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

2: 

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

4: \newcommand{\myemail}{jfarihi@gemini.edu}

5: 

6: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

7: 

8: \shorttitle{IRAC OBSERVATIONS OF WHITE DWARFS. I.}

9: \shortauthors{J. Farihi}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{{\em SPITZER} IRAC OBSERVATIONS OF WHITE DWARFS.\\

14: 	I. WARM DUST AT METAL-RICH DEGENERATES}

15: 

16: \author{J. Farihi\altaffilmark{1,2},

17: 	 B. Zuckerman\altaffilmark{1}, \& 

18: 	 E. E. Becklin\altaffilmark{1}}

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,

21: 			University of California,

22: 			430 Portola Plaza,

23: 			Los Angeles, CA 90095; jfarihi,ben,becklin@astro.ucla.edu}

24: 			

25: \altaffiltext{2}{Gemini Observatory,

26: 			Northern Operations,

27: 			670 North A'ohoku Place,

28: 			Hilo, HI 96720}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: 

32: This paper presents the results of a {\em Spitzer} IRAC $3-8$ $\mu$m 

33: photometric search for warm dust orbiting 17 nearby, metal-rich white

34: dwarfs, 15 of which apparently have hydrogen dominated atmospheres 

35: (type DAZ).  G166-58, G29-38, and GD 362 manifest excess emission in 

36: their IRAC fluxes and the latter two are known to harbor dust grains warm 

37: enough to radiate detectable emission at near-infrared wavelengths as 

38: short as 2 $\mu$m.  Their IRAC fluxes display differences compatible with 

39: a relatively larger amount of cooler dust at GD 362.  G166-58 is presently 

40: unique in that it appears to exhibit excess flux only at wavelengths longer 

41: than about 5 $\mu$m.  Evidence is presented that this mid-infrared emission

42: is most likely associated with the white dwarf, indicating that G166-58 bears

43: circumstellar dust no warmer than $T\sim400$ K.  The remaining 14 targets 

44: reveal no reliable mid-infrared excess, indicating the majority of DAZ stars 

45: do not have warm debris disks sufficiently opaque to be detected  by IRAC.

46: 

47: \end{abstract}

48: 

49: \keywords{circumstellar matter---

50: 	infrared: stars--

51: 	minor planets, asteroids---

52: 	planetary systems --

53: 	stars: abundances---

54: 	stars: evolution---

55: 	stars: individual (G166-58, G29-38, GD 362, PG 0235$+$064)---

56: 	white dwarfs}

57: 

58: \section{INTRODUCTION}

59: 

60: The {\em Spitzer Space Telescope} opened a new phase space to white dwarf

61: researchers interested in the infrared properties of degenerate stars and 

62: their environments.  The majority of white dwarfs are inaccessible from the

63: ground beyond 2.4 $\mu$m due to their intrinsic faintness combined with the 

64: ever-increasing sky brightness towards longer wavelengths \citep*{gla99}.

65: This limits any white dwarf science which aims to study matter radiating 

66: at $T<1500$ K.  Prior to the launch of {\em Spitzer}, only one previously 

67: published, directed mid-infrared study of white dwarfs exists ; an {\em 

68: Infrared Space Observatory} search for dust emission around 11 nearby

69: white dwarfs, 6 of which have metal-rich photospheres \citep*{cha99}.

70: 

71: Owing to the superb sensitivity of {\em Spitzer} \citep*{wer04}, a

72: Cycle 1 IRAC program was undertaken to search for warm dust emission 

73: associated with cool, hydrogen atmosphere white dwarfs with photospheric

74: metals, the DAZ stars.  This paper presents a synopsis of the IRAC results,

75: including the detection of $5-8$ $\mu$m flux excess at G166-58, $3-8$ $\mu$m 

76: data on G29-38 and GD 362, and also includes Gemini $3-4$ $\mu$m spectroscopy

77: of G29-38.

78: 

79: \section{SCIENTIFIC MOTIVATION}

80: 

81: \subsection{White Dwarfs Are Metal-Poor}

82: 

83: The origin and abundances of photospheric metals in isolated white

84: dwarfs has been an astrophysical curiosity dating back to the era 

85: when the first few white dwarfs were finally understood to be

86: subluminous via the combination of spectra and parallax; Sirius B,

87: 40 Eri B, and van Maanen 2 \citep*{van19,ada15,ada14}.  In a half

88: page journal entry, \citet*{van17} noted that his accidentally 

89: discovered faint star with large proper motion had a spectral type

90: of ``about F0'' \citep*{van17}.  It was not until forty years(!) 

91: later that it became clear that van Maanen 2 was metal-poor with

92: respect to the Sun \citep*{wei60}.  Over the course of the another 

93: decade and a half, it became gradually clear that white dwarfs in 

94: general -- both hydrogen atmosphere degenerates void of metallic

95: features and helium atmosphere degenerates with photospheric metal

96: lines -- had heavy element abundances a few to several orders

97: of magnitude below solar \citep*{weh75,gre74,shi72,weg72,bue70}.  

98: Oxymoronically, white dwarfs with detectable, yet evidently 

99: sub-solar, heavy element abundances are now referred to as 

100: metal-rich.

101: 

102: The two fundamental classes of metal-poor-yet-rich white 

103: dwarfs are essentially the same as their metal-free counterparts,

104: which are designated by the main atmospheric constituent; either

105: hydrogen or helium.  It is easiest to think of white dwarfs as type

106: DA (hydrogen) or non-DA (helium).  For a wide range of temperatures,

107: white dwarfs with hydrogen atmospheres will manifest Balmer lines

108: (type DA), excepting perhaps the very hottest cases where hydrogen 

109: may be ionized (e.g. PG 1159 stars).  White dwarfs with helium 

110: atmospheres display a variety of spectral behaviors which depend

111: primarily on their effective temperatures; helium II lines (type 

112: DO) for the hottest, helium I lines (type DB) for a wide temperature

113: range, and no lines (type DC) for the coolest.  Although there do 

114: exist cases of mixed atmospheres, either inferred or directly observed,

115: typically one of the two light gases dominates the composition and 

116: photosphere; a notable exception is the case of carbon opacity in a

117: helium atmosphere (type DQ).  There are both subtleties and complexities

118: in the composition and spectral characteristics of white dwarfs which

119: will not be discussed here, but for the full guided tour of the white

120: dwarf spectral zoo, the reader is referred to both the definition of 

121: the current classification scheme \citep*{sio83} and a broad spectral 

122: atlas \citep*{wes93}.  The important points to take away from a given 

123: designated spectral type is: 1) the first letter after D indicates 

124: the dominant gas in the atmosphere; 2) when metals are detected in 

125: an ultraviolet or optical spectrum of a white dwarf, the letter Z 

126: is added to the designation (with DC becoming DZ).

127: 

128: \subsection{Metals Are Contaminants}

129: 

130: Any primordial heavy elements in white dwarfs can only be 

131: sustained in their photospheres for the brief ($t\sim10^7$ yr) 

132: period while the degenerate is still rather hot and contracting

133: significantly, and then only to a certain degree.  This is achieved 

134: through radiative levitation at $T_{\rm eff}>20,000$ K for hydrogen

135: atmospheres and $T_{\rm eff}>30,000$ K for helium atmospheres 

136: \citep*{cha95,fon79}.  Below these temperatures, the cooling 

137: degenerate stars develop significant convection zones, which 

138: enhance the gravitational settling of the elements, now unimpeded

139: by radiative forces \citep*{cha95,paq86,muc84,alc80,vau79,fon79,

140: fon76,sch58}.  Diffusion timescales for the sinking of metals are

141: always orders of magnitude shorter than the evolutionary (cooling)

142: timescales of white dwarfs.  Therefore, external sources are 

143: responsible for the presence of the metals within cool white 

144: dwarf photospheres.  

145: 

146: Although there were suspects and many spurious detections 

147: reported, all metal-rich white dwarfs were historically helium 

148: atmosphere degenerates until the confirmation of G74-7, the first 

149: DAZ star \citep*{lac83}.  Even so, a decade later all other known 

150: metal-bearing white dwarfs were still restricted to the helium-rich 

151: variety, despite reports to the contrary; an examination of Tables 

152: 1 and 2 in \citet*{dup93b} with hindsight reveals that only G74-7 

153: remains classified as DAZ \citep*{zuc03,wol02,wes93}.  This situation 

154: began to change a little less than a decade ago with a couple of

155: individual discoveries, followed by many more, now totalling around 

156: fifty objects \citep*{koe05,zuc03,zuc98,hol97,koe97}.  The reason DAZ

157: stars are latecomers to the metal scene is because helium atmospheres

158: are quite transparent relative to hydrogen atmospheres; all else being

159: equal, a given calcium abundance will produce an equivalent width of

160: order $10^2-10^3$ times stronger in a helium as opposed to hydrogen 

161: atmosphere, making it far easier to infer the presence of photospheric

162: metals in helium-rich degenerates \citep*{zuc03,dup93b}.

163: 

164: Convection zones can be many orders of magnitude larger in helium

165: atmosphere white dwarfs, resulting in diffusion times for heavy 

166: elements up to $t\sim10^6$ yr \citep*{dup92,paq86,muc84,alc80,fon79,

167: vau79,fon76}.  This relatively long-lived photospheric retention

168: allows for the possibility that extant metals in such objects are

169: the remnant of a long ago (up to several diffusion timescales)

170: interstellar cloud encounter \citep*{dup93a,dup93b,dup92}. However,

171: it was shown that the Galactic positions and space motions of DZ

172: and DBZ stars are not correlated with local interstellar clouds

173: \citep*{aan93,aan85}.  Additionally with regards to cool helium 

174: atmosphere white dwarfs, there is the ever-present and still

175: unexplained lack of detectable hydrogen (or more specifically in

176: the case of those bearing metal lines, the very high inferred metal

177: to hydrogen abundance ratios), which should be expected in quantity,

178: and readily visible in low opacity helium-dominanted photospheres,

179: if accretion from the interstellar medium has occurred at any time

180: during their cooling \citep*{dup93b}.

181: 

182: The timecales for the diffusion of metals in hydrogen atmosphere 

183: white dwarfs diminish quite drastically relative to those in their

184: helium atmosphere counterparts, owing to significantly smaller 

185: convection zones for $T\ga6000$ K, and in warmer cases ($T\ga13000$ K)

186: where the convection zone is almost negligible, these diffusion times

187: can be just a few days \citep*{koe06,zuc03,paq86}.  Unless such objects

188: have just emerged from interstellar accretion episodes within these short

189: periods (unlikely), they must be currently accreting at rates sufficient

190: to produce the observed abundances.  \citet*{zuc03} find no correlation

191: between enhanced interstellar medium densities and the current positions

192: of accreting DAZ stars.  In contrast, \citet*{koe06} conclude that, with 

193: certain caveats, the warm, partially ionized medium can explain the 

194: observed accretion rates and abundances in DAZ stars.

195: 

196: \subsection{Minor Planets Are Metal-Rich}

197: 

198: Two decades ago it was proposed that accretion of circumstellar 

199: material might be the cause of the heavy metal abundances seen in

200: some white dwarfs, so that the origin of contaminating elements

201: seen is bimodal in nature; either interstellar or circumstellar 

202: \citep*{sio90,alc86}.  The first such model invoked episodic 

203: cometary impacts from reservoirs which managed to survive the

204: post-main sequence mass loss phases, particularly the asymptotic 

205: giant branch \citep*{deb02,par98,alc86}.  This particular model fails 

206: to explain 1) the DAZ stars with the highest metal abundances, and 2)

207: the observed distribution of abundances in general \citep*{zuc03}.

208: A more promising model of circumstellar accretion invokes the tidal

209: disruption of an asteroid, which goes on to form a ring of debris

210: around the white dwarf, from which the photospheric heavy elements

211: originate \citep*{jur03}.  Given that a typical solar system asteroid

212: is around $10^5$ times more massive than a typical comet, this model

213: can explain both the relatively high metal abundance and the observed 

214: infrared excess seen at several metal-rich white dwarfs \citep*{jur07a,

215: far07,bec05,jur03}.  While it may be the case that both mechanisms

216: create contaminated white dwarf photospheres -- perhaps circumstellar

217: in the case of high metal abundances and interstellar for those in 

218: the lower range -- there are a growing number of metal-rich white

219: dwarfs which are either confirmed or suspected to harbor 

220: circumstellar dust \citep*{jur07b,von07,kil06,jur06,rea05a}.  

221: 

222: Observations in the mid-infrared are most sensitive to both warm 

223: and cool orbiting dust at metal-bearing white dwarfs, providing a

224: direct test of circumstellar accretion hypotheses.  Additionally, 

225: such a search can constrain the frequency of orbiting material more 

226: strongly than ground-based near-infrared observations, which are 

227: sensitive only to dust not far from its sublimation temperature.

228: 

229: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA}

230: 

231: \subsection{IRAC Imaging of DAZ Degenerates}

232: 

233: Table \ref{tbl1} lists the 17 metal-rich white dwarfs observed

234: with IRAC, taken from \citet*{zuc03} with the exception of GD 362

235: \citep*{gia04}.  All targets were chosen as DAZ stars, but recent

236: evidence implies that two of the white dwarfs (G77-50 and GD 362) are

237: helium-rich (\citealt*{koe05}; D. Koester 2007, private communication).  

238: For the purposes of this paper and the statistics which follow, many

239: targets are nominally referred to as DAZ, even though future observations

240: may reveal helium-rich atmospheres in some.  This fact is simply unavoidable

241: as helium becomes spectroscopically undetectable in white dwarfs cooler 

242: than $T_{\rm eff}\sim10,000$ K and its presence can only be inferred by

243: indirect methods. \citep*{ber92}.  These stars were chosen among available 

244: {\em Spitzer} Cycle 1 observations for their high metal abundances.

245: 

246: Between 2004 November and 2005 August, observations were executed

247: with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; \citealt*{faz04}) in all four

248: bandpasses: 3.6, 4.5, 5.7, and 7.9 $\mu$m.  A 20-point cycling dither

249: pattern (of medium step size) was used for each target in each bandpass,

250: with 30 s frame times at each position, yielding a total exposure time 

251: of 600 s at all wavelengths.  The data were processed with the IRAC 

252: calibration pipeline (versions $10-12$) to create a single, fully 

253: processed and reduced image ($1''.20$ pixels in all four channels) 

254: upon which to perform measurements.  Aperture photometry was carried

255: out with the standard IRAF task {\sf apphot}, and measured fluxes were

256: corrected for aperture size, but not for color.  Generally, the flux 

257: and signal-to-noise were measured in a $2-3$ pixel aperture radius, 

258: dependent upon target brightness and neighboring sources, with a $10-20$ 

259: pixel sky annulus.  The measured fluxes were converted to the standard 

260: IRAC aperture using corrections described in the most recent version of

261: the IRAC Data Handbook \citep*{ssc06}.  The results are listed in Table

262: \ref{tbl2}.

263: 

264: \subsection{Photometric Errors}

265: 

266: Listed in Table \ref{tbl2} are the total errors in the measured

267: and calibrated flux, together with IRAC pipeline versions with 

268: which the data were extracted from the archive.  The photometric

269: errors were estimated by taking the per pixel standard deviation 

270: in the extracted sky level and multiplying by the area of a 2 pixel

271: radius photometric aperture, the smallest radius for which there exist

272: derived aperture corrections in the IRAC Data Handbook \citep*{ssc06}.

273: This approach is conservative and does not assume Gaussian, random

274: noise for the following reasons.  It was found in general that the

275: observations went sufficiently deep as to approach or reach the 

276: confusion limit, primarily, but not exclusively, at the two shorter

277: wavelengths.  Additionally, there was sometimes low spatial frequency

278: structure seen in the background of the two longer wavelength images,

279: which appeared to be from either real diffuse sources such as cirrus,

280: or from imperfections in the IRAC pipeline.  These factors led to 

281: difficulty in the determination of the true sky level in the vicinity

282: of the science target, the per pixel noise in the sky, and in the flux

283: measurement itself.  Even in the smallest, 2 pixel radius, aperture 

284: used for photometry, there was occasional possible flux contamination

285: from neighboring sources in this relatively large 18.1 square arcsecond

286: area, compounded by the undersampled pixels.  This possibility was 

287: evident from a few (typical) to several (rare) percent increase in 

288: photometric flux that was sometimes seen as the aperture radius was 

289: increased from 2 to 3 pixels, which should not occur for single point 

290: sources and accurate aperture corrections.  All targets were 

291: unambiguously detected at all wavelengths.  

292: 

293: There are five other sources of photometric error in the IRAC

294: camera which were considered \citep*{ssc06}.  First, the absolute

295: calibration uncertainty in the IRAC instrument is reported as 3\%

296: \citep*{rea05b}.  Second, color corrections have been ignored and

297: are typically smaller than 1\%.  Third, there is the pixel phase 

298: dependent correction, which is reported to be no more than 4\% peak 

299: to peak or $\pm2$\% for a single image at 3.6 $\mu$m \citep*{ssc06}.  

300: The images analyzed here were produced by a set of 20 pseudo-random

301: dithers which essentially annihilates this source of error. Fourth,

302: there is the array location dependent correction for Rayleigh-Jeans 

303: type stellar sources.  This effect is the largest source of photometric

304: uncertainty in the IRAC instrument and may reach 10\% peak to peak or

305: $\pm5$\%, therefore a typical error of this type should be $2-3$\%.

306: However, experiments have shown that for well dithered data, as that

307: analyzed here, the effect tends to average out (as would be expected)

308: and is less than 1\% \citep*{car06,ssc06}.  

309: 

310: To assess the reliability of the absolute IRAC calibration, a couple of 

311: experiments were undertaken (M. Jura 2007, private communication).  First, 

312: the 3.6 to 4.5 $\mu$m flux ratios of the target stars with $T_{\rm eff}>7000$

313: K, and no evidence for the presence of warm dust, were examined and found to 

314: vary typically within 5\% of the mean, however a couple of targets deviated 

315: by as much as 10\% -- quite significant for such a small number of white 

316: dwarfs.  Second, a similar result was obtained by examining 4.5 to 7.9 $\mu$m

317: flux ratios of identically warm white dwarfs from \citet*{mul07}.  In this

318: instance the relatively lower signal-to-noise at 7.9 $\mu$m may have been a

319: factor as evidenced by the result of \citet*{tre07} who fit a subsample of

320: the \citet*{mul07} white dwarfs with current models to within 4\% at 4.5 

321: $\mu$m, yet only to within 10\% at 7.9 $\mu$m.  White dwarf models themselves

322: cannot account for the observed deviations in flux ratios at these warmer 

323: temperatures, which can only amount to around 1\% for extreme values of 

324: surface gravity and temperature (P. Bergeron 2007, private communication).

325: Furthermore, \citet*{hin06} report observed IRAC fluxes for 33 main sequence

326: stars which deviate from model predicted photospheric values, on average, by

327: 8\% at 3.6 $\mu$m, 4\% at 4.5 $\mu$m, and 6\% at 7.9 $\mu$m.  \citet*{sil06}

328: find similar deviations between measured IRAC fluxes and model predictions 

329: for 74 young main sequence stars, amounting to 5\% on average at all 

330: wavelengths.  Based on these analyses and findings, it seems appropriate 

331: to assign a $1\sigma$ IRAC calibration uncertainty of 5\%.  For bright 

332: targets, the total error is dominated by the absolute calibration uncertainty, 

333: while for the faintest targets the total error is dominated by the uncertainty 

334: in the aperture photometry.  For these reasons, the total errors represented 

335: in Table \ref{tbl2} should be considered conservative.

336: 

337: \subsection{NIRI $L$-grism Spectroscopy of G29-38}

338: 

339: On three nights in 2006 January G29-38 was observed at Gemini

340: Observatory at Mauna Kea with the Near-Infrared Imager (NIRI; 

341: \citealt*{hod03}) in spectroscopy mode using the $L$-grism, 

342: which covers $3.0-4.1$ $\mu$m.  Spectra were taken at two positions 

343: along the $0''.75$ slit with 1 s exposures and 60 coadds.  Overall, 

344: approximately 2 hours of usable science frames were gathered.

345: Calibration frames taken each night included spectral flats as 

346: well as observations of one of the two A0V telluric standards HIP

347: 110578 or HIP 12640, utilizing 0.2 s exposures and $10-20$ coadds

348: nodded at two positions along the slit.

349: 

350: Both the science and telluric standard frames from each night 

351: were pairwise subtracted at the two nod positions in order to 

352: best remove the bright, variable sky at these wavelengths.  The

353: subtracted frames were flat fielded and then median combined, with

354: bad pixels and cosmic rays fixed manually, creating two spectra 

355: of opposite polarity which were extracted using standard IRAF 

356: tasks.  The two extracted spectra from each night were wavelength

357: calibrated using aborption lines from the night sky, and averaged.

358: The science spectrum each night was divided by the telluric spectrum 

359: and multiplied by a blackbody of the appropriate temperature.  The 

360: science spectra from all three nights were shifted and averaged to 

361: create the final spectrum.  The flux was converted from $F_{\lambda}$

362: to $F_{\nu}$, normalized to one, then flux calibrated using IRAC

363: 3.6 $\mu$m photometry.  The signal-to-noise was estimated by

364: measuring the standard deviation along 20 sections of 50 pixels

365: each spanning the entire wavelength range, yielding values between

366: 4 and 10 (average 7) over $3.0-3.4$ $\mu$m, and between 8 and 15

367: (average of 12) over $3.4-4.1$ $\mu$m.  These were calculated

368: assuming continuum or pseudo-continuum over all regions.

369: 

370: \section{ANALYSIS AND RESULTS}

371: 

372: \subsection{Spectral Energy Distributions}

373: 

374: The IRAC fluxes for all targets, together with optical and

375: near-infrared data, are plotted as spectral energy distributions

376: in Figures \ref{fig1}--\ref{fig5}.  In general, the short wavelength

377: photometry was taken from the most accurate and reliable sources 

378: available, including but not limited to: \citet*{mcc03} and references

379: therein; 2MASS \citep*{skr06}; DENIS \citep*{den05}; and various other

380: sources \citep*{lie05,mon03,zuc03,ber01,ber97}.  Because the aim of the

381: survey was to identify significant mid-infrared photometric excess due 

382: to opaque dust, blackbody fits to the spectral energy distributions of 

383: the target white dwarfs will suffice to model their expected, essentially 

384: Rayleigh-Jeans, behavior at IRAC wavelengths.  If the total uncertainty

385: in the IRAC photometry decreases sufficiently, white dwarf models should 

386: prove more useful in this regard.

387: 

388: Of the 17 observed stars, three display excess radiation within their 

389: IRAC beams (considered here to be the solid angle contained within a

390: full width at half maximum Airy disk, typically $2''.0-2''.4$ in diameter and 

391: $3.1-4.5$ square arcseconds in area at $3-8$ $\mu$m), with a high degree of

392: certainty.  The case of G166-58 is discussed in some detail below and shows

393: evidence for continuum emission from $T\sim400$ K dust.  Both G29-38 and 

394: GD 362 show warm ($T\approx900$ K) thermal continuum and strong 

395: silicate emission in their mid-infrared spectra and have therefore been 

396: confirmed to harbor orbiting rings of dust \citep*{jur07a,rea05a}.  For the

397: remainder of the targets, the IRAC observations either rule out emission from 

398: warm, opaque debris or are of sufficiently low signal-to-noise as to preclude

399: a definitive conclusion either way.  Unfortunately, there was a single target

400: (G21-16) for which accurate fluxes could not be extracted due to unavoidable

401: source confusion within and around the IRAC beam.  An unsuccessful attempt 

402: was made to photometrically isolate the white dwarf with the IRAF task 

403: {\sf daophot}; based on the signifiant crowding, it is likely that the 

404: IRAC beam itself is contaminated at all wavelengths.

405: 

406: From the present work, 3 of 17 metal-rich white dwarfs, or 18\% display 

407: definite IRAC continuum excess consistent with orbiting dust.  However,

408: this fraction is only 2 in 15 DAZ stars, or 13\%.  If one counts all DAZ

409: white dwarfs observed with IRAC in Cycle 1, the total which display 

410: IRAC flux excess is 3 of 25 targets or 12 \% \citep*{von07,kil06}.

411: 

412: \subsection{GD 362}

413: 

414: The spectral energy distribution of GD 362, together with its 

415: IRAC data, is displayed in Figure \ref{fig5}.  As expected on

416: the basis of ground-based $JHKL'N'$ photometry \citep*{bec05},

417: the $3-8$ $\mu$m region is dominated by warm thermal emission from

418: orbiting dust, whose flux can be reproduced out to $\lambda\approx6$

419: $\mu$m by a $T=900$ K blackbody.  This approximation is physically

420: nonviable as it corresponds to a ring (or sphere) with a single

421: temperature and radius, yet does not deviate much from a ring 

422: model of substantial radial extent \citet*{jur03} at these shorter 

423: mid-infrared wavelengths.  The measured flux at 7.9 $\mu$m has not 

424: been corrected for color and shows an indication that the broad and 

425: strong 10 $\mu$m silicate emission feature \citep*{jur07a,far07} 

426: contributes significantly into that relatively wide ($\Delta

427: \lambda=6.5-9.5$ $\mu$m) bandpass.  

428: 

429: In Figure \ref{fig6}, the $2-24$ $\mu$m photometric data on 

430: GD 362 are plotted together with the more realistic model of 

431: \citet*{jur03}.  The model invokes a face-on geometrically thin 

432: opaque dust ring of finite radial extent, with an inner temperature 

433: of $T_{\rm in}=1200$ K and an outer temperature range $T_{\rm out}=

434: 300-600$ K.  For GD 362, these temperatures correspond to a ring 

435: which extends from $D_{\rm in}\approx0.1$ $R_{\odot}$ to $D_{\rm

436: out}\approx0.3-0.7$ $R_{\odot}$ \citep*{chi97}.  The data agree 

437: reasonably well with the higher temperature curve, excepting the

438: 24 $\mu$m flux (disregarding the silicate emission-enhanced 7.9 

439: $\mu$m flux).  There are two possibilities based on this model: 

440: 1) the outermost opaque grains have a temperature $T_{\rm out}<

441: 600$ K or; 2) the flux at 24 $\mu$m is affected by another dust 

442: emission feature (which would indicate forsterite, if present).  

443: Photometric and spectroscopic observations of GD 362 utilizing

444: all three instruments aboard {\em Spitzer}, including a detailed

445: model fit of the orbiting dust, its mid-infrared thermal continuum

446: and emission features, dust mass estimates, temperature and particle

447: size distribution, dimensions and types of the emitting regions 

448: are presented in \citet*{jur07a}.

449: 

450: \subsection{G29-38}

451: 

452: The spectral energy distribution of G29-38, together with its 

453: IRAC data, is displayed in Figure \ref{fig5}.  While the overall 

454: similarity between G29-38 and GD 362 is apparent, there are some

455: distinctions.  Although their inner dust temperatures are clearly

456: similar, the thermal continuum flux of G29-38 over $3-6$ $\mu$m

457: appears to be falling, while for GD 362 it is rising; likely an

458: indication of varying amounts of opaque dust both slightly warmer

459: and cooler than the $T=900$ K blackbody approximations for the

460: excess at each of these stars.  In order to fit the slope of the

461: $3-6$ $\mu$m photometry of G29-38 with a blackbody, a temperature 

462: near 1100 K is necessary, greatly overpredicting the near-infrared

463: flux.  Yet as can be seen from the figure, the 3.6 $\mu$m flux is

464: somewhat underpredicted by 900 K. 

465: 

466: Using the more plausible and physical model of \citet*{jur03},

467: Figure \ref{fig6} plots the thermal infrared excess of G29-38 

468: from $2-24$ $\mu$m from all available {\em Spitzer} photometric

469: data, together with the model curves.  These disk models are

470: exactly those applied to G29-38 in \citet*{jur03}, now plotted

471: with more accurate data with greater wavelength coverage.  For

472: the same inner and outer temperatures given above, the extent of

473: the opaque ring is from $D_{\rm in}\approx0.1$ $R_{\odot}$ to 

474: $D_{\rm out} \approx0.4-0.9$ $R_{\odot}$ for G29-38.  In this

475: case, unlike GD 362, all the photometric data are fitted decently

476: by the model where the outermost grains have a temperature near 

477: 600 K, with the possible exception of the 3.6 $\mu$m flux.

478: 

479: The apparently excessive flux from G29-38 at the shortest 

480: wavelength IRAC channel was first noticed when the data were 

481: initially retrieved from the {\em Spitzer} archive using pipeline

482: version 11.0.  It was present again one version later, and then 

483: triple checked in 2006 November with version 14.0, which was used 

484: for all the IRAC data on G29-39 in this work.  The deviation 

485: between the models and the measured flux at 3.6 $\mu$m is $0.92-

486: 0.98$ mJy from the best fit ring model or the blackbody.  Taking 

487: photometric error into account, which is entirely due to instrument 

488: calibration uncertainty, the average deviation is 0.70 mJy; 

489: approximately $2.8\sigma$ of the flux error, or 10\% of the excess.

490: $3-4$ $\mu$m spectroscopy was undertaken to investigate possible

491: sources of this extra emission, and to better assess if it is real.

492: 

493: As can be seen from Figure \ref{fig7}, the $L$-grism spectrum

494: of G29-38 is essentially featureless, with an apparent, slight,

495: upward slope towards 4 $\mu$m (a thermal continuum approximated by

496: a 900 K blackbody would peak longward of 5 $\mu$m in $F_{\nu}$).

497: Previous to this investigation, the only spectral information in 

498: this wavelength regime came from data presented in \citet*{tok90}, 

499: where a relatively low signal-to-noise spectrum is not inconsistent

500: with emission over $3.2-3.7$ $\mu$m.  The spectral flux error in

501: the Figure \ref{fig7} data, translated to mJy via the IRAC 3.6 

502: $\mu$m flux, is typically 1.2 mJy over $3.0-3.4$ $\mu$m (outside

503: the atmospheric transmission window, an area very sensitive to water

504: vapor and prone to large variability), and 0.7 mJy over $3.4-4.1$ 

505: $\mu$m (atop the $L'$-band).  

506: 

507: There exist a plethora of emission features in this region

508: associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their 

509: multitudinous close relatives: specifically, features between 

510: 3.2 and 3.6 $\mu$m seen in the interstellar medium \citep*{dra03,

511: all89,geb85}; circumstellar matter \citep*{mal98,bei96,geb85};

512: ultraviolet-excited (planetary, proto-planetary, and reflection)

513: nebulae \citep*{geb92,geb89,geb85}; as well as in comets 

514: \citep*{boc95,bro91,baa86}.  The well known 3.3 $\mu$m feature,

515: when present, is always significantly weaker than its other family

516: members at 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, and 11.3 $\mu$m \citep*{dra03,mal98,bei96,

517: all89}.  Because these stronger features are absent from the IRS

518: $5-15$ $\mu$m spectrum of G29-38 \citep*{rea05a}, it is expected

519: no feature should be present at 3.3 $\mu$m, although the IRS data

520: were published after the the $L$-grism observations were planned.

521: There are additional features around 3.4 $\mu$m (primarily due to

522: methanol, ethane, and other hydrocarbon species) which typically 

523: dominate this region when observed towards comets \citep*{mum01,

524: cro97,boc95,baa86}, but which are much weaker than the 3.3 $\mu$m

525: feature in circumstellar environments \citep*{mal98,bei96}.  Because

526: of these observational facts, in addition to the relatively fragile 

527: nature of hydrocarbons (some small species are more volatile than

528: water ice) in the vicinity of high density ultraviolet radiation 

529: fields \citep*{job97,bro91}, it is unlikely that a cometary feature 

530: would be seen in the vicinity of the $0.1-0.4$ $R_{\odot}$ 

531: circumstellar dust ring at G29-38.

532: 

533: The failure to detect any possible sources of excess emission 

534: in the $3-4$ $\mu$m region at G29-38 leaves a few possibilities

535: for the 2.8 $\sigma$ disagreement between its measured IRAC flux 

536: and the applied models.  The first is that the photometry in the 

537: 3.6 $\mu$m bandpass is improperly calibrated, making it inaccurate.

538: The second is that both the ring model of \citet*{jur03} and the 

539: single temperature blackbody fail to predict the correct flux at 

540: this wavelength.  A $T=1000$ K blackbody (Figure \ref{fig6}) is

541: not inconsistent with the $2-6$ $\mu$m photometry, but underpredicts

542: the three longer wavelength {\em Spitzer} data points, requiring that

543: dust emission affects those bandpasses.  The third possibility is the

544: discrepancy arises from photometric variability.  It is well-known 

545: that G29-38 is a pulsating white dwarf; $B$-band light curves reveal

546: periods of 615, 268, 243, and 186 s with amplitudes of 0.12, 0.03, 

547: 0.03, and 0.02 mag respectively, which are mirrored at $K$-band with

548: corresponding strengths of 0.02, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.03 mag respectively 

549: \citep*{pat91,gra90}.  Although matching periods were searched for at

550: $L$, none were found, but with sufficiently large upper limits which

551: do not exclude variations similar to those seen at $K$ \citep*{pat91}.

552: Because the IRAC observations lasted 600 s, these photometric variability

553: timescales cannot explain the 3.6 $\mu$m flux being possibly high.

554: Given that the IRAC channel 1 ($\Delta \lambda=3.2-3.9$ $\mu$m; 

555: \citealt*{faz04}) data agree reasonably well with ground-based 

556: $L$-band ($\Delta \lambda=3.2-3.8$ $\mu$m; \citealt*{tok00}) data

557: with no color corrections to either, the discrepancy is likely to

558: be model disagreement.  The 4.5 and 7.9 $\mu$m fluxes for G29-38

559: in Table \ref{tbl2} agree well with the quoted (uncorrected for 

560: color) fluxes reported by \citet*{rea05a}.  It is possible that

561: the deviation arises from variability which has not yet been seen

562: or reported, but no such claim is being made based on the present

563: data.  A fourth possibility might be a companion, but all substellar

564: models of appropriate age range predict about twice as much excess

565: at 4.5 $\mu$m relative to 3.6 $\mu$m, as well as a commensurate rise

566: from 3 to 4 $\mu$m which is not observed in the $L$-grism spectrum

567: \citep*{bar03,bur03}.

568: 

569: \subsection{G166-58}

570: 

571: Figure \ref{fig4} displays the spectral energy distribution of

572: G166-58 together with its IRAC flux measurements.  The plotted data

573: are optical $BVRI$ from \citet*{ber01}, the average of 2 $U$-band 

574: values cited in \citet*{mcc03}, and near-infrared $JHK$ which are

575: the average of values given in \citet*{zuc03} and \citet*{ber01}.

576: The effective temperature of the white dwarf is taken from both

577: \citet*{lie05} and \citet*{zuc03}, where the determinations are

578: both within 0.6\% of 7400 K.  G166-58 displays clear excess emission

579: within its IRAC beam beginning at 5 $\mu$m, making it unique among

580: white dwarfs confirmed or suspected to harbor orbiting dust.  In 

581: all other cases, the excess becomes unambiguous by 3 $\mu$m, as in

582: G29-38 and GD 362 \citep*{von07,kil06,bec05,zuc87b}.  The implied 

583: temperature of the $5-8$ $\mu$m excess can be reproduced by a blackbody 

584: of $T\approx400$ K, and is substantially cooler than the $T\approx900$

585: K temperatures inferred in all other dusty white dwarfs with $2-3$

586: $\mu$m excess.  Yet circumstellar dust at 400 K is still considered 

587: warm relative to the overwhelming majority of main sequence stars

588: with infrared excess attributed to a debris disk; with a few notable

589: exceptions, these are all Kuiper belt analogs with $T_{\rm dust}\la

590: 120$ K, and $D_{\rm dust}\ga10$ AU \citep*{bei06,son05,lau02,zuc01,

591: che01}.

592: 

593: Before proceeding further with any analysis and interpretation,

594: owing both to the uniqueness of the IRAC data on G166-58 and the

595: IRAC field in its vicinity, the nature and validity of the excess 

596: must be examined.

597: 

598: \subsubsection{IRAC Beam Contamination}

599: 

600: There is another source $5''.3$ from G166-58 seen in all four IRAC

601: images, which are displayed in Figure \ref{fig8}.  This source is also 

602: present in the SDSS Photometric Catalog (release 5) where it is 

603: designated SDSS J145806.96+293726.3 and classified as a galaxy 

604: \citep*{ade07}.  This object has optical and mid-infrared colors that 

605: are consistent with an extragalactic source.  The IRAC images of G166-58 

606: and the nearby galaxy overlap near $2''.5-3''.0$ from their image centers.  

607: Both sources appear point-like at all four wavelengths.  The percentage of 

608: flux from the nearby galaxy in a 2 pixel radius centered at G166-58, measured 

609: relative to the total flux of the white dwarf over the same area, is relatively benign 

610: at $2-3$\%, with the exception of 7.9 $\mu$m where it is 12\%.  This was determined 

611: by folding the IRAC point spread function of G166-58 in two along the axis of 

612: symmetry (up-down in the Figure \ref{fig8} images), and subtracting one 

613: side from the other.  Exploiting this symmetry, it was straightforward to remove 

614: the contamination in the aperture photometry of G166-58 and vice versa

615: for similar measurements of the nearby galaxy (its flux is 0.18, 0.17, 

616: 0.13, and 0.43 mJy at 3.6, 4.5, 5.7, and 7.9 $\mu$m respectively).  

617: The values in Table \ref{tbl2} for G166-58 correspond to the signal 

618: after removal of this unwanted flux.

619: 

620: Two additional methods used to obtain the flux of G166-58 are discussed 

621: below, and a comparison of the fluxes obtained for the white dwarf by each 

622: method is shown in Table \ref{tbl3}.  First, the white dwarf and nearby galaxy 

623: were photometrically fitted and spatially deconvolved using {\sf daophot}.

624: Second, photometry was obtained by radial profile analysis of the white dwarf.  

625: Figure \ref{fig9} displays overlaying and identical linear contour plots for 7.9 $\mu$m 

626: images of G166-58 both before and after the removal of the nearby galaxy.  The 

627: parameters from a 2.0 pixel gaussian radial profile fit (image centroid and full 

628: width at half maximum) of the white dwarf remain essentially unchanged by 

629: inclusion of the galaxy.  Radial profile analysis of G166-58 at each IRAC channel 

630: yields a measurement for the white dwarf, via comparison with the radial profiles 

631: and fluxes of G29-38 and GD 362.  Examination of G166-58 in a 7.9 $\mu$m image 

632: where only the galaxy is fitted and subtracted reveals a clear point-like source 

633: and excess at the location of the white dwarf.  In summary, Table \ref{tbl3} illustrates

634: excellent agreement among the three photometric methods used to determine the

635: flux of G166-58, with the exception of {\sf daophot} at 3.6 $\mu$m (which may be

636: due to undersampled data, which is most germaine at this shortest wavelength.)

637: 

638: Further support that the two IRAC sources are separated photometrically 

639: is evidenced by their 5.7 to 7.9 $\mu$m colors; the nearby galaxy has a flux 

640: ratio of 0.30, while the excess detected at G166-58 has a flux ratio of 0.46.  

641: Hence, with regards to the adjacent galaxy, there should be no doubt of its 

642: lack of influence in the white dwarf data presented. 

643: 

644: The known density of background galaxies, along with the presence of 

645: the relatively bright nearby source on the IRAC chips, prompted an evaluation 

646: of the probability that yet another, hidden source could be contaminating flux 

647: measurements within the beam of G166-58 itself, and therefore be responsible 

648: for the $5-8$ $\mu$m excess.  The white dwarf is located at galactic latitude 

649: $b=+68\arcdeg$, hence any contaminating source would almost certainly be 

650: extragalactic in nature.  To assess the probability of such a line of sight coincidence, 

651: the following estimations were made.  The 7.9 $\mu$m excess emission at G166-58 

652: is about 0.07 mJy, or 14.9 mag.  {\em Spitzer} IRAC 7.9 $\mu$m source counts from 

653: \citet*{faz04b} indicate approximately 3,000 galaxies per magnitude per square 

654: degree at $15^{th}$ magnitude.  Taking the distribution to be flat over a 0.5 magnitude 

655: interval centered at 15.0 mag, this yields around 1500 galaxies per square degree 

656: of appropriate brightness to reproduce the 7.9 $\mu$m excess seen at G166-58.  

657: Because the white dwarf and its excess display a point-like nature at this wavelength

658: (see Figure \ref{fig9}), any unresolved background source would have to lie within

659: a small fraction of the IRAC beam width of G166-58 in the plane of the sky,

660: certainly within an area of 2 square arcseconds, conservatively speaking.

661: Therefore, the probability of finding a galaxy of 0.07 mJy brightness at 

662: 7.9 $\mu$m within 2 square arcseconds of G166-58 is about 1 in 4300.  The

663: odds that 1 in 17 target stars is contaminated by such a background galaxy

664: should then be around 1 in 250.

665: 

666: Therefore, the most likely explanation for the excess $5-8$ $\mu$m emission 

667: at G166-58 is circumstellar dust associated with the white dwarf.

668: 

669: \subsubsection{Circumstellar Dust}

670: 

671: If the $5-8$ $\mu$m IRAC fluxes are the sum of the white dwarf

672: and another source, one can immediately rule out a cold companion.

673: A substellar object with an energy distribution similar to that 

674: implied by the 400 K blackbody fit, would have a radius of roughly 

675: $2\times10^8$ m, more than twice the size of Jupiter.  Furthermore,

676: the combined spectral energy distribution appears nothing like 

677: what might be expected from such an orbiting cold degenerate; 

678: it most notably lacks significant flux expected at 4.5 $\mu$m

679: \citep*{far05b,bur03}.  Therefore, the excess emission must 

680: be due to warm circumstellar material.

681: 

682: As a first stab at modeling the excess, one might invoke tidal

683: dust rings similar to those which have been successful for both

684: G29-38 and GD 362 \citep*{jur07a,jur03}.  Following the formalism

685: of \citet*{chi97}, a flat opaque ring (or disk) geometry, implies

686: a dust grain temperature-radius relation given by

687: 

688: \begin{equation}

689: T_{\rm gr} \approx { \left( \frac{2}{3 \pi} \right) }^{1/4}

690: 	   	   { \left( \frac{R}{D}     \right) }^{3/4} T_{\rm eff}

691: \end{equation}

692: 

693: \noindent

694: where $T_{\rm gr}$, $D$, $T_{\rm eff}$, and $R$ are the temperature

695: of the emitting grains, their distance from the star, the stellar 

696: effective temperature, and the stellar radius, respectively.  If one

697: assumes that G166-58 is a single, carbon-oxygen core white dwarf with

698: log $g=7.97$ and $T_{\rm eff}=7390$ K \citep*{lie05}, then its radius

699: is $R=0.0132$ $R_{\odot}$ \citep*{ber95a}.  These stellar parameters

700: yield a distance of $D_{\rm in}=0.38$ $R_{\odot}$ to 400 K grains.

701: If one assumes the ring extends to where the grain temperature is

702: 200 K, then the ring would extend to $D_{\rm out}=0.97$ $R_{\odot}$.

703: These inner and outer disk radii would be significantly larger than

704: those implied for G29-38, where the ring probably does not extend 

705: much further than $D_{\rm out}\approx0.4$ $R_{\odot}$ (around 30

706: stellar radii) for outer grain temperatures of $T_{\rm out}=600$ K,

707: which seem to fit the data in Figure \ref{fig6} quite well.  This 

708: is also true of the implied size of the tidal ring about GD 362, 

709: where models \citep*{jur07a} also yield an outer radius $D_{\rm 

710: out}\approx0.4$ $R_{\odot}$ (around 40 stellar radii).

711: 

712: Regarding the outer edge of the disk and an appropriate scale for

713: the tidal breakup of a rocky body such as an asteroid or comet, 

714: \citet*{dav99} provides a thorough review and revision of effective

715: Roche limits.  The distance, $\delta$, at which a small orbiting 

716: body will be disrupted by the gravitational field of a large body

717: of radius $R$, can be expressed, in simplified form, as

718: 

719: \begin{equation}

720: \delta \approx \alpha { \left( \frac{P}{\rho} \right) }^{1/3} R

721: \end{equation}

722: 

723: \noindent

724: where $P$ and $\rho$ are the densities of the large and small

725: bodies, and $\alpha$ is a constant which typically has a value

726: in the range $1-2.45$, but can be smaller.  The coefficient $\alpha$ 

727: depends on the model, which may include factors such as; composition,

728: heterogeneity, size, shape, rotation, orbital characterisitcs, 

729: shear and tensile strengths.  The classical value of $\alpha=2.45$ 

730: is for the case of a rotating, uniform, self-gravitating liquid in

731: a circular orbit, whereas for a nonrotating, spherical satellite 

732: of solid rock or ice, the value becomes $\alpha=1.26$.  This last 

733: approximation is likely to be valid for typical asteroids and comets

734: with radii $r\ga5$ km, at least to within 50\% \citep*{dav99,bos91}.

735: Taking $\rho=1$ g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$, which lies within the range of

736: densities for both asteroids and comets ($\rho_{\rm ast}=1.0-3.5$

737: g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$, $\rho_{\rm com}=0.1-1.1$ g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$;

738: \citealt*{bin00}), and calculating the average density of G166-58 

739: with the parameters above, an estimate of the Roche limit using 

740: $\alpha=1.26$ is $\delta\approx1.2$ $R_{\odot}$.  Hence, if an

741: optically thick, flat ring orbits G166-58 at distances corresponding

742: to 200 K dust grains, these would lie within a region consistent with

743: tidal disruption of a minor planet.  However, at grain temperatures

744: of 100 K, the implied distance from G166-58 would be 2.4 $R_{\odot}$,

745: a region where asteroids or comets should remain intact, even if

746: liquified \citep*{roc48}.

747: 

748: Integrating the flux of the 400 K blackbody fit to the IRAC excess

749: yields $L_{\rm IR}=1.0\times10^{-6}$ $L_{\odot}$, while the stellar

750: luminosity given by models for a hydrogen atmosphere white dwarf 

751: with $T_{\rm eff}=7400$ K and log $g=8$, yields $L=4.4\times10^{-4}$ 

752: $L_{\odot}$ \citep*{ber95a}.  Together, these determine $\tau=L_{\rm 

753: IR}/L=0.0023$, which is logarithmically about midway between $\tau

754: \approx0.0002$ found for the main sequence A3 star $\zeta$ Leporis, 

755: and $\tau\approx0.03$ for both G29-38 and GD 362 \citep*{jur07a,bec05,

756: rea05a,che01}.  Therefore, instead of invoking an optically thick, 

757: flat ring, it may be more appropriate to suppose an optically thin

758: shell of blackbody grains in radiative equilibrium, whose distance

759: is given by \citep*{che01}

760: 

761: \begin{equation}

762: T_{\rm gr} \approx { \left( \frac{R}{2D} \right) }^{1/2} T_{\rm eff}

763: \end{equation}

764: 

765: \noindent

766: In this case, 400 K grains would be located near 2.3 $R_{\odot}$,

767: about 6 times further out than predicted by the opaque disk model

768: and well beyond the Roche limit for large rocks.  An advantage of 

769: this assumption is that it allows an estimation of the minimum dust 

770: mass contained in the disk.  Because white dwarfs have masses $M\sim1$ 

771: $M_{\odot}$, yet greatly reduced luminosities $L\sim10^{-2}-10^{-4}$ 

772: $L_{\odot}$, radiation pressure on dust grains cannot compete with 

773: gravitational attraction.  This can be seen by examining the ratio 

774: of these two forces, represented by the parameter

775: 

776: \begin{equation}

777: \beta = \frac{3}{16\pi} \frac{LQ_{\rm pr}}{GMc\rho a}

778: \end{equation}

779: 

780: \noindent

781: where $a$ is the dust particle radius and $Q_{\rm pr}$ is the 

782: radiation pressure coupling coefficient \citep*{art88}.  Assuming 

783: the case of geometric optics, where the effective grain cross section 

784: equals its geometric cross section and $Q_{\rm pr}\approx1$, yields the

785: maximum possible value for $\beta$ near $a=0.1$ $\mu$m.  For $\rho=1$ g 

786: ${\rm cm}^{-3}$, $L=4.3\times10^{-4}$ $L_{\odot}$, $M=0.58$ $M_{\odot}$, 

787: $\beta_{\rm max}=0.004$ and hence gravitational forces dominate over 

788: radiation pressure.  This simply serves to show that sub-micron size 

789: dust and gas particles could certainly be present at white dwarfs 

790: without any danger of being lost to radiation pressure.  The minimum

791: dust mass of an optically thin disk is approximately

792: 

793: \begin{equation}

794: M_{\rm dust} \approx \frac{16\pi}{3} \frac{L_{\rm IR}}{L} D^2 \rho a

795: \end{equation}

796: 

797: \noindent

798: Although both smaller and larger particles are almost certainly present,

799: the size of the thermally emitting dust is on the order of $1-10$ $\mu$m.

800: Taking the density of silicate grains to be 2.5 g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$ gives a

801: rough lower limit to the mass of the the dust disk of $M_{\rm dust}\sim2

802: \times10^{18}$ g, a mass of a very large comet.  While radiation pressure

803: cannot remove dust at white dwarfs, drag forces can.  The timescale for 

804: Poynting-Robertson removal of particles is given by \citep*{bur79}

805: 

806: \begin{equation}

807: t_{\rm pr} = \frac{4\pi}{3} \frac{c^2 D^2 \rho a}{LQ_{\rm pr}}

808: \end{equation}

809: 

810: \noindent

811: For white dwarfs in general, the ratio $D^2/L$ for optically thin dust

812: will be $10^2-10^3$ times smaller than for main sequence stars.  Silicates

813: of 1 $\mu$m size and $\rho=2.5$ g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$ orbiting G166-58 at 2.3 

814: $R_{\odot}$ will be removed by the drag force in $t_{\rm pr}=460$ yr.  The

815: ratio $Q_{\rm pr}/a$ increases to a maximum near $a=0.1$ $\mu$m, implying 

816: removal timescales about 10 times more rapid.  For smaller particles, the 

817: radiation coupling efficiency swiftly declines and this ratio decreases, 

818: levelling off near $a=0.01$ $\mu$m at a value similar to that for 1 $\mu$m 

819: grains \citep*{art88}.  Hence, in an optically thin disk, all particles up 

820: to 1 $\mu$m in size should be removed by Poynting-Robertson drag within 500

821: yr.  Assuming a present balance between accretion and diffusion with the 

822: above stellar parameters for G166-58, the rate at which it currently gains

823: refractory circumstellar material is $\dot{M}=2.0\times10^{8}$ g ${\rm s}^{-1}$ 

824: (Koester \& Wilkens 2006; where a factor of 0.01 has been included to reflect 

825: the absence of accreted hydrogen and helium).  If this accretion occurs over
a single diffusion timescale of $10^{3.1}$ yr, the total accreted mass would
$8\times10^{18}$ g, equivalent to the mass of a small solar system asteroid. 

826: 

827: \subsubsection{Double Degeneracy}

828: 

829: Based on available data, it appears possible or perhaps likely

830: that G166-58 is not a single white dwarf.  Although this target was

831: not listed in Table 2 of \citet*{zuc03} for white dwarfs known or 

832: suspected to be in binary systems, they determine a low surface 

833: gravity of log $g=7.58$ via a combination of optical through 

834: near-infrared photometry and parallax.  At 7400 K, contemporary 

835: white dwarf models predict that such a low surface gravity implies

836: a radius $R\approx0.016$ $R_{\odot}$, which is about 25\% too large

837: for a normal carbon-oxygen core degenerate \citep*{ber95a}.  An

838: inferred oversized radius and corresponding overluminosity can be

839: explained either by a single, low mass, helium core degenerate or 

840: via binarity involving two components of similar ($\Delta m\la1$ mag) 

841: brightness -- a double degenerate.  Actually, the fact that G166-58 

842: appears overluminous based on its spectral energy distribution and 

843: parallax has existed since the analysis of \citet*{ber01}.  There,

844: using an essentially identical procedure, a low surface gravity of

845: log $g=7.66$ was determined, carrying the same implication.  The

846: near-infrared $JHK$ measurements of both \citet*{zuc03} and

847: \citet*{ber01} agree to within their respective errors.

848: 

849: Because the implied overluminosity of G166-58 relies fairly heavily

850: on its trigonometric parallax(es), a careful literature search was

851: performed in order to assess all available astrometric data.  The

852: value employed by \citet*{ber01} comes from the most recent version

853: of the Yale Parallax Catalog, and is given as $\pi=0''.0289\pm0''.0041$

854: \citep*{van95}.  The source of the Yale catalog parallax is the US Naval

855: Observatory (H. C. Harris 2006, private communication), first published 

856: in \citet*{rou72} and then updated (and possibly revised) in \citet*{har80}.

857: This parallax is given as $\pi_{\rm relative}=0''.0277\pm0''.0041$ and

858: $\pi_{\rm absolute}=0''.0298$ in their Table 1.  \citet*{mcc03} quote a

859: value of $\pi=0''.028$ while citing \citet*{rou72}, but this is merely

860: the {\em relative} (i.e. measured) parallax quoted above.  Paying careful

861: attention to detail, one can see the Yale and US Naval Observatory values

862: are not identical, but reflect slightly different astrometric corrections 

863: to obtain the absolute parallaxes, with the Yale galactic model being more

864: recent and likely more reliable.  Therefore, the only existing parallax 

865: measurement for G166-58, upon which its overluminosity rests, is $\pi_{\rm

866: trig}=0''.0289\pm0''.0041$ or $d=34.6^{+5.7}_{-4.3}$ pc.

867: 

868: \citet*{ber01} use this parallax for G166-58, together with its 

869: optical and near-infrared spectral energy distribution to deduce

870: $T_{\rm eff}=7310$K, $M=0.41$ $M_{\odot}$, and $M_V=12.90$ mag.  

871: However, fitting models to the slope and Balmer line profiles of 

872: an optical spectrum, \citet*{lie05} determine a nearly identical

873: temperature but log $g=7.97$, $M=0.58$ $M_{\odot}$, $M_V=13.28$, 

874: and $d=29.1$ pc instead.  This disparity still can be explained by

875: the presence of another white dwarf which contributes the extra flux

876: at $V$, but {\em not} by a single low mass white dwarf with an overly

877: large radius, which is inconsistent with the Balmer line profile fit.

878: The apparent discrepancy might also be explained by supposing that

879: G166-58 is located closer to 29 pc, which is near the 30.3 pc lower 

880: limit implied by the uncertainty in its parallax.  \citet*{zuc03} 

881: remark that radial velocity measurements in 1998 June, 1999 April 

882: and July agree within their errors and hence there is some weak 

883: evidence against radial velocity variability in G166-58.  A DA or 

884: DC white dwarf companion at $\Delta V\approx1$ mag would dilute the

885: Balmer lines and possibly redden the optical spectrum, depending on

886: its effective temperature \citep*{ber90}.  It may be the case that

887: such a companion should have already caused notice in the data 

888: analyzed by \citet*{lie05}, but nothing was noted.

889: 

890: Figure \ref{fig4} appears to imply that a single temperature

891: blackbody does not fit the optical and near-infrared data perfectly.

892: In fact, there seems to be a slight near-infrared excess at $JHK$,

893: which would become more prominent if a higher temperature model 

894: were used to fit $UBVRI$ only.  Yet the IRAC $3-4$ $\mu$m data lie 

895: very close to the plotted blackbody, so perhaps there is another 

896: explanation for any apparent mismatch between model and published

897: flux, such as data which are not photometric or calibration errors.

898: In any case, follow up observations of G166-58 would help to evaluate

899: the possibility that it may be a double degenerate.  Specifically, 

900: a radial velocity study, a careful model analysis of its spectral

901: energy distribution with accurate and precise photometry, or

902: another trigonometric parallax measurement would all be useful.

903: 

904: \subsubsection{Circumbinary Debris}

905: 

906: Identification of a double degenerate suspect follows more or 

907: less as it does for main sequence stars; the object lies superior

908: to its expected position in a Hertzsprung-Russell (or equivalent)

909: diagram.  This requires that the distance and effective temperature

910: of the star are known or constrained in some fashion.  For white 

911: dwarfs in the field, the nominal sequence is located near and about

912: a radius corresponding to $M=0.6$ $M_{\odot}$, or log $g=8$ for cool

913: to warm white dwarfs \citep*{ber01,ber95c,ber92}.  A single target

914: which lies above the log $g=8$ sequence can either be a single white

915: dwarf responsible for the bulk of the luminosity via an overly large

916: radius (and a comparably low mass and surface gravity), or a near

917: equal brightness binary.  Somewhat oxymoronically, single, low mass

918: ($M<0.45$ $M_{\odot}$, helium core) white dwarfs are understood to be

919: the end products of close binary evolution and more likely than not 

920: still attached to their stellar cannibals \citep*{han98,mar95,ber92}.  

921: But a single white dwarf with low surface gravity will have appropriately

922: thinned Balmer lines due to a reduction in Stark broadening, and this is

923: not seen in G166-58 \citep*{lie05}.  Therefore, if G166-58 is binary, it

924: must be composed of two relatively normal mass white dwarfs of similar

925: brightness.

926: 

927: Given the fact that several such double degenerate suspects have

928: turned out to be bona fide \citep*{far05a,zuc03,ber01,mar95}, it is

929: appropriate to consider dust models which conform to this distinct

930: possibility in addition to those above for a single white dwarf (see

931: Table \ref{tbl4} for a summary of possible parameters).  The average 

932: stellar parameters for G166-58 from the two analyses which utilize its

933: trigonometric parallax, both of which find a similar overluminosity, 

934: are log $g=7.62$, and $T_{\rm eff}=7340$ K \citep*{zuc03,ber01}.  The 

935: resulting effective radiating surface for such a solution is $R=0.0163$

936: $R_{\odot}$ \citep*{ber95a}.  Applying the opaque, flat ring model and

937: Equation (1) with these stellar parameters yields a distance of $D_{\rm

938: in}=0.47$ $R_{\odot}$ to 400 K grains.  This is a valid model for a

939: single, low mass white dwarf with the above large radius, but not for

940: a binary.  In short, it is not possible to fit two similar white dwarfs

941: within such a tight disk while avoiding interactions (mass transfer) and

942: at the same time maintaining relatively cool, and sufficiently distant

943: 400 K grains.  Additionally, there would be gravitational interactions 

944: between the binary and such a disk which would probably preclude a flat 

945: geometry.  Returning to the optically thin case, Equation (3) places 400 

946: K grains at 2.7 $R_{\odot}$.  With some adjustment of parameters, this 

947: scenario allows ample space for a double degenerate to orbit without 

948: interaction \citep*{morr05}, and sufficient distance from the binary 

949: in order to maintain 400 K dust.

950: 

951: Observations of G166-58 with the Fine Guidance Sensors aboard the

952: {\em Hubble Space Telescope} show that it is spatially unresolved 

953: to approximately $0''.008$ (E. P. Nelan 2006, private communication).

954: This precludes separations wider than 0.3 AU or 60 $R_{\odot}$, yet

955: still permits binarity with dust located at one white dwarf component.

956: 

957: \subsection{Metal-Rich Double Degenerates}

958: 

959: In Table \ref{tbl1}, there are three confirmed or suspected double 

960: degenerates: G77-50, EC 1124$-$293, G166-58.  These white dwarfs are 

961: relisted in Table \ref{tbl5} together with their divergent spectroscopic 

962: and photometric parameters.  In light of the potential binarity of 

963: G166-58, a brief focus on the other similar systems is appropriate.

964: 

965: {\em G77-50}.  This white dwarf has a recent parallax measurement 

966: from \citet*{sma03} of $\pi_{\rm trig}=0''.0595\pm0''.0032$ over 

967: a 6.2 yr baseline, placing it firmly at $d=16.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ pc. 

968: Thus, its derived spectroscopic parameters in Table \ref{tbl5}, 

969: which consist of a good $T_{\rm eff}$ determination from optical 

970: and near-infrared photometry, but only a crude log $g$ estimate 

971: from a rough fit to a weak H$\alpha$ feature \citep*{ber97}, are 

972: not consistent with the astrometric distance.  As can be seen in the

973: Table, the relatively low spectroscopic log $g$ value makes G77-50

974: appear {\em underluminous}; this is atypical as overluminosity is

975: the signpost of binarity.  This discrepancy is resolved by presuming

976: the H$\alpha$ profile examined by \citet*{ber97} is due to two

977: velocity-shifted lines (indeed the line profile shown in Figure

978: 23 of \citet*{ber97} appears asymmetric) or perhaps weak magnetism

979: which also causes Balmer line broadening and mutation in cool white

980: dwarfs where the lines are already weak \citep*{zuc03,ber01,ber97}. 

981: Its binarity has been almost certainly confirmed via the detection

982: of two Ca lines with disparate velocities, observed at two epochs

983: with both lines revealing individual velocity varation \citep*{zuc03}. 

984: Therefore, G77-50 is a double degenerate in which both components

985: are metal-rich, one or both of which have detectable hydrogen lines.

986: For equally luminous components, models predict $M=0.93$ $M_{\odot}$

987: (log $g=8.53$), and $M_V=15.74$ mag for $T_{\rm eff}=5200$ K hydrogen

988: atmosphere white dwarfs.  Since both components are polluted with

989: metals, only accretion from circumbinary or interstellar material

990: is consistent with the observations and a circumstellar origin can

991: be ruled out.  \citet*{koe05} lists this system as helium-rich

992: based on the absence of H$\beta$ (D. Koester 2007, private

993: communication)

994: 

995: {\em EC 1124$-$293}.  The parallax reported in \citet*{ber01} is 

996: an unpublished trigonometric measurement (M. T. Ruiz 2006, private 

997: communication) of $\pi_{\rm trig}=0''.0164\pm0''.0017$ which implies

998: a very low mass white dwarf or a binary (or both), if accurate.  The 

999: difference in the absolute magnitudes of the spectroscopic ($M_V=12.39$ 

1000: mag) and photometric ($M_V=11.09$ mag) parameter determinations implies

1001: an extra source with $M_V=11.48$ mag which is obviously much brighter

1002: than an equally luminous companion to the spectroscopically identified 

1003: star.  Therefore, either the system contains a very low mass DZ white

1004: dwarf with a proportionally large radius so that it dominates the binary

1005: spectral energy distribution, or the trigonometric parallax is inaccurate.

1006: Given the spectroscopic analysis of \citet*{koe01}, which yields a very 

1007: normal 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ DA white dwarf, it is difficult to currently

1008: reconcile this system as binary.  Radial velocity measurements by

1009: \citet*{zuc03} in 1998 December and 1999 April agree within the errors

1010: and give a gravitational redshift corrected velocity of $v_r=1$ km ${\rm

1011: s}^{-1}$ for the H$\beta$ line (no errors are given, but are likely no

1012: greater than a few km ${\rm s}^{-1}$), while similar measurements 

1013: reported by \citet*{pau06,pau03} yield $v_r=-3\pm4$ km ${\rm s}^{-1}$

1014: (no epoch given).

1015: 

1016: \citet*{zuc03} find narrow to damning evidence of binarity at some 

1017: known or suspected double degenerates \citep*{ber01,ber97} such as: 

1018: broad H$\beta$ cores (e.g. G141-2, Case 2), presumably from two

1019: velocity-shifted yet unresolved cores; two separate H$\beta$ cores

1020: (e.g. G271-115, G77-50); and a single, variable H$\beta$ core (e.g.

1021: LHS 1549).  Two of these have been confirmed as binary by other 

1022: methods: G141-2 has been spatially resolved with the {\em Hubble} 

1023: Fine Guidance Sensors (E. P. Nelan 2006, private communication) and

1024: radial velocity monitoring of LHS 1549 has determined its orbital

1025: period \citep*{nel05}.

1026: 

1027: \subsection{PG 0235$+$064}

1028: 

1029: The IRAC photometry of this target was problematic due to a nearby

1030: M dwarf common proper motion companion which is reported here for 

1031: the first time.  The companion, PG 0235$+$064B, is separated from the

1032: white dwarf primary by $7''.4$ at $344\arcdeg$ in the IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m 

1033: image (epoch 2005.6), shown in Figure \ref{fig10}.  Examining archival

1034: images from 2MASS, and the DSS reveals separations and position angles 

1035: between the A and B components which remain essentially constant between 

1036: 1950 and 2001.  Blinking the 1950 and 1990 DSS frames clearly shows the 

1037: pair moving together over 40 yr.  The USNO-B1.0 catalog has $\mu=0''.18$ 

1038: ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ at $\theta=153\arcdeg$ for the white dwarf \citep*{mon03}, 

1039: which would have caused the pair to separate by almost $10''$ over the 

1040: last 55 yr if the secondary were background.  Hence the pair is bound.  

1041: 

1042: PG 0235$+$064B has reliable 2MASS photometry consistent with an early

1043: M dwarf which has very likely contaminated some previously published

1044: photometry and spectroscopy of the white dwarf, even as far as the blue

1045: optical region, causing it to appear too cool (red) \citep*{zuc03,gre86}.

1046: Figure \ref{fig1} shows $T_{\rm eff}=15,000$ K (DA3.4) provides a better 

1047: fit to the white dwarf data \citep*{ber95b} than previously published, lower

1048: effective temperatures corresponding to DA4.4 and DA8 \citep*{hom98,gre86}.

1049: The shorter wavelength photometric data in Figure \ref{fig1} were selected 

1050: as to be minimally, or not at all contaminated by the cool companion: $B$ 

1051: from \citet*{gre86}; $J$ from \citet*{skr06}; and $HK$ from \citet*{kil06}.

1052: Assuming log $g=8$, very close to that determined by \citet*{hom98} from a

1053: spectrum likely to be contaminated by the M dwarf, the white dwarf would 

1054: lie at $d=70$ pc.  Using the {\em Hubble} GSC2.2 \citep*{sts01} blue and

1055: red magnitudes, one can estimate $B\approx17$ mag and $B-K\approx6$ for 

1056: the red dwarf.  This corresponds to a spectral type near M3 and agrees 

1057: reasonably well with the expected absolute magnitude of $M_K=6.7$ mag 

1058: at the estimated white dwarf distance \citep*{kir94}.  

1059: 

1060: For all of the IRAC images, the task {\sf daophot} was used in an

1061: attempt to remove the light of the M dwarf, but it was found that this 

1062: generally oversubtracted its flux in the region of the white dwarf, and 

1063: combined with the $5-6$ mag difference in brightness between components, 

1064: proved unreliable.  Instead, the symmetry of the point spread function

1065: was exploited to self-subtract the flux on the opposite side of the M 

1066: dwarf at the location of the white dwarf, introducing an additional 

1067: error component equal to the square root of the percent flux removed.

1068: 

1069: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}

1070: 

1071: Although a survey of only 17 stars does not allow robust statistics,

1072: it is clear that the majority of DAZ white dwarfs do not harbor warm

1073: dust of sufficient emitting surface area to be detected with IRAC.

1074: If most or all of these stars do host circumstellar material, the

1075: fractional luminosities must be relatively low compared to currently

1076: known dusty white dwarfs.  This could result from a modest amount of

1077: dust (as in the zodiacal cloud), large particle sizes, or cooler 

1078: material further from the star.

1079: 

1080: Another possibility is that any warm dust produced within the Roche

1081: limit of a white dwarf is swiftly destroyed through mutual collisions,

1082: not unlike ice in a blender, as it orbits with Keplerian velocities near 

1083: $0.003c$.  In optically thin disks, particles with orbital period $p$ will

1084: collide on a timescale given by $t_{\rm coll}=p/\tau$.  The tidal rings at

1085: G29-38 and GD 362 have been modeled to extend from approximately $0.2-0.4$

1086: $R_{\odot}$, where a typical orbital period is only $p=0.6$ hr and the

1087: resulting collision timescale for $\tau\sim0.01$ is $t_{\rm coll}=2.5$ dy.

1088: If a sizeable fraction of dust produced in a tidal disruption event is 

1089: initially optically thin, then both collisions and Poynting-Robertson 

1090: drag will compete to quickly annihilate this material.  The ratio of 

1091: these two timescales for dust particles orbiting a distance $D$ from

1092: a star of mass $M$ can be written as

1093: 

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \gamma  = \frac{t_{\rm pr}}{t_{\rm coll}} 

1096: 	= 693 \ \frac{\sqrt{MD} \rho a\tau}{LQ_{\rm pr}}

1097: \end{equation}

1098: 

1099: \noindent

1100: where $M$ and $L$ are in solar units, $D$ is in AU, $\rho$ is in g

1101: ${\rm cm}^{-3}$ , and $a$ is in microns.  This fraction reaches a minimum

1102: for 0.1 $\mu$m grains with 1 g ${\rm cm}^{-3}$ at the inner disk edge, and

1103: yields $\gamma_{\rm min}>10$ for all possible white dwarf disk parameters.

1104: Table \ref{tbl6} gives minimum values for $\gamma$ at the inner edges of 

1105: the disks at G29-38, GD 362, and G166-58.  Therefore collisions will erode 

1106: dust grains faster than they can be removed by angular momentum loss.  

1107: This is also true in the case of optically thick disks where: 1) the bulk

1108: of material is shielded from starlight, and hence the Poynting-Robertson

1109: effect is diminished, and 2) the collision timescale is less than half 

1110: the orbital period \citep*{esp93}.  Hence, for a wide range of disk 

1111: densities, it is plausible that mutual collisions within an evolving 

1112: dust ring at a typical white dwarf will result in the relatively rapid

1113: self-annihilation of the micron size grains required to radiate 

1114: efficiently at $3-30$ $\mu$m.

1115: 

1116: Following the tidal disruption of an asteroid, if one models the dust

1117: produced as a collisional cascade, the expected particle size distribution

1118: behaves classically as $n(a)\propto a^{-3.5}$ \citep*{doh69}.  For dust at

1119: main sequence stars, this distribution is reshaped on short timescales as 

1120: sub-micron size grains are removed by radiation pressure which, as shown 

1121: above, does not apply in the case of white dwarfs.  In the absence of 

1122: radiation pressure, the average particle in will have a size $\bar{a}=

1123: 5/3$ $a_{\rm min}$.  For practical purposes, at white dwarfs one can 

1124: assume $a_{\rm min}=0.01$ $\mu$m, where particles are already inefficient

1125: absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation, and anything smaller approaches

1126: the size of gas molecules and atoms.  With such a distribution of extant dust,

1127: 99.7\% of the particles will have sizes $a\leq0.1$ $\mu$m, leaving a paltry 

1128: fraction of larger particles which could effectively support infrared emission 

1129: from the disk.  Clearly, such small particles and gas might be present at most

1130: or all white dwarfs which show signs of circumstellar accretion such as the

1131: DAZ stars.

1132: 

1133: On the other hand, the persistence of warm dust disks at several white

1134: dwarfs \citep*{jur07b} must be explained despite the fact that in some

1135: or most cases where it is produced, it may also be efficiently destroyed.

1136: One possibility is that the disk density (which could contain gas) becomes

1137: sufficiently high as to damp out collisions in the disk and also make it

1138: optically thick, thus somewhat protecting it from self-erosion and drag

1139: forces simultaneously.  The evolution of such a dense, fluid-like ring is

1140: then dominated by viscous forces (differential rotation and random motions)

1141: which cause it to spread, losing energy in the process \citep*{esp93}.  The

1142: maximum lifetime of such a ring occurs at minimum viscosity

1143: 

1144: \begin{equation}

1145: t_{\rm ring} \approx \frac{ {{\rho}^2} {w^2} p} {2 \pi {{\sigma^2}} }

1146: \end{equation}

1147: 

1148: \noindent

1149: where $w$ is the radial extent of the ring and $\sigma$ is the surface 

1150: mass density \citep*{esp93}.  If the mass of a large solar system asteroid, 

1151: $10^{24}$ g, were spread into a tidal ring of negligible height ($h<10$ m),

1152: a radial extent $0.2-0.4$ $R_{\odot}$, consisting of micron size particles

1153: orbiting a typical white dwarf, the resulting volume mass density (0.55 g 

1154: ${\rm cm}^{-3}$) would be sufficiently high that the mean free path of 

1155: particles is on the same order as their size.  This could effectively damp

1156: out collisions, thus minimizing viscosity, and with a resulting surface

1157: mass density of $\sigma\approx550$ g ${\rm cm}^{-2}$, permit a potential 

1158: disk lifetime -- in the absence of competing forces -- longer than the

1159: Gyr white dwarf cooling timescales.  However, for sustained accretion

1160: rates as low as $\dot{M}=10^{10}$ g ${\rm s}^{-1}$, a $10^{24}$ g disk

1161: would become fully consumed within several Myr.

1162: 

1163: Large rocks and colder material orbiting at $D\ga100$ $R_{\odot}$ will be

1164: unaffected by any of the aforementioned processes, and such a reservoir of

1165: material is strictly necessary to supply some fraction of DAZ white dwarfs

1166: with photospheric metals, regardless of circumstellar dust production 

1167: (collisional versus tidal) and evolution (persistence versus destruction).

1168: 

1169: The overall number of white dwarfs with remnant planetesimal belts

1170: may be rather high based on a growing number of detections.  If one 

1171: takes 12\% (\S4.1) as the fraction of DAZ stars with circumstellar dust as

1172: observed by {\em Spitzer} to date, 20\% as the fraction of DAZ stars among 

1173: cool DA white dwarfs \citep*{zuc03}, and 80\% as the number of cool DA stars

1174: among all white dwarfs in the field \citep*{eis06}, then a lower limit to 

1175: the number of white dwarfs with asteroid-type belts is at least 2\%.  This

1176: fraction could be as high as 20\% if the majority of metal-rich white dwarfs

1177: harbor circumstellar matter, which raises important questions about the implied

1178: frequency of planetesimal belts around main-sequence stars and the current 

1179: detection rate (see the Appendix of \citealt*{jur06}).

1180: 

1181: Owing to their low luminosities, white dwarfs which may have been 

1182: polluted by heavy elements in winds or transferred material from 

1183: substellar companions \citep*{deb06,dob05,zuc03,sio84} are easily 

1184: identified with IRAC observations \citep*{mul07,han06,far05a,far05b} 

1185: down to T dwarf temperatures.  There is no evidence of such companions 

1186: in the data presented here, ruling out all but the coldest brown dwarfs,

1187: active planets and moons as close orbiting, companion-like polluters 

1188: (Farihi et al. 2008, in preparation).

1189: 

1190: \acknowledgments

1191: 

1192: J. Farihi thanks M. Jura for helpful discussions on circumstellar dust,

1193: S. Fisher for his expertise on mid-infrared detectors and photometry, T. 

1194: Geballe for encyclopedic assistance with $3-4$ $\mu$m spectra, S. Wachter

1195: and S. Carey for sharing their familiarity with {\em Spitzer} instruments

1196: and data, and P. Bergeron for kindly providing access to current white 

1197: dwarf models.  This work is based on observations made with the {\em 

1198: Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion 

1199: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with 

1200: NASA.  Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award 

1201: issued by JPL/Caltech.  Spectroscopic observations for this work were

1202: taken as part of the Gemini Director's Discretionary Time GN-2005B-DD-1.

1203: Gemini Observatory is operated by the Association of Universities for

1204: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF

1205: on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation

1206: (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council 

1207: (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT 

1208: (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil),

1209: and CONICET (Argentina).

1210: 

1211: {\em Facility:} \facility{Spitzer (IRAC)}, \facility{Gemini (NIRI)}

1212: 

1213: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1214: 

1215: \bibitem[Aannestad et al.(1993)]{aan93} Aannestad, P. A., 

1216: 	Kenyon, S. J., Hammond, G. L., \& Sion, E. M. 1993, 

1217: 	\aj, 105,1033

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[Aannestad \& Sion(1985)]{aan85} Aannestad, P. A., 

1220: 	\& Sion, E. M. 1985, \aj, 90, 1832

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Adams(1914)]{ada14} Adams, W. S. 1914, \pasp, 26, 198

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[Adams(1915)]{ada15} Adams, W. S. 1915, \pasp, 27, 236

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2007)]{ade07} Adelman-McCarthy,

1227: 	J. K. 2007, \apjs, 172, 634

1228: 

1229: \bibitem[Allamandola et al.(1989)Allamandola, Tielens, \& 

1230: 	Barker]{all89} Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. 

1231: 	M., \& Barker, J. R. 1989, \apjs, 71, 733

1232: 	

1233: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1986)Alcock, Fristrom, \& Siegelman]

1234: 	{alc86} Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., \& Siegelman, R. 

1235: 	1986, \apj, 302, 462

1236: 	

1237: \bibitem[Alcock \& Illarionov(1980)]{alc80} Alcock, C., \& 

1238: 	Illarionov, A. 1980, \apj, 235, 534		

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[Artymowicz(1988)]{art88} Artymowicz, P. 1988, \apj,

1241: 	335, L82

1242: 

1243: \bibitem[Baas et al.(1986)Baas, Geballe, \& Walther]{baa86}

1244: 	Baas, F., Geballe, T. R., \& Walther, D. M. 1986,

1245: 	\apj, 311, L97	

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[Bakos et al.(2002)Bakos, Sahu, \& Nemeth]{bak02} 

1248: 	Bakos, G. A., Sahu, K. C., \& Nemeth P. 2002, \apjs,

1249: 	141, 187

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{bar03} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G.,

1252: 	Barman, T. S., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2003,

1253: 	\aap, 402, 701

1254: 	

1255: \bibitem[Becklin, \& Zuckerman.(1988)]{bec88} Becklin, E. E.,

1256: 	\& Zuckerman, B. 1988, \nat, 336, 656

1257: 

1258: \bibitem[Becklin et al.(2005)]{bec05} Becklin, E. E., Farihi,

1259: 	J., Jura, M., Song, I., Weinberger, A. J., \&

1260: 	Zuckerman, B. 2005, \apj, 632, L119

1261: 

1262: \bibitem[Beichman et al.(2006)]{bei06} Beichman, C. A., et al.

1263: 	2006, \apj, 639, 1166

1264: 	

1265: \bibitem[Beintema et al.(1996)]{bei96} Beintema, D. A., et al.

1266: 	1996, \aap, 315, L369

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1990)Bergeron, Greenstein, \& Liebert]

1269: 	{ber90} Bergeron, P., Greenstein, J. L., \& Liebert, J.

1270: 	1990, \apj, 361, 190

1271: 	

1272: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(2001)Bergeron, Leggett, \& Ruiz]

1273: 	{ber01} Bergeron, P., Leggett, S. K., \& Ruiz, M. T.

1274: 	2001, \apjs, 133, 413

1275: 	

1276: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995c)Bergeron, Liebert, \& Fullbright]

1277: 	{ber95c} Bergeron, P., Liebert, J., \& Fullbright, M. S.

1278: 	1995c, \apj, 444, 810

1279: 

1280: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1997)Bergeron, Ruiz, \& Leggett]

1281: 	{ber97} Bergeron, P., Ruiz, M. T., \& Leggett, S. K.

1282: 	1997, \apjs, 108, 339

1283: 		

1284: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1992)Bergeron, Saffer, \& Liebert]

1285: 	{ber92} Bergeron, P., Saffer, R. A., \& Liebert, J. 

1286: 	1992, \apj, 394, 228

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995)Bergeron, Saumon, \& Wesemael]

1289: 	{ber95a} Bergeron, P., Saumon, D., \& Wesemael, F. 

1290: 	1995, \apj, 443, 764

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995)Bergeron, Wesemael, \& Beauchamp]

1293: 	{ber95b} Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., \& Beauchamp, A. 

1294: 	1995, \pasp, 107, 1047	

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[Binzel et al.(2000)Binzel, Hanner, \& Steel]{bin00} 

1297: 	Binzel, R. P., Hanner, M. S., \& Steel, D. I. 2000, 

1298: 	in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, ed. Cox, A. N. 

1299: 	($4^{\rm th}$ ed.; New York: AIP Press; Springer),

1300: 	315

1301: 	

1302: \bibitem[Bockel\'ee-Morvan et al.(1995)Bockel\'ee-Morvan, 

1303: 	Brooke, \& Crovisier]{boc95} Bockel\'ee-Morvan, D., 

1304: 	Brooke, T. Y., \& Crovisier, J. 1995, Icarus, 116, 18

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[Boss et al.(1991)Boss, Cameron, \& Benz]{bos91}

1307: 	Boss, A. P., Cameron, A. G. W., \& Benz, W. 1991,

1308: 	Icarus, 92, 165

1309: 

1310: \bibitem[Brooke et al.(1991)Brooke, Tokunaga, \& Knacke]

1311: 	{bro91} Brooke, T. Y., Tokunaga, A. T., \& Knacke,

1312: 	R. F. 1991, \aj, 101, 268

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[Bues(1970)]{bue70} Bues, I. 1970, \aap, 7, 91

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[Burns et al.(1979)Burns, Lamy, \& Soter]{bur79}

1317: 	Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., \& Soter, S. 1979, Icarus,

1318: 	40, 1

1319: 

1320: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Lunine]

1321: 	{bur03} Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., \& Lunine, J. I.

1322: 	2003, \apj, 596, 587

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[Carey(2006)]{car06} Carey, S. 2006, Spitzer Calibration

1325: 	Workshop, (Pasadena: SSC)	

1326: 		

1327: \bibitem[Chary et al.(1999)Chary, Zuckerman, \& Becklin]

1328: 	{cha99} Chary, R., Zuckerman, B., \& Becklin, E. E. 

1329: 	1999, in the Universe as Seen by {\rm ISO}, ed. P. 

1330: 	Cox \& M. F. Kessler (Noordwijk: ESA/ESTEC), 289

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[Chayer et al.(1995)Chayer, Fontaine, \& Wesemael]

1333: 	{cha95} Chayer, P., Fontaine, G., \& Wesemael, F. 

1334: 	1995, \apjs, 99, 189

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[Chen \& Jura(2001)]{che01} Chen, C. H., \& Jura, M. 

1337: 	2001, \apj, 560, L171

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[Chiang \& Goldreich(1997)]{chi97} Chiang, E. I., \&

1340: 	Goldreich, P. 1997, \apj, 490, 368

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Crovisier et al.(1997)]{cro97} Crovisier, J., Leech,

1343: 	K., Bockel\'ee-Morvan, D., Brooke, T. Y., Hanner, M.

1344: 	S., Altieri, B., Keller, H. U., \& Lellouch, E. 1997,

1345: 	Science, 275, 1904

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[Davidsson(1999)]{dav99} Davidsson, B. J. R. 1999,

1348: 	Icarus, 142, 525

1349: 		

1350: \bibitem[Debes \& Sigurdsson(2002)]{deb02} Debes, J. H., \& 

1351: 	Sigurdsson, S. 2002, \apj, 572, 556

1352: 	

1353: \bibitem[Debes(2006)]{deb06} Debes, J. H. 2006, \apj, 652, 636	

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[DENIS Consortium(2005)]{den05} DENIS Consortium. 2005

1356: 	The DENIS Database, $3^{\rm rd}$ Release (Strasbourg: 

1357: 	CDS)

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[Dobbie et al.(2005)]{dob05} Dobbie, P. D., Burleigh, 

1360: 	M. R., Levan, A. J., Barstow, M. A., Napiwotzki, R., 

1361: 	Holberg, J. B., Hubeny, I., \& Howell, S. B. 2005, 

1362: 	\mnras, 357, 1049

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[Dohnanyi(1969)]{doh69} Dohnanyi, J. W. 1969, JGR, 74,

1365: 	2531

1366: 

1367: \bibitem[Draine(2003)]{dra03} Draine, B. T. 2003, \araa, 41, 

1368: 	241

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[Dupuis et al.(1992)]{dup92} Dupuis, J., Fontaine, G.,

1371: 	Pelletier, C., \& Wesemael, F. 1992, \apjs, 82, 505

1372: 	

1373: \bibitem[Dupuis et al.(1993)]{dup93a} Dupuis, J., Fontaine,

1374: 	G., Pelletier, C., \& Wesemael, F. 1993, \apjs, 84, 73

1375: 	

1376: \bibitem[Dupuis et al.(1993)Dupuis, Fontaine, \& Wesemael]

1377: 	{dup93b} Dupuis, J., Fontaine, G., \& Wesemael, F. 

1378: 	1993, \apjs, 87, 345

1379: 

1380: \bibitem[Eggen \& Greenstein(1965)]{egg65} Eggen, O. J., \& 

1381: 	Greenstein, J. L. 1965, \apj, 141, 83

1382: 

1383: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2006)]{eis06} Eisenstein, D. J., et

1384: 	al. 2006, \aj, 132, 676

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[Esposito(1993)]{esp93} Esposito, L. W. 1993, AREPS, 21,

1387: 	487

1388: 		

1389: \bibitem[Farihi(2004)]{far04} Farihi, J. 2004, Ph.D. Thesis, 

1390: 	UCLA

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2005)Farihi, Becklin, \& Zuckerman]

1393: 	{far05a} Farihi, J., Becklin, E. E., \& Zuckerman, B. 

1394: 	2005, \apjs, 161, 394

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[Farihi \& Christopher(2004)]{far04b} Farihi, J., \&

1397: 	Christopher, M. 2004, \aj, 128, 1868

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2006)Farihi, Hoard, \& Wachter]{far06}

1400: 	Farihi, J., Hoard, D. W., \& Wachter, S. 2006, \apj,

1401: 	646, 480

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2005)Farihi, Zuckerman, \& Becklin]

1404: 	{far05b} Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B., \& Becklin, E. E.

1405: 	2005, \aj, 130, 2237

1406: 		

1407: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2007)]{far07} Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B.,

1408: 	Becklin, E. E., \& Jura, M. 2007, Proceedings of the 

1409: 	$15^{\rm th}$ European Workshop on White Dwarfs, eds. 

1410: 	M. R. Burleigh \& R. Napiwotzki (San Francisco: ASP)

1411: 	

1412: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{faz04} Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004,

1413: 	\apjs, 154, 10

1414: 	

1415: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004b)]{faz04b} Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004b,

1416: 	\apjs, 154, 39

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[Finley et al.(1997)Finley, Koester, \& Basri]

1419: 	{fin97} Finley, D. S., Koester, D., \& Basri, G. 

1420: 	1997, \apj, 488, 375

1421:  	

1422: \bibitem[Fontaine \& Michaud(1979)]{fon79} Fontaine, G., \&

1423: 	Michaud, G. 1979, \apj, 231, 826

1424: 	

1425: \bibitem[Fontaine \& Van Horn(1976)]{fon76} Fontaine, G., \&

1426: 	Van Horn, H. M. 1976, \apjs, 31, 467	

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[Geballe et al.(1985)]{geb85} Geballe, T. R., Lacy, J.

1429: 	H., Persson, S. E., McGregor, P. J., \& Soifer, B. T. 

1430: 	1985, \apj, 292, 500

1431: 	

1432: \bibitem[Geballe et al.(1989)]{geb89} Geballe, T. R., Tielens,

1433: 	A. G. G. M., Allamandola, L. J., Moorhouse, A., \& 

1434: 	Brand, P. W. J. L. 1989, \apj, 341, 278

1435: 		

1436: \bibitem[Geballe et al.(1992)]{geb92} Geballe, T. R., Tielens,

1437: 	A. G. G. M., Kwok, S., \& Hrivnak, B. J. 1992, \apj,

1438: 	387, L89

1439: 	 	

1440: \bibitem[Gianninas et al.(2004)Gianninas, Dufour, \& Bergeron]

1441: 	{gia04} Gianninas, A., Dufour, P., \& Bergeron, P.

1442: 	2004, \apj, 617, L57

1443: 

1444: \bibitem[Glass(1999)]{gla99} Glass, I. S. 1999, Handbook of

1445: 	Infrared Astronomy, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge 

1446: 	University Press)

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[Graham et al.(1990)]{gra90} Graham, J. R., Matthews, 

1449: 	K., Neugebauer,	G., \& Soifer, B. T. 1990, \apj, 357, 

1450: 	216

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[Green et al.(1986)Green, Schmidt, \& Liebert]{gre86}

1453: 	Green, R. F., Schmidt, M., \& Liebert, J. 1986, \apjs,

1454: 	61, 305

1455: 

1456: \bibitem[Grenfell(1974)]{gre74} Grenfell, T. C. 1974, \aap, 31,

1457: 	303

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[Hansen et al.(2006)Hansen, Kulkarni, \& Wiktorowicz]

1460: 	{han06} Hansen, B. M. S., Kulkarni, S., \& Wiktorowicz, 

1461: 	S. 2006, \aj, 131, 1106

1462: 	

1463: \bibitem[Hansen \& Phinney(1998)]{han98} Hansen, B. M. S., \& 

1464: 	Phinney, E. S. 1998, \mnras, 294, 557

1465: 	

1466: \bibitem[Harrington \& Dahn(1980)]{har80} Harrington, R. S.,

1467: 	\& Dahn, C. C. 1980, \aj, 85, 454

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2006)]{hin06} Hines, D. C. et al. 2006,

1470: 	\apj, 638, 1070

1471: 	

1472: \bibitem[Hodapp et al.(2003)]{hod03} Hodapp, K. W., et al. 

1473: 	2003, \pasp, 115, 1388

1474: 

1475: \bibitem[Holberg et al.(1997)Holberg, Barstow, \& Green]{hol97}

1476: 	Holberg, J. B., Barstow, M. A., \& Green, E. M. 1997, 

1477: 	\apj, 474, L127

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[Homeier et al.(1998)]{hom98} Homeier, D., Koester, D.,

1480: 	Hagen, H. J., Jordan, S., Heber, U., Engels, D., Reimers,

1481: 	D., \& Dreizler, S. 1998, \aap, 338, 563

1482: 	

1483: \bibitem[Houck et al.(2004)]{hou04} Houck, J. R., et al. 2004,

1484: 	\apjs, 154, 18

1485: 	

1486: \bibitem[Joblin et al.(1997)Joblin, Boissel, \& de Parseval]

1487: 	{job97} Joblin, C., Boissel, P., \& de Parseval, P. 

1488: 	1997, \planss, 45, 1539

1489: 	

1490: \bibitem[Jura(2003)]{jur03} Jura, M. 2003, \apj, 584, L91

1491: 

1492: \bibitem[Jura(2006)]{jur06} Jura, M. 2006, \apj, 653, 613

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2007)]{jur07a} Jura, M., Farihi, J., 

1495: 	Zuckerman, B., \& Becklin, E. E. 2007, \aj, 133, 1927

1496: 	

1497: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2007)Jura, Farihi, \& Zuckerman]{jur07b} 

1498: 	Jura, M., Farihi, J., \& Zuckerman, B. 2007, \apj, 

1499: 	663, 1285

1500: 

1501: \bibitem[Kilic et al.(2005)]{kil05} Kilic, M., von Hippel, T.,

1502: 	Leggett, S. K., \& Winget, D. E. 2005, \apj, 632, L115

1503: 	

1504: \bibitem[Kilic et al.(2006)]{kil06} Kilic, M., von Hippel, T.,

1505: 	Leggett, S. K., \& Winget, D. E. 2006, \apj, 646, 474

1506: 

1507: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick \& McCarthy(1994)]{kir94} Kirkpatrick, 

1508: 	J. D., \& McCarthy, D. W. 1994, \aj, 107, 333

1509: 	

1510: \bibitem[Koester \& Wilken(2006)]{koe06} Koester, D., \& Wilken,

1511: 	D. 2006, \aap, 453, 1051

1512: 	

1513: \bibitem[Koester et al.(1997)Koester, Provencal, \& Shipman]

1514: 	{koe97} Koester, D., Provencal, J., \& Shipman, H. L.

1515: 	1997, \aap, 230, L57

1516: 	

1517: \bibitem[Koester et al.(2005)]{koe05} Koester, D., Rollenhagen,

1518: 	K., Napiwotzki,	R., Voss, B., Homeier, D., \& Reimers,

1519: 	D. 2005, \aap, 432, 1025 

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[Koester et al.(2001)]{koe01} Koester, D., et al. 2001,

1522: 	\aap, 378, 556

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[Lacombe et al.(1983)]{lac83} Lacombe, P., Wesemael, F.,

1525: 	Fontaine, G., \& Liebert, J. 1983, \apj, 272, 660

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[Laureijs et al.(2002)]{lau02} Laureijs, R. J., Jourdain

1528: 	de Muizon, M., Leech, K., Siebenmorgen, R., Dominik, C.,

1529: 	Habing, H. J., Trams, N., \& Kessler, M. F. 2002, \aap,

1530: 	387, 285

1531: 

1532: \bibitem[Leggett et al.(1998)Leggett, Ruiz, \& Bergeron]{leg98}

1533: 	Leggett, S. K., Ruiz, M. T., \& Bergeron, P. 1998, \apj,

1534: 	497, 294

1535: 		

1536: \bibitem[Liebert et al.(2005)Liebert, Bergeron, \& Holberg]

1537: 	{lie05} Liebert, J., Bergeron, P., \& Holberg, J. B. 

1538: 	2005, \apjs, 156, 47

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[Luyten(1979)]{luy79} Luyten, W. J. 1979, LHS Catalogue,

1541: 	$2^{\rm nd}$ ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota)

1542: 

1543: \bibitem[Malfait et al.(1998)]{mal98} Malfait, K., Waelkens, C.,

1544: 	Waters, L. B. F. M., Vandenbussche, B., Huygen, E., \&

1545: 	de Graauw, M. S. 1998, \aap, 332, L25

1546: 

1547: \bibitem[Marsh et al.(1995)Marsh, Dhillon, \& Duck]{mar95} 

1548: 	Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., \& Duck, S. R. 1995, 

1549: 	\mnras, 275, 828

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[Mermilliod(1986)]{mer86} Mermilliod, J. C. 1986, 

1552: 	Catalog of Eggen's UBV Data (Strasbourg: CDS)

1553: 	 	

1554: \bibitem[McCook \& Sion(2003)]{mcc03} McCook, G. P., \& Sion, E.

1555: 	M. 2003, Spectroscopically Identified White Dwarfs

1556: 	(Strasbourg: CDS)

1557: 

1558: \bibitem[Monet et al.(2003)]{mon03} Monet, D., et al. 2003, \aj, 

1559: 	125, 984

1560: 

1561: \bibitem[Morales-Rueda et al.(2005)]{morr05} Morales-Rueda, 

1562: 	L., Marsh, T. R., Maxted, P. F. L., Nelemans, G., Karl,

1563: 	C., Napiwotzki, R., \& Moran, C. K. J. 2005, \mnras, 

1564: 	359, 648

1565: 	

1566: \bibitem[Muchmore(1984)]{muc84} Muchmore, D. 1984, \apj, 278, 

1567: 	769

1568: 

1569: \bibitem[Mullally et al.(2007)]{mul07} Mullally, F., Kilic, M.,

1570: 	Reach, W. T., Kuchner, M., von Hippel, T., Burrows, A.,

1571: 	\& Winget, D. E. 2007, \apjs, 171, 206

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[Mumma et al.(2001)]{mum01} Mumma, M. J., et al. 2001,

1574: 	\apj, 546, 1183

1575: 

1576: \bibitem[Nelemans et al.(2005)]{nel05} Nelemans, G., et al. 2005,

1577: 	\aap, 440, 1087

1578: 

1579: \bibitem[Paquette et al.(1986)]{paq86} Paquette, C., Pelletier, 

1580: 	C., Fontaine, G., \& Michaud, G. 1986, \apjs 61, 197

1581: 	

1582: \bibitem[Parriott \& Alcock(1998)]{par98} Parriott, J., \& 

1583: 	Alcock, C. 1998, \apj, 501, 357	

1584: 

1585: \bibitem[Patterson et al.(1991)]{pat91} Patterson, J., Zuckerman,

1586: 	B., Becklin, E. E., Tholen, D. J., \& Hawarden, T. 1991,

1587: 	\apj, 374, 330

1588: 

1589: \bibitem[Pauli et al.(2006)]{pau06} Pauli, E. M., Napiwotzki, R.,

1590: 	Heber, U., Altmann, M., \& Odenkirchen, M. 2006, \aap,

1591: 	447, 173

1592: 	

1593: \bibitem[Pauli et al.(2003)]{pau03} Pauli, E. M., Napiwotzki, R.,

1594: 	Altmann, M., Heber, U., Odenkirchen, M., \& Kerber, F. 

1595: 	2003, \aap, 400, 877	

1596: 	

1597: \bibitem[Probst(1983)]{pro83} Probst, R. 1983, \apjs, 53, 335

1598: 

1599: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005a)]{rea05a} Reach, W. T., Kuchner, 

1600: 	M. J., von Hippel, T., Burrows, A., Mulally, F., Kilic, 

1601: 	M., \& Winget, D. E. 2005a, \apj, 635, L161.

1602: 	

1603: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005b)]{rea05b} Reach, W. T., et al. 2005b,

1604: 	\pasp, 117, 978

1605: 

1606: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2004)]{rie04} Rieke, G., et al. 2004,

1607: 	\apjs, 154, 25

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[Roche(1848)]{roc48} Roche, \'E. 1848, La figure d'une 

1610: 	masse fluide soumise \`a l'attraction d'un point 

1611: 	\'eloign\'e, Acad\'emie des sciences de Montpellier,

1612: 	Vol. 1, 243

1613: 

1614: \bibitem[Routly(1972)]{rou72} Routly, P. M. 1972, Publications

1615: 	of the US Naval Observatory XX, Part VI

1616: 

1617: \bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2003)]{sal03} Salim, S., \& Gould, A. 

1618: 	2003, \apj, 582, 1011

1619: 	

1620: \bibitem[Schatzman(1958)]{sch58} Schatzman, E. L. 1958, White

1621: 	Dwarfs, (Amsterdam: North-Holland; New York: 

1622: 	Interscience)

1623: 

1624: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Teukolsky(1983)]{sha83} Shapiro, S. L., \&

1625: 	Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and

1626: 	Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects (New York:

1627: 	Wiley-Interscience)

1628: 	

1629: \bibitem[Shipman(1986)]{shi86} Shipman, H. L. 1986, in 

1630: 	Astrophysics of Brown Dwarfs, eds. M. C. Kafatos, R. S.

1631: 	Harrington, \& S. P. Maran, (Cambridge; New York: 

1632: 	Cambridge University Press), 71

1633: 	

1634: \bibitem[Shipman(1972)]{shi72} Shipman, H. L. 1972, \apj, 177, 

1635: 	723	

1636: 

1637: \bibitem[Silverstone et al.(2006)]{sil06} Silverstone, M. D.,

1638: 	et al. 2006, \apj, 639, 1138

1639: 

1640: \bibitem[Sion et al.(1983)]{sio83} Sion, E. M., Greenstein, 

1641: 	J. L., Landstreet, J. D., Liebert, J., Shipman, H. L.,

1642: 	\& Wegner, G. A. 1983, \apj, 269, 253

1643: 	

1644: \bibitem[Sion et al.(1990)]{sio90} Sion, E. M., Hammond, G. L.,

1645: 	Wagner, R. M., Starrfield, S. G., \& Liebert, J. 1990,

1646: 	\apj, 362, 691

1647: 

1648: \bibitem[Sion \& Starrfield(1984)]{sio84} Sion, E. M., \&

1649: 	Starrfield, S. G. 1984, \apj, 286, 760	

1650: 	

1651: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{skr06} Skrutskie, M. F., et al.

1652: 	2006, \aj, 131, 1163

1653: 

1654: \bibitem[Smart et al.(2003)]{sma03} Smart, R. L., et al. 2003,

1655: 	\aap, 404, 317 

1656: 

1657: \bibitem[Song et al.(2005)]{son05} Song, I., Zuckerman, B., 

1658: 	Weinberger, A. J., \& Becklin, E. E. 2005, \nat, 436,

1659: 	363

1660: 

1661: \bibitem[Space Telescope Science Institute(2001)]{sts01} Space 

1662: 	Telescope Science Institute 2001, The Guide Star Catalog

1663: 	Version 2.2, (Baltimore: STScI)	

1664: 		

1665: \bibitem[Spitzer Science Center(2006)]{ssc06} Spitzer Science 

1666: 	Center. 2006, IRAC Data Handbook Version 3.0 (Pasadena: 

1667: 	SSC)

1668: 				

1669: \bibitem[Telesco et al.(1990)Telesco, Joy, \& Sisk]{tel90} 

1670: 	Telesco, C. M., Joy, M., \& Sisk, C. 1990, \apj, 358,

1671: 	L21

1672: 

1673: \bibitem[Tokunaga(2000)]{tok00} Tokunaga, A. T. 2000, in Allen's	

1674: 	Astrophysical Quantities, ed. Cox, A. N. ($4^{\rm th}$ 

1675: 	ed.; New York: AIP Press; Springer), 143

1676: 			

1677: \bibitem[Tokunaga et al.(1990)Tokunaga, Becklin, \& Zuckerman]

1678: 	{tok90} Tokunaga, A. T., Becklin, E. E., \& Zuckerman,

1679: 	B. 1990, \apj, 358, L17

1680: 

1681: \bibitem[Tremblay \& Bergeron(2007)]{tre07} Tremblay, P. E., \&

1682: 	Bergeron, P. 2007, \apj, 657, 1013

1683: 

1684: \bibitem[van Altena et al.(1995)van Altena, Lee, \& Hoffleit]

1685: 	{van95} van Altena, W. F., Lee, J. T., \& Hoffleit, E. D.

1686: 	1995, The General Catalogue of Trigonometric Stellar

1687: 	Parallaxes, $4^{\rm th}$ ed. (New Haven: Yale University

1688: 	Observatory)

1689: 	

1690: \bibitem[van Maanen(1917)]{van17} van Maanen, A. 1917, \pasp, 29,

1691: 	258	

1692: 

1693: \bibitem[van Maanen(1919)]{van19} van Maanen, A. 1919, \pasp, 31,

1694: 	42	

1695: 

1696: \bibitem[von Hippel et al.(2007)]{von07} von Hippel, T., Kuchner, 

1697: 	M. J., Kilic, M., Mullaly, F., \& Reach, W. T. 2007, \apj, 662, 544

1698: 			

1699: \bibitem[Vauclair et al.(1979)Vauclair, Vauclair, \& Greenstein]

1700: 	{vau79} Vauclair, G., Vauclair, S., \& Greenstein, J. L.

1701: 	1979, \aap, 80, 79	

1702: 		

1703: \bibitem[Vennes(1999)]{ven99} Vennes, S. 1999, \apj, 525, 995

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(1997)]{ven97} Vennes, S., Thejll, P. A.,

1706: 	Galvan, R. G., \& Dupuis, J. 1997, \apj, 480, 714

1707: 	

1708: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(1996)]{ven96} Vennes, S., Thejll, P. A.,

1709: 	Wickramasinghe, D. T., Bessell, M. S. 1996, \apj, 467, 

1710: 	782	

1711: 	

1712: \bibitem[Wachter et al.(2003)]{wac03} Wachter, S., Hoard, D. W.,

1713: 	Hansen, K. H., Wilcox, R. E., Taylor, H. M., \& 

1714: 	Finkelstein, S. L. 2003, \apj, 586, 1356

1715: 

1716: \bibitem[Wegner(1972)]{weg72} Wegner, G. 1972, \apj, 172, 451

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[Wehrse(1975)]{weh75} Wehrse, R. 1975, \aap, 39, 169

1719: 

1720: \bibitem[Weidemann(1960)]{wei60} Weidemann, V. 1960, \apj, 131,

1721: 	638

1722: 	

1723: \bibitem[Werner et al.(2004)]{wer04} Werner, M. W., et al. 2004,

1724: 	\apjs, 154, 1	

1725: 

1726: \bibitem[Wesemael et al.(1993)]{wes93} Wesemael, F., Greenstein,

1727:  	J. L., Liebert, J., Lamontagne, R., Fontaine, G., 

1728:  	Bergeron, P., \& Glaspey, J. W. 1993, \pasp, 105, 761

1729: 

1730: \bibitem[Wolff et al.(2002)Wolff, Koester, \& Liebert]{wol02}

1731:  	Wolff, B., Koester, D., \& Liebert, J. 2002, \aap, 385, 

1732:  	995

1733:  			

1734: \bibitem[Zuckerman(2001)]{zuc01} Zuckerman B. 2001, \araa, 39,

1735: 	549

1736:  	

1737: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Becklin(1987a)]{zuc87a} Zuckerman, B.,

1738: 	\& Becklin, E. E. 1987a, \apj, 319, 99

1739: 

1740: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Becklin(1987b)]{zuc87b} Zuckerman, B.,

1741: 	\& Becklin, E. E. 1987b, \nat, 330, 138

1742: 	

1743: \bibitem[Zuckerman et al.(2003)]{zuc03} Zuckerman, B., Koester,

1744: 	D., Reid, I. N., \& H\"unsch, M. 2003, \apj, 596, 477

1745: 

1746: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Reid(1998)]{zuc98} Zuckerman, B., \&

1747: 	Reid, I. N. 1998, \apj, 505, L143

1748: 	

1749: \end{thebibliography}

1750: 

1751: 

1752: \clearpage

1753: 

1754: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1755: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1756: \tablecaption{DAZ\tablenotemark{a} White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl1}}

1757: \tablewidth{0pt}

1758: \tablehead{

1759: \colhead{WD}			&

1760: \colhead{Name}			&

1761: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

1762: \colhead{$V$ (mag)}			&

1763: \colhead{[Ca/H]}			&

1764: \colhead{References}}

1765: 

1766: \startdata

1767: 

1768: 0032$-$175	&G266-135	&9240	&14.94	&-10.20	&1,2\\

1769: 0235$+$064	&PG			&15000	&15.5	&-9.03	&1,3\\

1770: 0322$-$019	&G77-50		&5220	&16.12	&-11.36	&1,4\\

1771: 0846$+$346	&GD 96		&7370	&15.71	&-9.41	&1,5\\

1772: 1102$-$183	&EC			&8060	&15.99	&-10.43	&1,5\\

1773: 1124$-$293	&EC			&9680	&15.02	&-8.53	&1,4,6\\

1774: 1204$-$136	&EC			&11500	&15.67	&-7.72	&1,7\\

1775: 1208$+$576	&G197-47		&5880	&15.78	&-10.96	&1,8\\

1776: 1344$+$106	&G63-54		&7110	&15.12	&-11.13	&1,8\\

1777: 1407$+$425	&PG			&10010	&15.03	&-9.87	&1,9\\

1778: 1455$+$298	&G166-58		&7390	&15.60	&-9.31	&1,8,9\\

1779: 1632$+$177	&PG			&10100	&13.05	&-10.75	&1,9\\

1780: 1633$+$433	&G180-63		&6690	&14.84	&-8.63	&1,8,9\\

1781: 1729$+$371	&GD 362		&10500	&16.23	&-5.1	&7,10\\

1782: 1826$-$045	&G21-16		&9480	&14.58	&-8.83	&1,8\\

1783: 1858$+$393	&G205-52		&9470	&15.63	&-7.84	&1,5\\

1784: 2326$+$049	&G29-38		&11600	&13.04	&-6.93	&1,5\\

1785: 

1786: \enddata

1787: 

1788: \tablenotetext{a}{G77-50 and GD 362 are helium-rich (\citealt*{koe05};

1789: D. Koester 2007, private communication}

1790: 

1791: \tablerefs{

1792: (1) \citealt*{zuc03};

1793: (2) \citealt*{mer86};

1794: (3) This work;

1795: (4) \citealt*{ber97};

1796: (5) \citealt*{mcc03};

1797: (6) \citealt*{koe01};

1798: (7) \citealt*{sal03};

1799: (8) \citealt*{ber01};

1800: (9) \citealt*{lie05};

1801: (10) D. Koester 2007, private communication)}

1802: 

1803: \end{deluxetable}

1804: 

1805: \clearpage

1806: 

1807: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1808: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1809: \tablecaption{IRAC Fluxes for White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl2}}

1810: \tablewidth{0pt}

1811: \tablehead{

1812: \colhead{WD}					&

1813: \colhead{$F_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1814: \colhead{$F_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1815: \colhead{$F_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1816: \colhead{$F_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1817: \colhead{Pipeline}}

1818: 

1819: \startdata

1820: 

1821: 0032$-$175	&$360\pm18$		&$214\pm11$		&$140\pm17$		&$71\pm18$		&11.0\\

1822: 0235$+$064	&$112\pm7$		&$64\pm6$		&$36\pm17$		&$29\pm18$		&12.4\\

1823: 0322$-$019	&$543\pm27$		&$381\pm19$		&$253\pm18$		&$149\pm18$		&12.4\\

1824: 0846$+$346	&$310\pm16$		&$198\pm10$		&$107\pm17$		&$78\pm20$		&10.5\\

1825: 1102$-$183	&$242\pm12$		&$137\pm8$		&$95\pm18$		&$63\pm22$		&11.0\\

1826: 1124$-$293	&$350\pm18$		&$200\pm10$		&$142\pm16$		&$77\pm15$		&12.4\\

1827: 1204$-$136	&$164\pm8$		&$101\pm6$		&$64\pm13$		&$25\pm14$		&12.4\\

1828: 1208$+$576	&$597\pm30$		&$367\pm19$		&$211\pm18$		&$129\pm15$		&11.0\\

1829: 1344$+$106	&$558\pm28$		&$372\pm19$		&$266\pm20$		&$137\pm20$		&12.4\\

1830: 1407$+$425	&$292\pm15$		&$159\pm8$		&$113\pm15$		&$73\pm16$		&12.4\\

1831: 1455$+$298	&$357\pm18$		&$222\pm11$		&$189\pm17$		&$155\pm18$		&12.4\\

1832: 1632$+$177	&$1683\pm84$		&$1049\pm53$		&$679\pm37$		&$403\pm26$		&11.4\\

1833: 1633$+$433	&$912\pm46$		&$623\pm31$		&$389\pm24$		&$232\pm19$		&11.4\\

1834: 1729$+$371	&$380\pm19$		&$395\pm20$		&$425\pm26$ 		&$644\pm34$		&12.4\\

1835: 1826$-$045	&$714\pm72$		&$414\pm47$		&$257\pm33$		&$164\pm39$		&12.4\\

1836: 1858$+$393	&$201\pm10$		&$116\pm6$		&$73\pm17$		&$54\pm17$		&10.5\\

1837: 2326$+$049	&$8350\pm420$	&$8810\pm440$	&$8370\pm420$	&$8370\pm420$	&14.0\\

1838: 

1839: \enddata

1840: 

1841: \tablecomments{Error calculations, including both photometric

1842: measurements and instrumental uncertainties are described in \S3.2.}

1843: 

1844: \end{deluxetable}

1845: 

1846: \clearpage

1847: 

1848: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}

1849: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1850: \tablecaption{Flux Determinations for G166-58\label{tbl3}}

1851: \tablewidth{0pt}

1852: \tablehead{

1853: \colhead{Method}						&

1854: \colhead{$F_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}		&

1855: \colhead{$F_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}		&

1856: \colhead{$F_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}		&

1857: \colhead{$F_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}}

1858: 

1859: \startdata

1860: 

1861: 1\tablenotemark{a}	&$357\pm18$		&$222\pm11$		&$189\pm17$		&$155\pm18$\\

1862: 2\tablenotemark{b}	&$410\pm23$		&$236\pm11$		&$172\pm13$		&$164\pm20$\\

1863: 3\tablenotemark{c}	&$350\pm35$		&$225\pm23$		&$170\pm17$		&$150\pm15$\\

1864: 

1865: \enddata

1866: 

1867: \tablecomments{See \S4.4.1 for a detailed description of the methods used

1868: to account for and eliminate any and all flux from the nearby galaxy.}

1869: 

1870: \tablenotetext{a}{Aperture photometry.}

1871: \tablenotetext{b}{Point spread function fitting ({\sf daophot}) photometry.}

1872: \tablenotetext{c}{Radial profile analysis.}

1873: 

1874: \end{deluxetable}

1875: 

1876: \clearpage

1877: 

1878: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}

1879: %\rotate

1880: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1881: \tablecaption{Possible Disk Parameters for G166-58\label{tbl4}}

1882: \tablewidth{0pt}

1883: \tablehead{

1884: \colhead{Disk Type}						&

1885: \colhead{log $g$}						&

1886: \colhead{$R_{\rm eff}$ ($R_{\odot}$)}		&

1887: \colhead{$D_{\rm in, thick}$ ($R_{\odot}$)}	&

1888: \colhead{$D_{\rm in, thin}$ ($R_{\odot}$)}}

1889: 

1890: \startdata

1891: 

1892: Circumstellar	&7.97	&0.0132	&0.38				&2.3\\

1893: Circumbinary	&7.62	&0.0163	&0.47\tablenotemark{a}	&2.7\\

1894: 

1895: \enddata

1896: 

1897: \tablecomments{In the case of a wide binary where dust orbits a 

1898: single, normal mass, white dwarf component, the dust is circumstellar.

1899: A single, low mass white dwarf of large radius is ruled out by 

1900: spectroscopy \citep*{lie05}.}

1901: 

1902: \tablenotetext{a}{A close binary surrounding by a flat optically

1903: thick disk is not physically possible (\S4.4.4).}

1904: 

1905: \end{deluxetable}

1906: 

1907: \clearpage

1908: 

1909: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccc}

1910: \rotate

1911: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1912: \tablecaption{Confirmed or Suspected Double Degenerate DAZ Systems\label{tbl5}}

1913: \tablewidth{0pt}

1914: \tablehead{

1915: 

1916: &&	&Spectroscopic\tablenotemark{a}

1917: &&&	&Photometric\tablenotemark{b}&	&&\\

1918: 

1919: \cline{3-5}

1920: \cline{7-9}

1921: \\

1922: 

1923: \colhead{Star}				&

1924: 

1925: \colhead{}					&

1926: 

1927: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

1928: \colhead{log $g$}			&

1929: \colhead{$d$ (pc)}			&

1930: 

1931: \colhead{}					&

1932: 

1933: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

1934: \colhead{log $g$}			&

1935: \colhead{$d$ (pc)}			&

1936: 

1937: \colhead{}					&

1938: 

1939: \colhead{References}}

1940: 

1941: \startdata

1942: 

1943: G77-50			&&5220	&7.5		&23.3	&&5200	&8.04	&16.8	&&1,2,3\\

1944: EC 1124$-$293	&&9550	&8.04	&33.6	&&9440	&7.10	&61.1	&&4,5\\

1945: G166-58			&&7390	&7.97	&29.1	&&7340	&7.62	&35.5	&&4,6,7\\

1946: 

1947: \enddata

1948: 

1949: \tablenotetext{a}{Parameters derived from model fits to spectroscopic

1950: continuum flux and Balmer line profiles.}

1951: 

1952: \tablenotetext{b}{Parameters derived from model fits to photometric

1953: fluxes and trigonometric parallax.}

1954: 

1955: \tablerefs{

1956: (1) \citealt*{ber97};

1957: (2) \citealt*{leg98};

1958: (3) \citealt*{sma03};

1959: (4) \citealt*{ber01};

1960: (5) \citealt*{koe01};

1961: (6) \citealt*{zuc03};

1962: (7) \citealt*{lie05}

1963: }

1964: 

1965: \end{deluxetable}

1966: 

1967: \clearpage

1968: 

1969: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1970: %\rotate

1971: %\tabletypesize{\small}

1972: \tablecaption{Minimum $\gamma$ Values at Inner Disk Edges\label{tbl6}}

1973: \tablewidth{0pt}

1974: \tablehead{

1975: \colhead{Star}						&

1976: \colhead{$\tau$\tablenotemark{a}}		&

1977: \colhead{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$)}			&

1978: \colhead{log($L/L_{\odot}$)}			&

1979: \colhead{$D_{\rm in}$ ($R_{\odot}$)}	&

1980: \colhead{$\gamma_{\rm min}$}}

1981: 

1982: \startdata

1983: 

1984: G29-38					&0.030	&0.69	&$-2.64$	&0.14	&19\\

1985: G166-58\tablenotemark{b}	&0.0023	&0.58	&$-3.36$	&0.38	&12\\

1986: G166-58\tablenotemark{c}	&0.0023	&1.2		&$-3.18$	&2.7		&30\\

1987: GD 362					&0.030	&0.75	&$-2.90$	&0.12	&34\\

1988: 

1989: \enddata

1990: 

1991: \tablecomments{The minimum value of $\gamma$ is achieved, realistically,

1992: at $\rho=1$ g ${\rm cm}^3$ and $a=0.1$ $\mu$m.}

1993: 

1994: \tablenotetext{a}{$L_{\rm IR}/L$.}

1995: \tablenotetext{b}{Single white dwarf with an optically thick circumstellar disk.}

1996: \tablenotetext{c}{Double white dwarf with an optically thin circumbinary disk.}

1997: 

1998: \end{deluxetable}

1999: 

2000: \clearpage

2001: 

2002: \begin{figure}

2003: \plotone{f1.eps}

2004: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of G266-135, PG 0235$+$064,

2005: G77-50, and GD 96 (see \S4.1).  For PG 0235$+$064, the light of its 

2006: nearby M dwarf companion has been removed (see \S4.6 and Figure 

2007: \ref{fig10}), and a superior fit to the data is achieved for an effective 

2008: temperature of 15,000 K, contrary to previous, significantly lower 

2009: estimates.

2010: \label{fig1}}

2011: \end{figure}

2012: 

2013: \clearpage

2014: 

2015: \begin{figure}

2016: \plotone{f2.eps}

2017: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EC 1102$-$183, EC 1124$-$293,

2018: EC 1204$-$136, and G197-47.

2019: \label{fig2}}

2020: \end{figure}

2021: 

2022: \clearpage

2023: 

2024: \begin{figure}

2025: \plotone{f3.eps}

2026: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of G63-54, PG 1407$+$425,

2027: PG 1632$+$177, and G180-63.

2028: \label{fig3}}

2029: \end{figure}

2030: 

2031: \clearpage

2032: 

2033: \begin{figure}

2034: \plotone{f4.eps}

2035: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of G166-58.

2036: \label{fig4}}

2037: \end{figure}

2038: 

2039: \clearpage

2040: 

2041: \begin{figure}

2042: \plotone{f5.eps}

2043: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of GD 362, G21-16,

2044: G205-52, and G29-38.  The IRAC photometry of G21-16 is 

2045: contaminated at all wavelengths.

2046: \label{fig5}}

2047: \end{figure}

2048: 

2049: \clearpage

2050: 

2051: \begin{figure}

2052: \plotone{f6.eps}

2053: \caption{Infrared excess flux from GD 362 and G29-38 after 

2054: subtraction of the expected white dwarf photospheric contributions

2055: at these wavelengths.  The data are $K$-band \citep*{skr06,bec05}, 

2056: IRAC $3-8$ $\mu$m (this work), IRS 16 $\mu$m \citep*{rea05a}, and 

2057: MIPS 24 $\mu$m \citep*{jur07a,rea05a}.  Plotted are models from

2058: \citet*{jur03} for disks with an inner temperature of 1200 K and 

2059: outer temperatures of 600 K (dotted lines) and 300 K (dashed lines) 

2060: respectively.  Also shown are 900 K and 1000 K blackbody curves 

2061: (dashed-dotted lines).

2062: \label{fig6}}

2063: \end{figure}

2064: 

2065: \clearpage

2066: 

2067: \begin{figure}

2068: \plotone{f7.eps}

2069: \caption{$L$-grism spectrum of G29-38 taken with NIRI, normalized,

2070: then flux calibrated using the IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m photometry.  There 

2071: appears to be a gentle slope towards 4 $\mu$m, but the spectrum is

2072: otherwise featureless.  The resolution is $\lambda/\Delta\lambda

2073: \approx500$ and the data are neither binned nor smoothed.

2074: \label{fig7}}

2075: \end{figure}

2076: 

2077: \clearpage

2078: 

2079: \begin{figure}

2080: \plotone{f8.eps}

2081: \caption{IRAC images of G166-58 in all four channels, each spanning 

2082: a $54''\times54''$ field of view.  The top of each image corresponds 

2083: to position angle $125.7\arcdeg$, increasing counterclockwise.  The 

2084: adjacent extragalactic source (discussed in \S4.4.1) is located $5''.3$

2085: from the white dwarf at position angle $87.6\arcdeg$.  The proper motion

2086: of G166-58 ($\mu=0.''64$ ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ at $\theta=165.2\arcdeg$; 

2087: \citealt*{bak02}), is nearly perpendicular to the direction toward

2088: the background source.

2089: \label{fig8}}

2090: \end{figure}

2091: 

2092: \clearpage

2093: 

2094: \begin{figure}

2095: \plotone{f9.eps}

2096: \caption{Linear contours for 7.9 $\mu$m images of G166-58, drawn

2097: from 1.45 to 2.80 MJy ${\rm sr^{-1}}$ in steps of 0.15 MJyr ${\rm sr^{-1}}$.  

2098: The dotted lines show the contours for the central part of the image shown in 

2099: the lower right panel of Figure \ref{fig8}, which includes the nearby galaxy.  

2100: The solid lines show identical contours for a similar image where the galaxy 

2101: has been fitted and removed as described in \S4.4.1.  The solid contour

2102: near offset (1,2) is residual signal after subtraction of the galaxy.

2103: \label{fig9}}

2104: \end{figure}

2105: 

2106: \clearpage

2107: 

2108: \begin{figure}

2109: \plotone{f10.eps}

2110: \caption{IRAC 3.6$\mu$m image of PG 0235+064 and its M dwarf companion,

2111: separated by $7''.4$ at $344\arcdeg$.  The top of the image corresponds

2112: to position angle $253.3\arcdeg$, increasing counterclockwise.  The white

2113: dwarf is quite faint at $m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}=16.0$ mag, while the red dwarf

2114: dominates with $m_{3.6\mu {\rm m}}=10.7$ mag.

2115: \label{fig10}}

2116: \end{figure}

2117: 

2118: \end{document}