skemer in the error analysis
772: of the model. We have benefited from the helpful discussions with C.\ Corbally and
773: D.\ Apai. The analysis of IRAC data by J.\ Carson helped to confirm our results.
774:
775: {\it Facilities:} \facility{{\it Spitzer} (MIPS)}
776:
777: \begin{thebibliography}{}
778: \bibitem[Argyle et al.(2002)]{argyle02} Argyle, R.~W., Alzner, A., \& Horch, E.~P.\ 2002, \aap, 384, 171
779: \bibitem[Artymowicz \& Clampin(1997)]{arty97} Artymowicz, P., \& Clampin, M.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 863
780: \bibitem[Aumann(1985)]{aumann85} Aumann, H.~H.\ 1985, \pasp, 97, 885
781: \bibitem[Aumann(1988)]{aumann88} Aumann, H.~H.\ 1988, \aj, 96, 1415
782: \bibitem[Beckman \& Paresce(1993)]{beckman93} Beckman, D., \& Paresce, F.\ 1993, in Protostars \& Planets III, ed.\ E.~H.\ Levy \& J.~I.\ Lunine (Tucson:
783: Univ.\ Arizona Press), 1253
784: \bibitem[Bondi \& Hoyle(1944)]{bondi44} Bondi, H., \& Hoyle, F.\ 1944, \mnras, 104, 273
785: \bibitem[Burns et al.(1979)]{burns79} Burns, J.~A., Lamy, P.~L., \& Soter, S.\ 1979, Icarus, 40, 1
786: %\bibitem[Castelli \& Kurucz(2003)]{kurucz93} Castelli, F., \& Kurucz, R.\ L.\ 2003, in Poster Papers, IAU Symp.\ 210: Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed.\ N.\ Piskunov, W.\
787: %W.\ Weiss \& D.\ F.\ Gray (San Francisco: ASP), 20
788: \bibitem[Castelli \& Kurucz(2003)]{kurucz93} Castelli, F., \& Kurucz, R.~L.\ 2003, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, 210, 20P
789: \bibitem[Charbonneau(1991)]{char91} Charbonneau, P.\ 1991, \apjl, 372, L33
790: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2006)]{chen06} Chen, C.~H., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 166, 351
791: \bibitem[Crawford et al.(1998)]{crawford98} Crawford, I.~A., Lallement, R., \& Welsh, B.~Y.\ 1998, \mnras, 300, 1181
792: \bibitem[Cote(1987)]{cote87} Cote, J.\ 1987, \aap, 181, 77
793: \bibitem[Draine \& Lee(1984)]{draine84} Draine, B.~T., \& Lee, H.~M.\ 1984, \apj, 285, 89
794: \bibitem[Engelbracht et al.(2007)]{engelbracht07} Engelbracht, C.~W., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2195
795: \bibitem[France et al.(2007)]{france07} France, K., McCandliss, S.~R., \& Lupu, R.~E.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 920
796: \bibitem[Gray(1988)]{gray88} Gray, R.~O.\ 1988, \aj, 95, 220
797: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2006)]{gray06} Gray, R.~O., Corbally, C.~J., Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., Bubar, E.~J., McGahee, C.~E.,
798: O'Donoghue, A.~A., \& Knox, E.~R.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 161
799: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2005)]{gordon05} Gordon, K.~D., et al.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 503
800: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2007)]{gordon07} Gordon, K.~D., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.2196
801: \bibitem[Gorlova et al.(2006)]{gorlova06} Gorlova, N., Rieke, G.~H., Muzerolle, J., Stauffer, J.~R., Siegler, N., Young, E.~T., \&
802: Stansberry, J.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1028
803: \bibitem[Hanbury et al.(1974)]{hanbury74} Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., \& Allen, L.~R.\ 1974, \mnras, 167, 121
804: \bibitem[Henyey \& Greenstein(1938)]{henyey38} Henyey, L.~G., \& Greenstein, J.~L.\ 1938, \apj, 88, 580
805: \bibitem[Herbstmeier \& Wennmacher(1998)]{herbstmeier98} Herbstmeier, U., \& Wennmacher, A.\ 1998, IAU Colloq.~166: The Local Bubble and Beyond, 506, 117
806: \bibitem[Holweger et al.(1999)]{holweger99} Holweger, H., Hempel, M., \& Kamp, I.\ 1999, \aap, 350, 603
807: \bibitem[Horch et al.(2000)]{horch00} Horch, E., Franz, O.~G., \& Ninkov, Z.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 2638
808: \bibitem[Jenkins(2002)]{jenkins02} Jenkins, E.~B.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 938
809: \bibitem[Kalas et al.(2002)]{kalas02} Kalas, P., Graham, J.~R., Beckwith, S.~V.~W., Jewitt, D.~C., \& Lloyd, J.~P.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 999
810: \bibitem[Kamp \& Paunzen(2002)]{kamp02} Kamp, I., \& Paunzen, E.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, L45
811: \bibitem[Kellerer et al.(2007)]{kellerer07} Kellerer, A., Petr-Gotzens, M.~G., Kervella, P., \& Coud{\'e} Du Foresto, V.\ 2007, \aap, 469, 633
812: \bibitem[Krist(2002)]{krist02} Krist, J.\ 2002, ``TinyTim/SIRTF User's Guide'', Spitzer Science Center internal document
813: \bibitem[Laor \& Draine(1993)]{laor93} Laor, A., \& Draine, B.~T.\ 1993, \apj, 402, 441
814: \bibitem[Lallement et al.(1995)]{lallement95} Lallement, R., Ferlet, R., Lagrange, A.~M., Lemoine, M., \& Vidal-Madjar, A.\ 1995, \aap, 304, 461
815: %\bibitem[Lallement(1998)]{lallement98} Lallement, R.\ 1998 in IAU Colloq. 166, The Local Bubble and Beyond, ed.\ D.\ Breitschwerdt, M.J. Freyberg \& J.\ Tr\"umper
816: %(Berlin:Springer), 19
817: \bibitem[Lallement(1998)]{lallement98} Lallement, R.\ 1998, IAU Colloq.~166: The Local Bubble and Beyond, 506, 19
818: \bibitem[Lissauer \& Griffith(1989)]{lissauer89} Lissauer, J.~J., \& Griffith, C.~A.\ 1989, \apj, 340, 468
819: \bibitem[Mathis, Rumpl \& Nordsieck(1977)]{mathis77} Mathis, J.~S., Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K.~H.\ 1977, \apj, 217, 425
820: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2006)]{meyer06} Meyer, D.~M., Lauroesch, J.~T., Heiles, C., Peek, J.~E.~G., \& Engelhorn, K.\ 2006, \apjl, 650, L67
821: \bibitem[Noriega-Crespo et al.(1997)]{noriega97} Noriega-Crespo, A., van Buren, D., \& Dgani, R.\ 1997, \aj, 113, 780
822: \bibitem[Otero et al.(2000)]{otero00} Otero, S.~A., Fieseler, P.~D., \& Lloyd, C.\ 2000, Informational Bulletin on Variable Stars, 4999, 1
823: \bibitem[Paunzen et al.(2003)]{paunzen03} Paunzen, E., Kamp, I., Weiss, W.~W., \& Wiesemeyer, H.\ 2003, \aap, 404, 579
824: \bibitem[Rebull et al.(2007)]{rebull07} Rebull, L.~M., et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 171, 447
825: \bibitem[Su et al.(2006)]{su06} Su, K.~Y.~L., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 675
826: \bibitem[Talbot \& Newman(1977)]{talbot77} Talbot, R.~J., Jr., \& Newman, M.~J.\ 1977, \apjs, 34, 295
827: \bibitem[Tango et al.(1979)]{tango79} Tango, W.~J., Davis, J., Thompson, R.~J., \& Hanbury, R.\ 1979, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 3, 323
828: \bibitem[Turcotte \& Charbonneau(1993)]{turcotte93} Turcotte, S., \& Charbonneau, P.\ 1993, \apj, 413, 376
829: \bibitem[Ueta et al.(2006)]{ueta06} Ueta, T., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L39
830: \bibitem[Venn \& Lambert(1990)]{venn90} Venn, K.~A., \& Lambert, D.~L.\ 1990, \apj, 363, 234
831: \bibitem[Wennmacher et al.(1992)]{wennmacher92} Wennmacher, A., Lilienthal, D., \& Herbstmeier, U.\ 1992, \aap, 261, L9
832: \bibitem[Whitmire et al.(1992)]{whitmire92} Whitmire, D.~P., Matese, J.~J., \& Whitman, P.~G.\ 1992, \apj, 388, 190
833: \end{thebibliography}
834:
835: \clearpage
836:
837: \end{document}
838: