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

2: 

3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

4: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

5: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

6: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

7: 

8: %

9: \tighten

10: %

11: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

12: \def\ltwig{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

13:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

14: \def\gtwig{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

15:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

16: \def\blankline{\par\vskip \baselineskip}

17: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: 

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

23: \newcommand{\simle}{\mbox{$\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}$}}

24: \newcommand{\simge}{\mbox{$\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}$}}

25: 

26: 

27: %\ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

28: %% we are running LaTeX, not pdflatex

29: %\usepackage{graphicx}

30: %\else

31: %% we are running pdflatex, so convert .eps files to .pdf

32: %\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

33: %\usepackage{epstopdf}

34: %\fi

35: 

36: 

37: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

38: 

39: %\slugcomment{Submit to PASP?}

40: 

41: \shorttitle{The prototype colliding-wind pinwheel WR~104}

42: \shortauthors{ Tuthill et al.}

43: 

44: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

45: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

50: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

51: %% you desire.

52: 

53: %% \title{Spatially resolving the infrared emission shell in P Cygni}

54: \title{The prototype colliding-wind pinwheel WR~104}

55: 

56: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

57: %% author and affiliation information.

58: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

59: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

60: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

61: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

62: 

63: \author{Peter~G.~Tuthill}

64: \affil{School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia} 

65: \email{p.tuthill@physics.usyd.edu.au}

66: 

67: \author{John~D.~Monnier}

68: \affil{University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Department of Astronomy, 

69: 500 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1090, USA}

70: \email{monnier@umich.edu}

71: 

72: \author{Nicholas~Lawrance}

73: \affil{School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, 

74:        University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia}

75: \email{n.lawrance@acfr.usyd.edu.au}

76: 

77: \author{William~C.~Danchi}

78: \affil{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Infrared Astrophysics,

79:                  Code 685, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA}

80: \email{wcd@iri1.gsfc.nasa.gov}

81: 

82: \author{Stan~P.~Owocki}

83: \affil{Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware,

84:        Newark, DE 19716}

85: \email{owocki@bartol.udel.edu}

86: 

87: \and

88: 

89: \author{Kenneth~G.~Gayley}

90: \affil{University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52245}

91: \email{ken.gayley@gmail.com}

92: 

93: 

94: %

95: %

96: %\author{G.~M.~ Hill}

97: %\affil{W.M. Keck Observatory, 65-1120 Mamalahoa Hwy, Kamuela, HI 96743, USA}

98: %\email{ghill@keck.hawaii.edu}

99: 

100: %\author{M.~J.~Ireland} ?

101: %\author{Jay? Townes?}

102: 

103: %\clearpage

104: 

105: \begin{abstract}

106: 

107: Results from the most extensive study of the time-evolving dust structure

108: around the prototype ``Pinwheel'' nebula WR~104 are presented.

109: Encompassing 11 epochs in three near-infrared filter bandpasses, a homogeneous 

110: imaging data set spanning more than 6 years (or 10 orbits) is presented.

111: Data were obtained from the highly successful Keck Aperture Masking Experiment,

112: which can recover high fidelity images at extremely high angular resolutions, 

113: revealing the geometry of the plume with unprecedented precision. 

114: Inferred properties for the (unresolved) underlying binary and wind system are 

115: orbital period 241.5$\pm$0.5\,days and angular outflow velocity of 

116: 0.28$\pm$0.02\,mas/day.

117: An optically thin cavity of angular size $13.3\pm1.4$\,mas was found to lie

118: between the central binary and the onset of the spiral dust plume.

119: Rotational motion of the wind system induced by the binary orbit is found to have 

120: important ramifications: entanglement of the winds results in strong shock 

121: activity far downstream from the nose of the bowshock.

122: The far greater fraction of the winds participating in the collision may play a

123: key role in gas compression and the nucleation of dust at large radii from the 

124: central binary and shock stagnation point.

125: Investigation of the effects of radiative braking pointed towards significant 

126: modifications of the simple hydrostatic colliding wind geometry, extending the 

127: relevance of this phenomena to wider binary systems than previously considered.

128: Limits placed on the maximum allowed orbital eccentricity of $e$~\simle~0.06 

129: argue strongly for a prehistory of tidal circularization in this system.

130: Finally we discuss the implications of Earth's polar ($i$\simle$16^\circ$) vantage

131: point onto a system likely to host supernova explosions at future epochs.

132: 

133: %Implications for the appearance of the nebula (in particular the shadow

134: %cast upon the second coil) and comparison with results from numerical

135: %radiative transfer models are discussed.

136: %Contemporaneous multi-wavelength data has shown a first tentative detection 

137: %of a non-flat thermal profile across the width of the plume, and has also 

138: %permitted multi-epoch near-infrared photometric lightcurves to be generated.

139: %Many of these results, and the diffraction-limited images provided, should form

140: %an important resource for future detailed modelling of the dusty colliding-wind

141: %binary phenomena. 

142: 

143: \end{abstract}

144: 

145: \keywords{stars: individual(\objectname{WR 104}), stars: mass loss,

146:  instrumentation: interferometers, stars: imaging, stars:winds, outflows}

147: %%\object{P Cygni}

148: 

149: \section{Introduction}

150: 

151: The first well-resolved images of the dusty, IR-luminous Wolf-Rayet

152: star WR~104 revealed an elegant plume stretching hundreds of AU from the 

153: bright core and following a trajectory closely matched to an Archimedeian 

154: spiral \citep{nature99}.

155: The origin of this geometry is simple and highly intuitive: material is 

156: embedded within a uniformly-expanding spherical wind driven from the hot

157: stars at the heart of the system, yet the orbital motion of a central

158: binary causes a rotating wake embedded within the flow.

159: These images gave immediate confirmation of the colliding-wind binary nature 

160: of dust production in WR~104, and at the same time presented astronomy with 

161: a new type of object for study: a ``Pinwheel'' nebula.

162: 

163: Although we found no specific predictions in the literature for such a 

164: spiral dust plume in dusty Wolf-Rayets such as WR~104, the same combination of 

165: orbital and outflow motions led \citet{Kuiper41} to predict exactly this geometry 

166: for the circumstellar environment around the eclipsing binary $\beta$~Lyr.

167: In fact use of the term ``Pinwheel'' to describe such a structure can be found 

168: as early as 1950 \citep{Struve50}, and theoretical study of colliding-wind

169: binary systems has since developed an extensive literature 

170: \citep[e.g.][and refs therein]{SB92,WF00}.

171: The basic picture of colliding-winds mediating dust production was formulated 

172: to explain the episodic dust-producer WR~140, which became something of a

173: `Rosetta Stone' system in important papers establishing the model 

174: \citep{Williams90,Usov91}.

175: It is also interesting, although perhaps tangential to the work of this paper, 

176: to note that Archimedian spirals may arise in quite distinct mass-loss environments

177: such as the binary reflex-motion induced structure recently seen in AFGL~3068

178: \citep{MH06}.

179: 

180: Observational confirmation of the pinwheel nebula around WR~104 has not yet been 

181: attained by adaptive optics imaging due to the requirement for a stable, well 

182: characterized point-spread function enabling recovery of structure at the diffraction 

183: limit \citep{Jay04}.

184: However, a number of other techniques have been used to confirm the presence of the

185: spiral plume including high spatial resolution lunar occultations \citep{MS02}, 

186: variations in the visible lightcurve of 241\,days in accord with the orbital period 

187: derived from interferometry \citep{Kato02}, together with extensive follow-on 

188: observations with aperture masking interferometry \citep{wrconf02,wrconf03,Monnier07}.

189: Reports of binarity in the WR~104 system \citep{Crowther97} appeared shortly before 

190: the original discovery of the spiral, with the spectral classification for the object 

191: given in \citet{7cat} as WC9d~+~B0.5V~(+VB), although given the uncertainties we refer 

192: to the second component spectrum (actually brighter by a factor of $\sim$2) as OB.

193: Detailed radiative transfer modelling, confirming the appearance and basic observational

194: properties of the pinwheel, has been performed by \citet{Harries04}.

195: 

196: The discovery of similar structures in an expanding list of host systems

197: has served to motivate further interest in these objects.

198: The second such system to be found, WR~98a \citep{Monnier99}, showed a similar 

199: morphology implying approximately matched basic properties (in terms of orbital period 

200: and windspeed) to the prototype WR~104.

201: However, a more diverse population is also coming to light including WR~112 

202: \citep{Marchenko02} which appears to have a significantly longer 25\,yr binary 

203: period, and the high orbital eccentricity 8\,yr system WR~140 whose periodic 

204: periastron passages have been shown to throw off a remarkable series of dusty arcs 

205: \citep{Monnier02b,MM06}.

206: Recently, a dramatic association of at least two and probably five such spiral

207: systems was discovered near the Galactic Center at the heart of the massive

208: Quintuplet Cluster \citep{Quint06}.

209: 

210: The status of Wolf-Rayets as candidate progenitors to type~Ib/c  %(and possibly type~IIb)

211: supernovae \citep[reviews can be found in][]{Bethe90,VLV98,WHW02} has generated

212: considerable interest in their mass loss histories.

213: In particular, structures within the circumstellar environment, into which the

214: supernova blast wave expands, have the capacity to interact with the ejecta modifying

215: the lightcurve and observed properties of the explosion. 

216: Indeed, \citet{Ryder04} observed a residual fluctuating or rippled signal, obtained

217: when subtracting a spherical best-fit model from the observed radio lightcurve of

218: supernova 2001ig.

219: The most likely interpretation for these modulations, they argue, arises as the

220: supernova shock encounters periodic density enhancements embedded in the 

221: circumstellar environment by a colliding-wind binary pinwheel system.

222: With the rapidly solidifying links between supernovae and gamma-ray bursts

223: \citep{WB06}, the mechanisms by which such mass-loss signatures may become

224: encoded within the lightcurves of the most energetic explosions in the

225: cosmos are being explored \citep{MR05}.

226: 

227: In this paper, we present the results of the most extensive diffraction-limited

228: imaging study yet performed on the prototype pinwheel system, WR~104. 

229: Observations encompass three different near-infrared filter bandpasses and eleven 

230: distinct epochs covering more than six years (almost ten orbital periods) of the 

231: system.

232: With the structure of the time-evolving plume revealed in unprecedented detail, 

233: we are able to address key outstanding questions regarding the way in which the

234: dust formation is mediated by the colliding winds of the binary.

235: Multi-wavelength observations are helpful in teasing apart the complex

236: three-dimensional geometrical, thermal and illumination effects which go into 

237: creating the phenomena we see as a pinwheel nebula.

238: 

239: 

240: \section{Observations}

241: 

242: Monitoring of a number of dust-forming Wolf-Rayet stars was performed as

243: part of our aperture-masking interferometry program begun at the Keck~1 

244: telescope in 1996.

245: This has produced astrophysical results spanning a range of different areas

246: within contemporary stellar physics including studies of young stars

247: \citep{mwc349,Tuthill02}; evolved pulsating stars and giants 

248: \citep{Tuthill00,Monnier04}; and dusty mass-loss shrouds in proto-planetary

249: nebulae and transition objects \citep{Monnier00,redrect02}.

250: A full description of the experiment including a discussion of the conceptual

251: principles and signal-to-noise considerations underlying masking interferometry

252: is given in \citet{keckmask} while further discussion of systematics and seeing

253: induced errors can be found in \citet{Monnier04}.

254: 

255: Observations presented here all used a partially-redundant annular mask geometry 

256: first suggested by \citet{HB92} which was found to deliver robust imaging for

257: targets as faint as $m_K\sim6$\,mag with complete Fourier coverage out to the

258: 8\,m maximum baseline passed by the mask.

259: The detector used for this work was the NIRC camera with image magnifying 

260: front-optics modifying the plate scale so as to sample the diffraction-limited

261: beam \citep{nirc96}.

262: A relatively rapid-exposure ($T_{int} = 0.14$\,sec) and high data volume (data

263: cubes containing 100 frames) speckle observing mode was utilized, although this

264: was not as well developed as it could have been and suffered from an inherent low

265: duty cycle of at best 20\% set by the camera electronics. 

266: 

267: Observations of science targets were interleaved with those of nearby unresolved 

268: point-spread function (PSF) reference stars, and the extraction of calibrated

269: visibility and closure-phase data followed established practices within speckle

270: or masking interferometry \citep{keckmask}.

271: All $V^2$ and closure phase data products were stored in the FITS-based 

272: Optical Interferometry data exchange format \citep[OI-FITS][]{oifits05}, 

273: and are available on request from the authors.

274: Images were recovered using a number of different numerical methods 

275: including the CLEAN algorithm \citep{clean} and with several maximum

276: entropy \citep{mem} based methods \citep{devinder,macim}.

277: With some variation in levels of fidelity and resolution obtained, all methods 

278: produced similar structures to those presented in the following sections, and

279: hereafter we show exclusively the results of the VLBMEM package \citep{devinder}.

280: 

281: A journal of masking observations of WR~104 is given in Table~\ref{obstable},

282: while information about the three interference filters within the infrared

283: H, K and L bands utilized in the study is given in Table~\ref{filtable}.

284: A number of different PSF reference stars were observed, all of which are relatively

285: nearby (typically within about $5^\circ$ on the sky) and tailored to give roughly

286: similar received counts under various observing configurations. 

287: The primary calibrator stars utilized were SAO~186681, SAO~186841, 14~Sgr and 

288: HD~165813 although occasionally additional stars were used for confirmatory 

289: checks.

290: 

291: In addition to their scientific merit, it is worth noting that the images presented

292: in later sections are a strong testament to the power of aperture masking 

293: interferometry in the recovery of high fidelity images.

294: In particular, the pinwheel around WR~104 resolved here possesses strongly 

295: asymmetric structure at intermediate dynamic range to the bright core.

296: Deconvolution to obtain at least the full diffraction limit is essential (and 

297: ideally, some super-resolution beyond it), as the structure

298: recovered is formally only a few resolution elements across.  

299: Seeing conditions over the twelve observing nights found in Table~\ref{obstable}

300: varied over a wide range from extremely poor to very good.

301: Robust, high-fidelity images were recovered for all epochs and in all filters observed.

302: 

303: This is in contrast to the failure to recover significant reliable 

304: structure from the one attempt (we are aware of) to image this target with 

305: adaptive optics \citep{Jay04}.

306: The presence of asymmetric and time-varying extended structure at high resolutions 

307: which is nevertheless completely predictable in morphology makes WR~104 almost

308: ideally suited as a ``test pattern'' target against which imaging experiments may 

309: be benchmarked, and we look forward to confirmatory results from new

310: generations of AO instruments. 

311: 

312: 

313: %\section{Results}

314: \subsection{K-band images}

315: %\section{K-band images}

316: 

317: Images recovered from data taken at 11 separate epochs in the CH4 filter

318: are presented in Figure~\ref{kmaps}.

319: Although there are 12 observing dates given in Table~\ref{obstable}, the

320: first two of 1998 Apr~14 and Apr~15, being separated by only one day, did

321: not give significantly different images and these data have been averaged together

322: for the remainder of this paper.

323: Experience has taught that images recovered from filters within the infrared

324: K-band usually deliver the highest fidelity. 

325: The PAHCS filter at longer wavelengths has significantly lower angular resolution

326: with a corresponding loss of detail.

327: On the other hand, the H filter at shorter wavelengths suffers from more severe

328: seeing-induced calibration noise, and furthermore the target star WR~104 is

329: also two magnitudes fainter here than at K (due to the rising IR excess).

330: We therefore begin our discussion of the image morphology with images recovered from

331: the CH4 filter in the K-band, and we later contrast the results from the other filters 

332: against this reference.

333: 

334: The images of Figure~\ref{kmaps} demonstrate the recovery of extended structures 

335: around the bright core with typical image dynamical ranges in excess of 100:1, 

336: although higher noise levels due to poor seeing did limit fidelity on occasion

337: (e.g. Jun01 and May04 epochs).

338: The predominant feature at all epochs is a curved plume originating in a bright 

339: compact core, and wrapping around a full turn at which point there is a rapid 

340: fading in surface brightness to about 1\% of the image peak.

341: Beyond the bright first coil, at angular radii $\simge$ 100\,mas, there can 

342: often be seen further windings of a continuing spiral, or in some cases substantial

343: segments of arcs, at a significance at or somewhat above (e.g. Apr98, Jun98)

344: the noise level in each individual image.

345: 

346: The overplotted dashed line on each image in Figure~\ref{kmaps} gives the best-fit 

347: Archimedian spiral model, which is discussed in greater detail in the following 

348: section.

349: Each image has been registered so that the mathematical center of the 

350: best-fit spiral (and not the brightest pixel) defines the coordinate origin.

351: 

352: 

353: \subsection{Archimedian spiral model}

354: %\section{Archimedian spiral model}

355: 

356: An automated procedure was used to extract the coordinates of points lying 

357: along the crest of the bright spiral ridges from the images of Figure~\ref{kmaps}.

358: A model could then be fit to all 11 epochs of data simultaneously.

359: This model consisted of a uniformly-rotating Archimedian spiral, with 

360: free parameters: $P$ the rotational period, $W$ the angular expansion (wind) speed,

361: $i$ the inclination to the line-of-sight, $\phi$ the position angle of $i$, and

362: $\theta_0$ the position angle of the model at the first epoch (Apr98). 

363: There were two additional translational degrees of freedom associated with the

364: registration of the model to the image at each epoch.

365: 

366: With nearly 10 complete rotations of the structure covered by our data series, 

367: it was possible to obtain significantly more precise estimates for the model 

368: parameters than previously published work.

369: In particular, best-fit models constrained $P$ to be 241.5$\pm$0.5\,days, a value

370: in very good agreement with the previous best interferometric value 

371: \citep[243.5$\pm$3\,d;][]{wrconf02} and with the reported photometric

372: period \citep[241\,d;][]{Kato02}.

373: The windspeed $W$ was found to be 0.28$\pm$0.02\,mas/day (or 102$\pm$7\,mas/yr),

374: also in accord with prior findings \citep{wrconf02}.

375: Our best fit for $i = 12^\circ$, although the 1-sigma uncertainty covers

376: a range from $0^\circ$~--~$16^\circ$.

377: Precise constraint of the inclination was hampered by the nearly face-on 

378: viewing angle to the system: $12^\circ$ only results in a 2\% distortion 

379: of the aspect ratio.

380: Sky orientation parameters were found to be $\phi = 84^\circ\pm15^\circ$

381: and $\theta_0 = 269^\circ\pm1^\circ$.

382: 

383: Despite the fact that the model was only fit to ridge points extracted from 

384: the bright inner winding of the spiral, it can be seen from Figure~\ref{kmaps} 

385: that it also provides a relatively good representation of the structure in

386: the fainter outer regions.

387: This implies that the second winding of the spiral follows closely the

388: expected trajectory from simple expansion, and that the plume remains

389: relatively well defined and compact as it evolves.

390: 

391: A key finding of the modelling study was that the mathematical origin of the

392: best-fit spiral was always systematically offset from the center of the 

393: bright core of flux in the images in a highly consistent fashion,

394: as can be seen from Figure~\ref{kmaps}.

395: This ``standoff distance'' between the spiral center and brightest pixel 

396: was found to be $13.3\pm1.4$\,mas which amounted to a rotational displacement 

397: downstream along the locus of the spiral of  $85^\circ\pm14^\circ$.

398: Implications for the physical model of the dusty colliding-wind binary from

399: the modelling and imaging presented here are discussed further in 

400: later sections.

401: 

402: 

403: \subsection{H and L-band images}

404: %\section{H and L-band images}

405: \label{HLimages}

406: 

407: A series of 11 images recovered from H-filter data are presented in Figure~\ref{hmaps}.

408: Although image fidelity is somewhat lower than for the CH4 filter, the inner bright

409: spiral structure is well displayed at all epochs. 

410: Similarly, Figure~\ref{lmaps} shows images recovered from the PAHCS filter from the 

411: short-wavelength side of L-band. 

412: Data were only collected in this band for the first six epochs of our study (see

413: Table~\ref{obstable}), and the resolution obtained is lower than the other filters

414: due to the longer wavelength.

415: The spiral structure of the inner coil is again readily apparent.

416: 

417: Archimedian spiral models were fitted to all H and PAHCS images following the procedure

418: described above.

419: Model parameters such as rotational period and winding angle were found to be in 

420: accord with the results from the CH4 filter, however the lower quality of the image

421: data meant that the fits did not significantly advance our knowledge of these 

422: properties.

423: 

424: A more profitable strategy for interpretation of the H and PAHCS images was to

425: fix the spiral model parameters $P$, $W$, $i$ and $\phi$ to their values obtained

426: above, and to examine the new data for evidence of systematic changes from this 

427: baseline model.

428: One relatively subtle change found was in the mean rotational orientation of the 

429: spiral (model parameter $\theta_0$).

430: It was found that the mean rotational displacement of models fitting the H images

431: were retarded by $6^\circ$ (counterclockwise) while the PAHCS images were found

432: to be advanced by $4^\circ$ (clockwise) compared to the CH4 reference model.

433: This effect was seen in two independent data-fitting approaches, the first used

434: a similar strategy to that above in fitting to points along ridge crests, while 

435: the second entailed the generation of an average CH4 image which was then 

436: rotated and fit to each trial H/PAHCS image. 

437: The latter procedure was found to be more robust as it was less sensitive to 

438: resolution effects which might blur out the exact location of the ridge crest.

439: 

440: A strong note of caution needs to be emphasized here because these relatively small

441: changes in rotation are obtained from comparison between images with differing 

442: angular resolutions.

443: In order to investigate the effect of the decline in image resolution going to

444: longer wavelengths H--CH4--PAHCS, simulations were performed in which images were 

445: artificially smoothed, and models fit to determine if there were systematic changes 

446: in the recovered parameters.

447: Indeed, we found clear and systematic changes of best fit rotation angle, measured 

448: to be about $5^\circ$ in a {\em counterclockwise} sense when the simulated 

449: resolution was degraded to imitate the transitions H--CH4 and CH4--PAHCS.

450: This makes intuitive sense: lowering the resolution tends to blur the center

451: together, and the projecting arm of the spiral {\em appears} to rotate as more of it

452: is lost to the expanding core.

453: However what is interesting is that this resolution-induced rotational bias 

454: is in the opposite sense to the observed {\em clockwise} rotations of $6^\circ$  

455: H--CH4 and $4^\circ$ CH4--PAHCS.

456: It is therefore likely that the true magnitude of this rotation with observing

457: wavelength is underestimated here by a factor of two due to the bias counteracting

458: the signal.

459: However, the fitting of any models to images at the resolution limit is challenging,

460: and spirals perhaps even more so as due to their self-similar nature.

461: The confirmation and unveiling of detailed substructures within the WR~104 plume

462: must therefore await more powerful telescopes or imaging arrays with still higher 

463: angular resolution.

464: 

465: \subsection{Lightcurves}

466: %\section{Lightcurves}

467: 

468: Although our imaging experiment was not specifically designed to yield

469: flux measurements, it was possible to extract photometry within our three

470: near-infrared filters to within $\sim 0.1 - 0.2$\,mag, although for some

471: nights there were light clouds which compromised the measurement accuracy.

472: These measurements are presented in Figure~\ref{lightcurves}, and show the

473: infrared fluxes to be fairly constant in the H and CH4 filters (to within a 

474: few tenths of a magnitude). 

475: A larger variation is seen in the PAHCS filter, although it lacks any clear

476: sinusoidal signature with phase and may arise from higher noise levels due

477: to atmospheric contamination (this filter lies near the edge of the infrared 

478: L band window).

479: 

480:  

481: %\section{Discussion}

482: %\label{discuss}

483: 

484: %\subsection{Basic Geometry and Physical Properties}

485: \section{Basic Geometry and Physical Properties}

486: \label{basicprop}

487: 

488: In order to illustrate the physical properties of the WR~104 pinwheel

489: system in the discussions that follow, a cartoon of the basic geometry 

490: is given in Figure~\ref{cartoon}.

491: A pole-on view onto a $20^\circ$ opening half-angle spiral shock is depicted, 

492: together with key elements of the system such as the central binary star,

493: the optically thin inner region of the plume and the dusty first and

494: second coils.

495: 

496: If we are able to measure the physical speed of the dust plume, then

497: this may be combined with the apparent angular velocity to yield the

498: distance to the system.

499: Following \citet{nature99}, if we identify the terminal WR windspeed 

500: obtained spectroscopically as $V_\infty = 1\,220$\,km/s \citep{HS92} then we

501: may combine this with our proper motion of 0.28$\pm$0.02\,mas/day to yield a 

502: distance to the system of 2.6$\pm$0.7\,kpc.

503: By far the dominant error is from the $\sim$25\% uncertainty in the

504: windspeed found by comparing the results of different line profile studies

505: \citep{RN95} (velocities as high as 1\,600\,km/s have been reported for

506: WR~104 \citep{TCM86}).

507: 

508: The distance derived in this fashion is somewhat larger than the 1.6\,kpc 

509: estimate from possible membership of Sgr~OB1 \citep{LS84}; a discrepancy 

510: which motivated \citet[][hereafter HMSK]{Harries04} to question the validity 

511: of this method.

512: These authors preferred the smaller distance scale on the basis that the 

513: WR wind may be subject to radiative braking at the OB~star \citep{GOC97}, 

514: and thus the terminal wind velocity may not be representative of the 

515: bulk motion of the observed dust plume.

516: It is instructive to pursue this controversy further, for it illuminates

517: some of the unique and interesting properties of these Pinwheel systems.

518: 

519: Let us consider a very simple picture in which we distinguish only 3 populations

520: of gas in the colliding wind system: the free WR wind, the free OB wind, 

521: and the material around the shock surface which will contain both, but with

522: modified density and velocity.

523: We will furthermore, for the present, restrict our attention to the 

524: hydrodynamic treatment of the inner shock with opening angle given

525: by HMSK.

526: This ignores possible modifications to the shock geometry due to radiative 

527: braking, and we devote the Section~\ref{radbrak} to a discussion of these effects.

528: 

529: For an ordinary (non-rotating) bowshock system, these populations of gas

530: interact strongly in the heart of the system but at large distances are

531: able to flow more-or-less unimpeded for they occupy distinct regions of space.

532: As the dust is known to form around the colliding-wind interface, the arguments 

533: of HMSK would be correct in suggesting a lower velocity for the  

534: material in the dust plume from the various braking mechanisms (radiative, shocks).

535: 

536: However, this picture breaks down for the Pinwheel systems when we introduce

537: the rotation of the plume driven by the binary orbit. 

538: Recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of colliding-winds in 

539: binary systems which include the coriolis effect have shown strong departures

540: from the simple non-rotating case \citep{LSG07}.

541: Asymmetric shock strengths on the leading and trailing edges of the shock spiral

542: were demonstrated.

543: Although these simulations were mostly concerned with the inner regions of

544: colliding wind systems, there will also be important consequences at large

545: radii which need to be considered for the case of WR~104's dust plume.

546: 

547: The resultant geometry will be much more complicated because the OB wind will

548: become thoroughly wrapped and entangled within the spherically-expanding WR 

549: wind. 

550: The interpenetration of the two winds leads to a very different outcome 

551: than for the non-rotating case.

552: It is no longer possible for the distinct populations of gas

553: to travel at different speeds without interfering, and in the orbital

554: plane containing the shock,  at large radii all 

555: populations of gas must collide and eventually come to a common velocity.

556: The two key questions we need to answer to understand the form of the 

557: spiral plume are (1) what is this final velocity $V_F$, and (2) how long 

558: will it take until the material in the plume is moving at $V_F$?

559: 

560: We may answer (1) with a quantitative discussion of the wind kinetic energy.

561: Following HMSK, for the WR component we adopt a mass-loss

562: rate ${\dot M} = 3 \times 10^{-5} \,M_\odot$/yr, and a windspeed

563: $V_{\infty,WR} = 1\,220$\,km/s, while for the OB star we have 

564: ${\dot M} = 6 \times 10^{-8} \, M_\odot$/yr and $V_{\infty,OB} \approx 2\,000$\,km/s.

565: The opening angle for the shock can now be calculated from the formula given

566: in \citet{EU93} to be $\theta = 17.4^\circ$ half-angle (rounded to $20^\circ$ half

567: or $40^\circ$ full opening angle in HMSK).

568: Note that this explicitly ignores any widening of the opening angle due

569: to radiative braking (see Section~\ref{radbrak}), but we proceed with this

570: value for the present to ensure consistency with HMSK.

571: At large radii, the solid-angle subtended by the shock cone will be 

572: $\Omega = 2\pi(1-cos\theta) = 0.03$\,sr, so that in the non-rotating case,

573: about 3\% of the WR wind and 97\% of the OB wind will participate in the

574: collision.

575: We define $R_{bowshock}$ to be the volume ratio of the WR wind involved in the 

576: initial bowshock.

577: 

578: In the rotating case, however, a far larger fraction of the WR wind will 

579: eventually collide due to the entanglement of the winds. 

580: Winds along the two polar axes, with solid angle 

581: $\Omega_p = 2\pi(1-cos(\pi/2 - \theta)) = 4.1$\,sr from the WR can propagate 

582: unimpeded.

583: However all gas within an equatorial angular band within $\pm \theta$ from

584: the plane of the orbit must eventually collide with the plume -- for our

585: geometry of $\theta = 20^\circ$ this corresponds to 34\% of the total WR wind.

586: Of this 34\%, it is crucial to point out that only $R_{bowshock}$~=~3\% will undergo 

587: a `prompt' collision at or just downstream of the shock stagnation point, the remaining

588: 31\% will only collide at larger radii as the spiral windings gradually entangle the 

589: winds.

590: 

591: If we assume, as seems reasonable for a relatively wide colliding-wind binary, that 

592: the shock is mostly adiabatic with little radiative energy loss. 

593: The kinetic energy flux of the asymptotic flow for the entangled winds can be found: 

594: 

595: \beq

596: \label{ke_balance}

597: %{M$_F$} $V_F = $R$_{WR}$  {M$_{WR}$}$ V_{\infty,WR} + $R$_{OB}$  {M$_{OB}$}$ V_{\infty,OB}$

598: \frac{1}{2} {\dot M}_F V_F^2 = 

599: \frac{1}{2} R_{WR} {\dot M}_{WR} V_{\infty,WR}^2 + \frac{1}{2} R_{OB} {\dot M}_{OB} V_{\infty,OB}^2

600: \eeq

601: 

602: Here, $R_{WR}$ and $R_{OB}$ are the fractional volumes of the WR and OB winds that are

603: involved in the collision; from the geometrical arguments above we take 

604: $R_{WR} = 0.34$ and $R_{OB} = 1.0$. 

605: Substituting values into this equation we calculate that the fast (but tenuous) OB wind will 

606: modify the final $V_F$ in the equatorial plane from 1\,220\,km/s to 1\,226\,km/s: an 

607: insignificant change. 

608: 

609: The model may be further refined by adding a third population of radiatively braked

610: material, as suggested by HMSK.

611: Let us suppose (as an upper limit) that {\em all} WR wind impinging upon the 

612: $\theta = 20^\circ$ conical shock (3\% of the total) is so braked. 

613: A preliminary estimate of 800\,km/s for $V_P$ the streaming velocity of material in 

614: the shock cone has been obtained by fitting to the C~III 5696\,\AA\ line profile 

615: (G. Hill et al., 2007 in preparation).

616: If we add this third population of gas to Equation~\ref{ke_balance}, we 

617: obtain $V_F = $1171\,km/s: a decrement of only 4\% on $V_{\infty,WR}$.

618: We therefore answer part (1) of our question above that $V_F = V_{\infty,WR}$ with

619: only very minor adjustment, confirming that the momentum-dominant WR wind will 

620: overwhelm other wind populations.

621: 

622: The second part of the question, finding how long will it take for the WR wind 

623: to predominate, has a bearing on the shape of the inner spiral: it will be

624: distorted away from Archimedian if the matter is accelerating.

625: A rough estimate can be obtained from a simple ``mass loading'' argument applied

626: in the equatorial plane of the system.

627: Let us suppose that in the wake immediately behind the OB star, a mass

628: $R_{bowshock} \times {\dot M}_{WR}$ of matter in the plume has a velocity 

629: $V_P \ll V_{\infty,WR}$. 

630: If material were to continue on this trajectory, after time $t$ it would be

631: overtaken by a mass of the faster wind equal to

632: \beq

633: %m = (1 - V_P / V_{\infty,WR}) \times t / P \times R_{WR} \times \.{M_{WR}}

634: m = (1 - \frac{V_P}{V_{\infty,WR}}) \frac{t}{P} \, R_{WR} \, {\dot M}_{WR}

635: \eeq

636: where P is the orbital period. 

637: We may solve this equation for $t / P$ to give the fraction of an orbital period 

638: in which a mass of material has collided with the plume from the free WR wind which

639: is equal to that already present from the initial bowshock. 

640: Using values from above, we find that 0.1 of an orbital period is sufficient to double

641: the piled-up mass at the inner wall (see Figure~\ref{cartoon}), and by the time matter

642: has reached the dust formation zone at a quarter turn, it will be strongly

643: ($\sim$70\%) momentum-dominated by the $V_{\infty,WR}$ wind.

644: 

645: This analysis confirms the general picture that the spiral plume in this system

646: is {\em rapidly and comprehensively momentum-coupled} to the strong WR wind.

647: The implied distance should therefore be 2.6$\pm$0.7\,kpc at which the displacement 

648: between successive spiral coils is 170\,AU, and the excellent match

649: to an Archimedian spiral confirmed.

650: It is very interesting to speculate that the spiral geometry, which allows a

651: far larger interaction between the winds and generates active shocks at much greater

652: radii than a non-rotating system, may also help play a role in the physics of dust

653: nucleation in these systems.

654: Indeed, due to the differing velocities of gasses in the region immediately behind

655: the wake, material will be piled up both at the inner and outer walls 

656: (see Figure~\ref{cartoon}).

657: Numerical simulation in three dimensions of this fascinating `twist' to a conventional 

658: bowshock geometry, extending the coriolis force hydrodynamic treatment of \citet{LSG07} 

659: to large radii, may prove a valuable guide for further progress in understanding 

660: these structures.

661: 

662: 

663: %\begin{equation}

664: %\end{equation}

665: 

666: 

667: \section{The Potential Role of Radiative Braking in WR~104}

668: \label{radbrak}

669: %

670: % Draft section on Radiative Braking for paper on WR104 with Peter

671: %Tuthill et al.

672: %

673: % 15Sep07: Version 2: first potentially complete draft -- handed off

674: %to Ken. 17Sep07

675: %

676: 

677: 

678: For WR+OB binary systems in which the momentum of the Wolf-Rayet wind

679: substantially exceeds that of the OB star, the WR wind can penetrate very

680: deeply into the acceleration region of the OB-star wind, and in such

681: cases it becomes relevant to consider the role of the OB-star

682: {\em light} in providing the momentum balance against the WR wind.

683: The analysis by Gayley, Owocki, \& Cranmer (1997, hereafter GOC)

684: suggests that this can lead to a ``sudden radiative braking'' of

685: the WR wind that 

686: can hold the stagnation point along the line of centers farther

687: off from the OB star.

688: %effectively prevents the WR wind from penetrating

689: %to the O-star surface, with then the larger effective radius of momentum

690: %balance implying a larger opening angle

691: This could also modify the angle

692: for the global wind interaction

693: cone, with ramifications for the observations of dust formation.

694: GOC further provide scaling relations to identify whether such

695: radiative braking is likely to be of importance for any given system,

696: and even provide a diagram (their figure 5) to classify several of the

697: known close WR+O binary systems.

698: Let us now apply these criterion to ascertain the potential

699: role of radiative braking for WR~104.

700: 

701: Note first that the systems identified by GOC as likely to have

702: radiative braking are mostly relatively close binaries with periods on the

703: order of days or weeks, and separations of only a few OB-star radii.

704: %(up to ca. 10)

705: For wider systems, spherical expansion dilutes the WR wind more strongly

706: in the region around the OB-star, making it easier for the OB-star wind

707: to maintain a standard wind-wind ram pressure balance.

708: But if the WR/OB wind momentum ratio,

709: \beq

710: P_{WR/OB} \ \equiv \ \frac{{\dot M}_{WR} V_{WR}}{{\dot M}_{OB} V_{OB}}

711: \, ,

712: \label{pwrodef}

713: \eeq

714: is sufficiently high, then even in a relatively wide system, such

715: as WR~104,

716: the standard ram pressure balance could potentially be supplanted by radiative

717: braking.

718: The model wind parameters for WR~104, from Section~\ref{basicprop}, do

719: indeed imply an

720: extreme momentum ratio, $ P_{WR/OB} \cong 305$, and so even the

721: relatively wide separation of $D \cong 2.4$~AU,

722: or $d \equiv D/R_{OB} \cong 50$~ OB-star radii,

723: might still induce radiative braking prior to achieving the hydrodynamical

724: stagnation of the winds.

725: 

726: \subsection{Estimating the braking radius in WR~104}

727: 

728: The following discussion makes use of a number of parameters that

729: are described in greater detail in GOC; for convenience here we 

730: provide a brief glossary introducing significant quantities.

731: Radiative acceleration is assumed proportional to $\eta$ which is

732: found from the effective opacity due to the integral of the forest

733: of spectral lines in the wind. 

734: The parameter $\alpha$ was introduced by \citet{CAK} to describe how

735: sensitively the line force increases with wind acceleration.

736: GOC found it convenient to define normalized quantities for

737: radiative braking separation $d_{rb}$ and momentum ratio $P_{rb}$ 

738: which could be used to scale the actual separation and momentum

739: ratio to gauge the significance of braking in individual cases

740: (see GOC for detailed derivations).

741: 

742: To locate WR~104 on the GOC figure 5 classification diagram,

743: this wind momentum ratio $P_{WR/OB}$ and separation $d$ must be

744: further scaled by associated

745: radiative braking values, $P_{rb}$ and $d_{rb}$.

746: To determine those, we first need to evaluate the parameter $\eta$,

747: given by GOC eqn. (29), which unfortunately includes an undefined

748: parameter $v_{\ast}$ (for that parameter, see Gayley, Owocki, \& Cranmer

749: 1996).

750: Reconstruction of the GOC analysis leads to 

751: \beq

752: \eta \ = \ \frac{1}{\alpha^{\alpha/(1-\alpha)} \, (1+\alpha)}

753: \left ( \frac{L_{OB}}{L_{WR}} \right )^{1/(1-\alpha)} \,

754: \frac {2 GM_{WR}}{V_{WR}^{2} R_{OB}}

755: \ = \ \frac{4}{3} \, \left ( \frac{L_{OB}}{L_{WR}} \right )^{2} \,

756: \left ( \frac{V_{esc,WR}}{V_{WR}} \right )^{2} \, \frac{R_{WR}}{R_{OB}}

757: \, ,

758: \label{etadef}

759: \eeq

760: where the latter equality applies to the simple case that the

761: power index $\alpha = 1/2$, and

762: also recasts the scaling in terms of the ratio of WR wind speed to

763: surface escape speed.

764: Note that, in addition to replacing the undefined $v_{\ast}$, this

765: formulation has the advantage of being manifestly independent of the

766: separation $D$, as required by GOC eqns. (11), (12), and (17).

767: 

768: Applying the wind parameters from Section~\ref{basicprop}, we find 

769: (assuming $\alpha=1/2$) that for WR~104,

770: $\eta \cong 1.65$.

771: Plugging this into GOC eqn. (30) then leads to $d_{rb} \cong 2.1$.

772: For a standard velocity index $\beta =1$, we then further find

773: $P_{rb} \cong 0.642$.

774: %%kgg-- from here on I'm scaling up all D by 2.38/2 = 1.19

775: Using these with the above values for $P_{WR/OB}$ and $d$,

776: we then find a scaled momentum ratio

777: \beq

778: {\hat P} \ \equiv \ \frac{P_{WR/OB}}{P_{rb}} \ = \ \frac{305}{0.642} \ = \ 475

779: \, ,

780: \eeq

781: and scaled separation

782: \beq

783: {\hat d} \ \equiv \ \frac{d}{d_{rb}} \ = \ \frac{50}{2.1} = 24

784: \, .

785: \eeq

786: In the $\log {\hat P}$ vs. $\log {\hat d} $ plane, systems with

787: radiative braking are defined by the triangular region with

788: both $\log {\hat d} >  0$ and $\log {\hat P} > 2 \log {\hat d}$.

789: The former ensures that the momentum of the OB-star light is sufficient

790: to keep the WR wind from impacting the OB-star surface,

791: and is easily satisfied in this case.

792: The latter condition implies that there can be no normal ram pressure

793: balance between the winds, and thus that radiative braking must

794: stop the WR wind;

795: since for the above parameters, we have ${\hat P} = 475 > 407 = {\hat

796: d}^{2}$, implying that this is condition is also satisfied, although

797: more marginally.

798: If, for example, the estimated wind momentum ratio were reduced by

799: more than about 15\%, or the separation were increased by more than

800: about 7\%, then the system would no longer satisfy this latter

801: condition.

802: In those cases, a normal ram-pressure balance is still allowed, but

803: even then radiative braking can play a role if the braking radius is

804: outside the wind-wind balance radius.

805: 

806: From GOC eqn. (18), we find that the braking radius for

807: the above standard parameter set is

808: \beq

809: r_{b} \ = \  x_{b} D \ = \  \frac{D}{1+ (d/\eta)^{1/3}}

810: \ = \ 0.254  \, D

811: \ = \ 12.1 \, R_{OB}

812: \, .

813: \label{rbeq}

814: \eeq

815: For comparison, for the simple case of constant flow speed

816: (i.e. velocity power index $\beta  = 0$), ram pressure

817: balance in the absence of direct radiative forces occurs

818: at a radius (cf. GOC eqn. (2))

819: \beq

820: r_{s} \ = \  x_{s} D \  =  \

821: \frac{D}{1 + \sqrt{P_{WR/OB}}}

822: \ = \ 0.054 ~ D

823: \ = \  2.6 \, R_{OB}

824: \, .

825: \label{rseq}

826: \eeq

827: 

828: For such a purely hydrodynamical balance, a global momentum analysis

829: (Canto, Raga, and Wilkin 1996;

830: % Canto, J., Raga, A. C., & Wilkin, F. P. 1996, ApJ, 469, 729 

831: Gayley \& Owocki in preparation)

832: yields a transcendental relation between the cone-opening half-angle

833: $\theta_{s}$ and the momentum ratio $P_{WR/OB}$,

834: \beq

835: \tan \theta_{s} - \theta_{s} \  =  \ \frac{\pi}{P_{WR/OB} - 1}

836: \, .

837: \eeq

838: For large momentum ratio $P_{WR/OB} \gg 1$,

839: use of a small-angle approximation for 

840: $\tan  \theta_{s} \cong \theta_{s} + \theta_{s}^{3}/3 $

841: gives the asymptotic form,

842: \beq

843: \theta_{s} \ \cong \ \left ( \frac{3 \pi}{P_{WR/OB}} \right )^{1/3}

844: ~~ ; ~~ P_{WR/OB} \gg 1 

845: \, .

846: \eeq

847: % To ensure correct recovery of 

848: To recover 

849: $\theta_{s} = 90^{o}$ for the symmetric 

850: momentum case $P_{WR/OB}=1$, we can write a more generally applicable

851: approximate solution, accurate to within about 6\% for all $P_{WR/O}$,

852: \beq

853: \theta_{s} \ \cong \ \frac{121}{31/90 + P_{WR/OB}^{1/3}}

854: \, 

855: \eeq

856: where using $121 = (180/\pi ) \left ( 3 \pi \right )^{1/3}$

857: gives this angle in degrees.

858: 

859: For our estimate of $P_{WR/OB} = 305 $ for WR~104, we then obtain

860: $

861: \theta_{s} \cong  18^{o}

862: \,,

863: $

864: in good agreement with the value from Section~\ref{basicprop} derived 

865: from the heuristic formula of \citet{EU93}.

866: 

867: \subsection{Radiative force influence on the shock-cone angle}

868: 

869: 

870: An important question is then, by how much can the effects of radiative

871: forces from the OB star potentially widen this shock cone?

872: % 

873: Only a complete simulation can answer this definitively, but we can 

874: make conceptual progress using heuristic approximations to attempt to

875: better constrain the circumstances under which we should expect an

876: important radiative modification of the bow shock geometry.

877: Two approaches that borrow from the existing sudden radiative braking

878: analysis can be termed the ``Global Momentum Augmentation'' (GMA)

879: and the ``Radiative Wall'' (RW) approach.

880: Each gives similar results for the opening angle, and so here we

881: briefly outline just the former, deferring to Gayley \& Owocki 

882: (in preparation) for a detailed discussion of both approaches.

883: 

884: % \subsubsection{The global momentum augmentation approach}

885: 

886: In the GMA approach, the radiation interaction

887: with the incident WR wind is assumed to augment the OB-star

888: wind momentum flux by a globally constant factor, 

889: set by the requiring that the stagnation point of the combined effective 

890: momentum fluxes equal the braking radius in eqn. (\ref{rbeq}).

891: We write this factor as $\gamma \tau$,

892: where $\gamma$ is the ratio of the OB-star radiative momentum flux to

893: its wind momentum flux, $L_{OB}/{\dot M}_{OB} v_{OB} c$,

894: and $\tau$ is an optical-depth-like parameter that

895: simulates the coupling of the OB radiative momentum flux to the WR wind.

896: In analogy to the global analysis cited above (Gayley \& Owocki, in 

897: preparation), we find for the large momentum ratio limit, 

898: \beq

899: \theta_s \ \cong \ 121 \, 

900: \left ( \frac{1 \ + \ \gamma \tau}{P_{WR/OB}} \right )^{1/3} \ .

901: \eeq

902: 

903: In this scenario radiative braking would alter

904: the shock geometry whenever $\gamma \tau$ is appreciable, and since

905: $\gamma$ in WR~104 is expected to be large, this is not a terribly

906: restrictive requirement for the coupling parameter $\tau$.

907: Since the  braking radius $r_{rb}$ scales roughly with $\eta^{-1/3}$

908: when braking is important, the condition that the effective

909: momentum ratio used in $r_s$ 

910: be reduced enough to achieve 

911: $r_{rb} = r_s$ (see eqs. [\ref{rbeq}] and [\ref{rseq}])

912: is tantamount to requiring

913: \beq

914: \gamma \tau \ \cong \ \left ( \frac{ \eta  R_{OB}}{D} \right )^{2/3}

915: P_{WR/OB} \ .

916: \eeq

917: This implies a shock opening angle 

918: \beq

919: \theta_{s} \ \cong \ 121 \, 

920: \left ( \frac{ \eta  R_OB}{D} \right )^{2/9}

921: \, ,

922: \eeq

923: which for $\eta = 1.65$ and $D/R_{OB} = 46.5$ evaluates to $\theta_{s}

924: \cong 58^{o}$, representing a factor $\sim 3.2$ increase over the

925: purely hydrodynamic value $\theta_{s} \cong 18^{o}$.

926: This may be a significant overestimate, because of the optimistic

927: assumptions made about the radiative momentum coupling, but

928: it demonstrates that radiative braking could indeed increase the shock cone

929: opening if the WR wind opacity continues to be high throughout the flow.

930: 

931: A similar result can be reached through the radiative wall approach.

932: Although both approximations are too heuristic to 

933: be considered quantitatively reliable,

934: they do suggest that strong radiative braking for the assumed parameters

935: in WR~104 should be expected to widen the bow shock angle considerably,

936: possibly by a factor of 2 or more when compared to

937: the purely hydrodynamic result

938: $\theta_{s} \cong 18^{o}$, as long as the incident WR wind maintains

939: the same high levels of opacity for the OB starlight that it must have

940: had to have been radiatively driven from the WR star.

941: This assumption is currently of unknown validity, and indeed

942: if we take the opposite limit, and say that the line-opacity is just

943: what is needed to drive the relatively weak OB-star wind, then

944: radiative braking will be {\it much} weaker and would not likely alter

945: the shock-cone geometry in any measurable way.

946: 

947: To address intermediate values of the effective WR wind opacity,

948: recalling that $\eta$, for fixed $\alpha$, is simply proportional to

949: the integrated spectrum-weighted line opacity

950: distribution with no regard

951: to optical depth (i.e., self-shadowing) corrections.

952: Thus one may either make assumptions about this line opacity

953: to predict $\eta$, or one may use observations of the bow shock cone

954: to infer $\eta$ and reason to conclusions about the line distribution.

955: Further analysis will be required to constrain these expectations

956: more quantitatively, but it seems at least plausible that

957: radiative braking may be important in the wind-wind 

958: interaction and shock-cone geometry of WR~104, {\em

959: if} the line opacity of the WR wind interacting with the OB starlight 

960: is substantially enhanced above what is needed to drive the OB-star wind itself.

961: Reversing the logic, it may be concluded that evidence for a significant

962: widening of the bow-shock cone relative to what may be explained 

963: hydrodynamically may be interpreted as evidence that the WR wind 

964: does indeed carry with it an intrinsically high opacity when it

965: impinges into the region of strong OB-star radiative flux.

966: 

967: Our images of the WR~104 plume are able to rule out some of the more 

968: extreme enlargements to the cone opening angle in the above scenarios.

969: Fits to the data by HMSK found that model cone half-angles of

970: $40^\circ$ or greater (twice the hydrostatic value) were rejected.

971: With still higher angular resolutions than those obtained here,

972: it should be possible to get a direct measurement of the cone

973: opening angle from the images, revealing the role played by 

974: radiative braking on the shock geometry.

975: 

976: 

977: %\subsection{The Profile of the Spiral Plume}

978: \section{The Profile of the Spiral Plume}

979: 

980: Using the excellent fits provided by the theoretical spiral locus to the observed

981: plume of emission from Figures~\ref{kmaps},~\ref{hmaps}~\&~\ref{lmaps}, an 

982: investigation of the brightness profile along the length of the dust plume was

983: performed.

984: The flux, summed over a band following the model spiral, was accumulated over all 

985: images recovered. 

986: Average profiles, plotted as a function of angular displacement along the 

987: spiral, are given in Figure~\ref{slice} for all three filter bandpasses.

988: Also overplotted is the same profile along the spiral calculated from the 

989: synthetic radiative-transfer images of HMSK.

990: All experimental curves follow a similar form (with some departures for PAHCS 

991: which we attribute to the systematically lower resolution) exhibiting a steep 

992: rise in flux from the spiral center to a point about $90^\circ$ downstream 

993: followed by a rapid drop as the bright core of the system is traversed. 

994: There now follows a region of roughly monotonic decline between about 

995: $150-400^\circ$, at which point there is a very sharp drop in brightness 

996: flattening to level of less than 1\% of the peak for the second coil 

997: (CH4 filter only).

998: 

999: The initial sharp rise in flux seen in Figure~\ref{slice} gives another way to

1000: visualize the ``standoff distance'' between the spiral center and brightest pixel,

1001: measured earlier to be $13.3\pm1.4$\,mas or $85^\circ\pm14^\circ$ downstream along 

1002: the spiral.

1003: Given the 241.5\,d period, this corresponds to a kinematic age for the

1004: material of $57\pm10$\,d.

1005: This value is in remarkable agreement with the value of $\sim$\,58--87\,d for 

1006: the delay between periastron passage and the peak in the dust production in

1007: the well-studied episodic colliding-wind binary dust producer WR~140 

1008: \citep{Williams90,Marchenko03}.

1009: The finding that the peak in dust production occurs at some distance

1010: downstream from the colliding-wind stagnation point ($\sim$30\,AU for WR~104)

1011: points to a more complicated picture for dust formation physics in 

1012: colliding-wind binaries than the simple shock compression/cooling models

1013: \citep{Usov91}.

1014: A number of avenues for additional physics have been presented 

1015: \citep[see also][]{Crowther03}, with one likely element being escape from the 

1016: dust-hostile immediate circumstellar radiation environment.

1017: Chemical seeding of the WR wind (predominantly helium) with hydrogen from 

1018: the OB~star at the contact surface may help to enhance dust formation 

1019: pathways \citep{LT02}, although such mixing may not be very rapid. 

1020: Shielding from the intense radiation field does appear to be a key ingredient,

1021: and sets the playing field for sharply nonlinear grain growth in which small

1022: clumps may self-shadow larger areas downstream in a runaway process. 

1023: Recent numerical simulations of colliding flows have shown that matter is 

1024: squeezed into thin high-density shells threaded by still higher density 

1025: filaments as a result of supersonic turbulence \citep{WF00}.

1026: It was suggested these conditions can persist for a considerable time in the

1027: flow before dissipation by internal shocks and vortex cascades.

1028: Further to these earlier ideas, we now also add the idea of wind entanglement

1029: which can generate significant shock activity well downstream of the nose,

1030: as discussed in earlier sections.

1031: Whatever mix of these or other elements may go into the next generation of

1032: colliding-wind dust formation models, there certainly seems scope to address

1033: the outstanding issue of whether the dusty-WC phenomena has a necessary link

1034: to binarity \citep{Monnier99,WV00,Monnier07}, or whether novel dust formation

1035: pathways in an isolated wind may also be important in some circumstances

1036: \citep{Zubko98,Cherchneff00}.

1037: 

1038: 

1039: After the peak at $85^\circ$, the profiles of Figure~\ref{slice} exhibit a

1040: steady decline (but note the logarithmic y-axis).

1041: This is in accord with the relatively flat temperature profile found in

1042: models of the centrally-illuminated dust spiral models of HMSK,

1043: although the bright peak near the heart of the system is not reproduced

1044: in the simulations.

1045: A fairly detailed comparison between the radiative transfer results and 

1046: published masking images of WR~104 can be found in HMSK, 

1047: although our new results here highlight some discrepancies which we hope 

1048: will motivate future refinements.

1049: The flux level of the second winding of the spiral is well reproduced

1050: at the beginning ($480^\circ$--$600^\circ$) but the secondary bright knot 

1051: in the model tail seen at 2 complete turns was not observed in the data.

1052: Although a detailed comparison is beyond the scope of the present paper,

1053: one possible implication is that the optical depth of the dust in the

1054: model is not high enough in the core of the system. 

1055: Increasing it may help to generate the bright peak at $85^\circ$, and

1056: at the same time decrease the illumination on the second coil therefore

1057: suppressing the spurious feature at $720^\circ$.

1058: 

1059: The very sharp decline in flux between 400--$480^\circ$ is a result of the

1060: shadow cast by the first winding of the spiral onto the second, causing 

1061: a rapid drop in temperature for the eclipsed material.

1062: This feature has been commented upon since the discovery of the pinwheels

1063: \citep{nature99}, and was also reproduced in radiative transfer models

1064: (HMSK).

1065: What is particularly interesting is that the terminator is found at an

1066: angular ordinate of $\sim 440^\circ$ along the spiral, or about $80^\circ$

1067: beyond one complete revolution.

1068: This extra angular displacement (easily visualized in the figure as the

1069: full revolution $360^\circ$ location has been marked) gives further 

1070: independent confirmation for the existence and size of the optically thin 

1071: inner cavity surrounding the central stars.

1072: We refer the reader back to Figure~\ref{cartoon} for an easily understood

1073: and intuitive depiction of the angular locations of the inner optically

1074: thin plume, and the geometry of the shadow cast upon the second coil by

1075: the first.

1076: 

1077: Also of interest in helping to constrain future generations of dust plume

1078: models are the multi-wavelength observations of the spiral given in

1079: Figures~\ref{kmaps},~\ref{hmaps}~\&~\ref{lmaps}. 

1080: In particular, there was a systematic rotational displacement found with 

1081: observing wavelength with a (lower limit) position angle of $6^\circ$ from 

1082: H--CH4 and $4^\circ$ from CH4--PAHCS (true values may be a factor of $\sim$2

1083: larger -- see discussion in Section~\ref{HLimages}).

1084: This implies that the transverse temperature profile of the plume 

1085: can be explored by our high resolution techniques.

1086: Short wavelength observations will preferentially weight the hottest material 

1087: on the inner edge of the plume facing the central stars, while longer wavelengths

1088: will give a better indicator of the bulk concentration of warm dust. 

1089: Again, we must defer detailed modelling of these effects to a future paper,

1090: but note that preferential radiative heating of the inner wall was predicted 

1091: in models of HMSK.

1092: An alternate scenario is that of asymmetric heating by shocks of differing 

1093: strength at the inner and outer walls, as recently demonstrated in the rotating 

1094: hydrodynamic simulations of \citet{LSG07}.

1095: 

1096: 

1097: %\subsection{Geometrical Implications of the Plume Structure}

1098: \section{Geometrical Implications of the Plume Structure}

1099: 

1100: A key finding from earlier studies of the WR~104 pinwheel has been the

1101: low eccentricity of the orbit of the central stars \citep{nature99,wrconf02}.

1102: As noted earlier \citep{Monnier99}, this finding may be a ``smoking gun''

1103: pointing to previous episodes of tidal circularization and likely

1104: Roche-lobe interactions with possible mass transfer and/or envelope 

1105: stripping. 

1106: Such an event provides one of the two possible pathways to the creation of

1107: a Wolf-Rayet \citep{Paczynski67}; the other being strong wind-driven mass 

1108: loss in a single star \citep{Chiosi78}.

1109: With our long time-sequence of observations sampling all phases of the orbit, 

1110: we are able to put tight constraints on the allowed levels of orbital 

1111: eccentricity in the case of WR~104.

1112: Although it would be possible to fit eccentric spiral models directly to the

1113: data, we favored a more indirect approach as for small to moderate levels of 

1114: eccentricity, the departure in shape from an Archimedian spiral was subtle.

1115: The most easily detectable effect that an eccentric orbit has in perturbing 

1116: the rotating spiral model away from its ideal form will be in 

1117: departures from a constant rate of rotation.

1118: 

1119: We have therefore performed a careful fit of the best-fit orientation of

1120: the spiral structure at each epoch, and compared the values obtained with

1121: the model of a simple, constant angular velocity. 

1122: This was done in two different ways which gave similar results: firstly by 

1123: fitting to points extracted from the crest of the bright spiral ridge, and 

1124: secondly by fitting each full image to a mean template.

1125: The uniformity of the angular rotation rate extracted from the real data, 

1126: which is given in in Figure~\ref{rotfig}, was then compared with results from 

1127: model simulations.

1128: A family of synthetically-generated spiral images of varying eccentricity 

1129: were fit in an identical fashion to the real data, allowing us to derive

1130: quantitative limits on the levels of eccentricity present in the WR~104 orbit.

1131: Figure~\ref{rotfig} shows the rotational uniformity from the data and examples

1132: from two of the synthetic eccentric model images. 

1133: The rotation is seen to be highly uniform, ruling out all but very modest 

1134: eccentricities.

1135: A 2$\sigma$ upper limit of $e$~\simle~0.06 was obtained in this fashion.

1136: 

1137: Having thus established the properties of the best-fit uniform Archimedian 

1138: spiral model, it was then possible to generate a stacked composite image

1139: averaging over all epochs of data taken in the CH4 filter.

1140: Individual data frames were corrected for inclination on the sky (simulating

1141: a perfectly face-on view) and de-rotated to coincide with the first (Apr98)

1142: epoch before being co-added. 

1143: A composite image, displaying significantly greater dynamic range than any

1144: of the single-epoch images from Figure~\ref{kmaps}, is given in Figure~\ref{kstack}.

1145: Variations in morphology between different epochs beyond those expected from 

1146: the rotating spiral model are minor, and all appear to be within the noise level

1147: of the image recovery process. 

1148: We therefore hope that this image, as a mean over all epochs, may provide

1149: a resource to modellers and others interested in the best possible snapshot

1150: of the geometry of these pinwheel systems.

1151: 

1152: The flat infrared lightcurves of Figure~\ref{lightcurves} discussed above 

1153: affirm the status of WR~104 as a ``constant'' dust-producer \citep{Williams97}, 

1154: yet stand in contrast to the large 2.7\,mag ``quasi-periodic'' variability 

1155: (periodic component \simge~1\,mag) in the visible lightcurves reported by 

1156: \citet{Kato02}.

1157: With a narrow cone half-angle ($20^\circ$; HMSK), face-on

1158: orientation to the line of sight and very low levels of orbital eccentricity, 

1159: the spiral dust plume gives no obvious mechanism for modulating the visible

1160: flux from this system.

1161: The lack of detectable infrared variation argues for steady and constant dust

1162: production at all orbital phases, with minimal effects from any inclination

1163: to the the line of sight.

1164: Visible light scattered from the dust plume may be more strongly modulated

1165: by rotation and inclination effects, however it is difficult to see how

1166: variations in the V lightcurve as large as \simge~1\,mag could arise from this.

1167: Possible scenarios include opacity effects from gas (or possibly small quantities

1168: of dust) associated with the innermost regions of the shock cone which modulate

1169: the light of the OB~star, line-of-sight (polar-axis) dust creation independent of 

1170: the colliding wind mechanism, or some geometrical effect from a sharp opacity 

1171: gradient possibly created at an earlier phase 

1172: \citep[further discussion can be found in][]{Kato02}.

1173: 

1174: %\subsection{WR Systems as Supernova Progenitors}

1175: \section{WR Systems as Supernova Progenitors}

1176: 

1177: As a final point of discussion, we also explore the implications of future 

1178: evolution of this system with particular regard to the face-on viewing angle 

1179: to Earth.

1180: The formal Archmiedian spiral fits yielded an inclination $i = 12^\circ$, but

1181: for such a small angle to the line-of-sight the uncertainty was large and fully

1182: consistent with the range from $0^\circ$~--~$16^\circ$.

1183: A further source of uncertainty arises from the limitations of the simple 

1184: two-dimensional spiral model used.

1185: In reality, the pinwheel is of course a three-dimensional structure which may

1186: present us with more complicated opacity effects such as limb-brightening.

1187: If we consider a single circular cross-section through the conical shock, as 

1188: this is carried downstream by the WR wind, it will become inflated and distorted 

1189: by the spherical expansion into an elongated ``D''.

1190: Eventually at large radii, the plume shape will resemble an equatorial band

1191: wrapped around a sphere, subtending an angle equal to that of the shock cone. 

1192: This underlying spherical geometry gives rise to a fundamental insensitivity 

1193: to the line-of-sight inclination: modest changes of tilt for such a structure 

1194: result in only a very small or zero change in observed aspect ratio.

1195: For these reasons, our upper limit of $16^\circ$ may be an underestimate.

1196: Firmer constraint of the inclination from the data presented here would require

1197: detailed radiative transfer modelling with varying lines of sight onto a

1198: three-dimensional structure.

1199: 

1200: Despite these quantitative caveats, it remains apparent that in WR~104, Earth

1201: has an approximately pole-on view onto a relatively nearby, massive WR binary 

1202: system.

1203: Given the prehistory of mass transfer and envelope-stripping suggested above, 

1204: it therefore seems likely that Earth also lies in the polar direction with

1205: respect to the spin axis of both WR and OB stars due to the prior angular

1206: momentum evolution of such binary systems \citep[e.g.][]{Zahn77,Tassoul87}.

1207: As both objects in the system should eventually explode as core-collapse

1208: supernovae, it is interesting to speculate on how our ``privileged'' polar

1209: vantage point may affect our experience of this event, which should happen

1210: within a timescale of several hundred thousand years for the WR component

1211: \citep{Maeder81,CM86}.

1212: It is becoming more accepted that all supernova explosions probably exhibit

1213: some preferred axis aligned with the progenitor stellar spin.

1214: As one of the closest imminent WC-class Wolf-Rayets, an isotropic supernova 

1215: in WR~104 at kiloparsec scale distances would no doubt put on an impressive 

1216: show, but any impact on Earth's biosphere is likely to be negligible \citep{ES95}.

1217: However for a highly {\em anisotropic} explosion, the most extreme example of 

1218: which would be a Gamma Ray Burst, effects could be significant if Earth

1219: lies within the \simle~12$^\circ$ opening angle \citep{Frail01} of the

1220: burst, even at 2\,kpc distances \citep{Melott04,Thomas05a,Thomas05b}.

1221:  

1222: %Although it would no doubt put on a very impressive show, there is unlikely

1223: %to be serious impact on Earth's biosphere from an isotropic supernova at

1224: %kiloparsec-scale distances \citep{ES95}.

1225: %However this will not necessarily be the case for an anisotropic explosion 

1226: %in which the Earth lies in the path of some preferred axis. 

1227: %The most extreme examples of such events are now believed to be Gamma Ray Bursts

1228: %(GRB's), linked to core-collapse supernovae, and which preferentially beam

1229: %very large amounts of energy into a relatively narrow cone aligned with

1230: %the original spin axis of the collapsed star. 

1231: %Should the Earth lie in the path of one of these events, even with an

1232: %explosion at 2\,kpc distance, the consequences for life on earth due to

1233: %depletion of atmospheric ozone in the upper atmosphere, together with other

1234: %effects, could be catastrophic \citep{Melott04,Thomas05a,Thomas05b}.

1235: 

1236: Could WR~104 produce a GRB?

1237: Certainly a case could be made that the OB component of the binary 

1238: system, which was the recipient of mass and angular-momentum transfer in the 

1239: prior Roche-lobe overflow event, may meet the requirements for envelope

1240: mass and angular momentum for many current models of GRB formation

1241: \citep[see][for a discussion of WR binaries as GRB progenitors]{Petrovic05}.

1242: The Wolf-Rayet component, with WC spectral type, has arguably the shortest

1243: fuse, being in the last known stable phase before supernova.

1244: Although prior stripping may have lowered the envelope mass into a regime

1245: less favorable for conventional collapsar GRB's, there are also 

1246: more exotic magnetar (millisec pulsar driven) GRB models which may prove

1247: viable \citep{Gaensler05,Metzger07}.

1248: In short, this is a very active and rapidly-evolving field, and the 

1249: uncertainties outnumber the firm conclusions in arriving at a 

1250: mass/metallicity/evolutionary portrait of likely GRB progenitors.

1251: Whether or not the WR~104 system will play host to a future GRB, it

1252: does seem clear that two pole-oriented supernovae will occur, and that

1253: energy and matter will be preferentially ejected along this axis

1254: \citep[see][for a discussion of the effects of stellar rotation on

1255: SN explosions]{FW04}.

1256: Further observations to constrain the inclination of the orbital plane, 

1257: which should be possible with spectroscopic monitoring, are therefore

1258: encouraged.

1259: 

1260: 

1261: %\section{Conclusions}

1262: %circularity confirms roche-lobe overflow/envelope stripping

1263: 

1264: \acknowledgments

1265: 

1266: The data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, 

1267: which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute 

1268: of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space

1269: Administration.  The Observatory was made possible by the generous

1270: financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.

1271: The Authors would like to particularly thank the instrument technicians and

1272: engineering crew at the observatory for their help and support of our unorthodox 

1273: observing techniques.

1274: Devinder Sivia kindly provided the maximum entropy mapping program ``VLBMEM'',

1275: which we have used to reconstruct our diffraction limited images.

1276: This work has been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation

1277: and the Australian Research Council. 

1278: We thank Charles Townes for his long-standing support of this program, 

1279: and Bryan Gaensler, Shami Chatterjee and Grant Hill for helpful discussions.

1280: 

1281: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[Bethe(1990)]{Bethe90} 

1284: Bethe, H.~A.\ 1990, Reviews of Modern Physics, 62, 801 

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[Canto et al.(1996)]{Canto96} 

1287: Canto, J., Raga, A.~C., \& Wilkin, F.~P.\ 1996, \apj, 469, 729 

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[Castor et al.(1975)]{CAK} 

1290: Castor, J.~I., Abbott, D.~C., \& Klein, R.~I.\ 1975, \apj, 195, 157 

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[Cherchneff et al.(2000)]{Cherchneff00} 

1293: Cherchneff, I., Le Teuff, Y.~H., Williams, P.~M., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M.\ 

1294: 2000, \aap, 357, 572 

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[Chiosi et al.(1978)]{Chiosi78} 

1297: Chiosi, C., Nasi, E., \& Sreenivasan, S.~R.\ 1978, \aap, 63, 103 

1298: 

1299: \bibitem[Chiosi \& Maeder(1986)]{CM86} 

1300: Chiosi, C., \& Maeder, A.\ 1986, \araa, 24, 329 

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[Crowther(1997)]{Crowther97} 

1303: Crowther, P.~A.\ 1997, \mnras, 290, L59 

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[Crowther(2003)]{Crowther03} 

1306: Crowther, P.~A.\ 2003, \apss, 285, 677 

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[Danchi et al.(2001)]{mwc349} 

1309: Danchi, W.~C., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Monnier, J.~D.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 440 

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[Eichler \& Usov(1993)]{EU93} 

1312: Eichler, D., \& Usov, V.\ 1993, \apj, 402, 271 

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[Ellis \& Schramm(1995)]{ES95} 

1315: Ellis, J., \& Schramm, D.~N.\ 1995, 

1316: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 92, 235 

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{Frail01} 

1319: Frail, D.~A., et al.\ 2001, \apjl, 562, L55 

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[Fryer \& Warren(2004)]{FW04} 

1322: Fryer, C.~L., \& Warren, M.~S.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 391 

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[Gaensler et al.(2005)]{Gaensler05} 

1325: Gaensler, B.~M., McClure-Griffiths, N.~M., Oey, M.~S., 

1326: Haverkorn, M., Dickey, J.~M., \& Green, A.~J.\ 2005, \apjl, 620, L95 

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[Gayley et al.(1997)]{GOC97} 

1329: Gayley, K.~G., Owocki, S.~P., \& Cranmer, S.~R.\ 1997, \apj, 475, 786 

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[Gayley et al.(1996)]{GOC96} 

1332: Gayley, K.~G., Owocki, S.~P., \& Cranmer, S.~R.\ 1996, 

1333: Workshop on Colliding Winds in Binary Stars to Honor Jorge Sahade, 

1334: vol.~5, p.~68, 68 

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[Gull \& Skilling(1984)]{mem} 

1337: Gull, S.F. and Skilling, J. 1984, Proc. IEEE,  131, 6

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[Haniff \& Buscher(1992)]{HB92}

1340: Haniff, C.~A., \& Buscher, D.~F.\

1341: 1992, J.~Opt.~Soc.~Am.~A, 9, 203

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[Harries et al.(2004)]{Harries04} 

1344: Harries, T.~J., Monnier, J.~D., Symington, N.~H., \& Kurosawa, R.\ 

1345: [HMSK] 2004, \mnras, 350, 565 

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[H\"{o}gbom(1974)]{clean} 

1348: H\"{o}gbom, J. 1974, \apjs, 15, 417

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[Howarth \& Schmutz(1992)]{HS92} 

1351: Howarth, I.~D., \& Schmutz, W.\ 1992, \aap, 261, 503 

1352: 

1353: \bibitem[van der Hucht(2001)]{7cat} 

1354: van der Hucht, K.~A.\ 2001, New Astronomy Review, 45, 135 

1355: 

1356: \bibitem[Ireland et al.(2006)]{macim} 

1357: Ireland, M.~J., Monnier, J.~D., \& Thureau, N.\ 2006, \procspie, 6268,  

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[Kato et al.(2002)]{Kato02} 

1360: Kato, T., Haseda, K., Yamaoka, H., \& Takamizawa, K.\ 

1361: 2002, \pasj, 54, L51 

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[Kuiper(1941)]{Kuiper41} 

1364: Kuiper, G.~P.\ 1941, \apj, 93, 133 

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[Lemaster et al.(2007)]{LSG07} 

1367: Lemaster, M.~N., Stone, J.~M., \& Gardiner, T.~A.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 582 

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[Le Teuff(2002)]{LT02} 

1370: Le Teuff, Y.~H.\ 2002, Interacting Winds from Massive Stars, 260, 223 

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[Lundstrom \& Stenholm(1984)]{LS84} 

1373: Lundstrom, I., \& Stenholm, B.\ 1984, \aaps, 58, 163 

1374: 

1375: \bibitem[Maeder(1981)]{Maeder81} 

1376: Maeder, A.\ 1981, \aap, 99, 97 

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[Marchenko et al.(2002)]{Marchenko02} 

1379: Marchenko, S.~V., Moffat, A.~F.~J., Vacca, W.~D., C{\^o}t{\'e}, S., \& Doyon, R.\ 

1380: 2002, \apjl, 565, L59 

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[Marchenko \& Moffat(2006)]{MM06} 

1383: Marchenko, S.~V., \& Moffat, A.~F.~J.\ 2006, 

1384: ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0610531 

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[Matthews et al.(1996)]{nirc96}

1387: Matthews, K., Ghez, A.~M., Weinberger, A.~J., \& Neugebauer, G.\

1388: 1996, \pasp, 108, 615

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[Mauron \& Huggins(2006)]{MH06} 

1391: Mauron, N., \& Huggins, P.~J.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 257 

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[Marchenko et al.(2003)]{Marchenko03} 

1394: Marchenko, S.~V., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 1295 

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[Melott et al.(2004)]{Melott04}

1397: Melott, A.~L., et al.\ 2004, International Journal of Astrobiology, 3, 55

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[Metzger et al.(2007)]{Metzger07} 

1400: Metzger, B.~D., Thompson, T.~A., \& Quataert, E.\ 2007, 

1401: ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.0675 

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[Mondal \& Chandrasekhar(2002)]{MS02} 

1404: Mondal, S., \& Chandrasekhar, T.\ 2002, \mnras, 334, 143 

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(1999)]{Monnier99} 

1407: Monnier, J.~D., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 1999, \apjl, 525, L97 

1408: 

1409: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2000)]{Monnier00} 

1410: Monnier, J.~D., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 545, 957 

1411: 

1412: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2002)]{Monnier02} 

1413: Monnier, J.~D., Greenhill, L.~J., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 

1414: 2002, \apj, 566, 399 

1415: 

1416: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2002)]{Monnier02b} 

1417: Monnier, J.~D., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 

1418: 2002, \apjl, 567, L137 

1419: 

1420: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2004)]{Monnier04} 

1421: Monnier, J.~D., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 436 

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[Monnier et al.(2007)]{Monnier07} 

1424: Monnier, J.~D., Tuthill, P.~G., Danchi, W.~C., Murphy, N., \& Harries, T.~J.\ 

1425: 2007, \apj, 655, 1033 

1426: 

1427: \bibitem[Moran \& Reichart(2005)]{MR05} 

1428: Moran, J.~A., \& Reichart, D.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 438 

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[Paczy{\'n}ski(1967)]{Paczynski67} 

1431: Paczy{\'n}ski, B.\ 1967, Acta Astronomica, 17, 355 

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[Pauls et al.(2005)]{oifits05} 

1434: Pauls, T.~A., Young, J.~S., Cotton, W.~D., \& Monnier, J.~D.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 1255 

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[Petrovic et al.(2005)]{Petrovic05} 

1437: Petrovic, J., Langer, N., Yoon, S.-C., \& Heger, A.\ 2005, \aap, 435, 247 

1438:  

1439: \bibitem[Rajagopal et al.(2004)]{Jay04} 

1440: Rajagopal, J.~K., Barry, R., Lopez, B., Danchi, W.~C., 

1441: Monnier, J.~D., Tuthill, P.~G., \& Townes, C.~H.\ 

1442: 2004, \procspie, 5491, 1120 

1443: 

1444: \bibitem[Rochowicz \& Niedzielski(1995)]{RN95} 

1445: Rochowicz, K., \& Niedzielski, A.\ 1995, Acta Astronomica, 45, 307 

1446: 

1447: \bibitem[Ryder et al.(2004)]{Ryder04} 

1448: Ryder, S.~D., Sadler, E.~M., Subrahmanyan, R., Weiler, K.~W., 

1449: Panagia, N., \& Stockdale, C.\ 

1450: 2004, \mnras, 349, 1093 

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[Sivia(1987)]{devinder} 

1453: Sivia, D.S. 1987, Ph.D. diss., Cambridge Univ.

1454: 

1455: \bibitem[Stevens et al.(1992)]{SB92} 

1456: Stevens, I.~R., Blondin, J.~M., \& Pollock, A.~M.~T.\ 1992, \apj, 386, 265 

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[Struve(1950)]{Struve50}

1459: Struve, O.\ 1950, {\it Stellar Evolution}, Princeton University Press, NJ. 

1460: 

1461: \bibitem[Tassoul(1987)]{Tassoul87} 

1462: Tassoul, J.-L.\ 1987, \apj, 322, 856 

1463: 

1464: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005a)]{Thomas05a}

1465: Thomas, B.~C., et al.\ 2005a, \apj, 634, 509

1466: 

1467: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005b)]{Thomas05b} Thomas, B.~C., Jackman,

1468: C.~H., Melott, A.~L., Laird, C.~M., Stolarski, R.~S., Gehrels, N.,

1469: Cannizzo, J.~K., \& Hogan, D.~P.\ 2005b, \apjl, 622, L153

1470: 

1471: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1986)]{TCM86} 

1472: Torres, A.~V., Conti, P.~S., \& Massey, P.\ 1986, \apj, 300, 379 

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(1999)]{nature99} 

1475: Tuthill, P.~G., Monnier, J.~D., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 

1476: 1999, \nat, 398, 487 

1477: 

1478: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2000)]{keckmask} 

1479: Tuthill, P. G., Monnier, J. D., Danchi, W. C., Wishnow, E. H., \& Haniff, C. A. 

1480: 2000, \pasp, 112, 555

1481: 

1482: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2000)]{Tuthill00} 

1483: Tuthill, P.~G., Danchi, W.~C., Hale, D.~S., Monnier, J.~D., \& Townes, C.~H.\ 

1484: 2000, \apj, 534, 907 

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2002)]{Tuthill02} 

1487: Tuthill, P.~G., Monnier, J.~D., Danchi, W.~C., Hale, D.~D.~S., \& Townes, C.~H.\ 

1488: 2002, \apj, 577, 826 

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2002)]{wrconf02} 

1491: Tuthill, P.~G., Monnier, J.~D., \& Danchi, W.~C.\ 2002, 

1492: Interacting Winds from Massive Stars, 260, 321 

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2002)]{redrect02} 

1495: Tuthill, P.~G., Men'shchikov, A.~B., Schertl, D., Monnier, J.~D., Danchi, W.~C., \& 

1496: Weigelt, G.\ 2002, \aap, 389, 889 

1497: 

1498: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2003)]{wrconf03} 

1499: Tuthill, P.~G., Monnier, J.~D., Danchi, W.~C., \& Turner, N.~H.\ 

1500: 2003, A Massive Star Odyssey: From Main Sequence to Supernova, 212, 121 

1501: 

1502: \bibitem[Tuthill et al.(2006)]{Quint06} 

1503: Tuthill, P., Monnier, J., Tanner, A., Figer, D., Ghez, A., \& Danchi, W.\ 2006, 

1504: Science, 313, 935 

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[Usov(1991)]{Usov91} 

1507: Usov, V.~V.\ 1991, \mnras, 252, 49

1508:  

1509: \bibitem[Walder \& Folini(2000)]{WF00} 

1510: Walder, R., \& Folini, D.\ 2000, \apss, 274, 343 

1511: 

1512: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(2002)]{WHW02} 

1513: Woosley, S.~E., Heger, A., \& Weaver, T.~A.\ 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015 

1514: 

1515: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{WB06} 

1516: Woosley, S.~E., \&  Bloom, J.~S.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 507 

1517: 

1518: \bibitem[Vanbeveren et al.(1998)]{VLV98} 

1519: Vanbeveren, D., De Loore, C., \& Van Rensbergen, W.\ 1998, \aapr, 9, 63 

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[Williams et al.(1990)]{Williams90} 

1522: Williams, P.~M., van der Hucht, K.~A., Pollock, A.~M.~T., Florkowski, D.~R., 

1523: van der Woerd, H., \& Wamsteker, W.~M.\ 1990, \mnras, 243, 662 

1524: 

1525: \bibitem[Williams(1997)]{Williams97} 

1526: Williams, P.~M.\ 1997, \apss, 251, 321 

1527: 

1528: \bibitem[Williams \& van der Hucht(2000)]{WV00} 

1529: Williams, P.~M., \& van der Hucht, K.~A.\ 2000, \mnras, 314, 23 

1530: 

1531: \bibitem[Zahn(1977)]{Zahn77} Zahn, J.-P.\ 1977, \aap, 57, 383

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[Zubko(1998)]{Zubko98} 

1534: Zubko, V.~G.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, 109 

1535: 

1536: \end{thebibliography}

1537: 

1538: \clearpage

1539: 

1540: 

1541: 

1542: 

1543: \clearpage

1544: 

1545: \begin{figure}

1546: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=1.0]{paper_k_all.ps}}

1547: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=180,scale=0.8]{f1.eps}}

1548: \caption{\label{kmaps}

1549: Images recovered from data in the CH4 filter over 11 observing epochs.

1550: Contour levels are .4, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50\,\% of the peak. North (Dec.) 

1551: is up and east (R.A.) to the left with the image scale labelled in 

1552: millseconds of arc. 

1553: Images have been centered on the mathematical origin of the 

1554: best-fit Archimedian spiral model (dashed line: see text for details).

1555: }

1556: \end{figure}

1557: 

1558: 

1559: 

1560: \clearpage

1561: 

1562: \begin{figure}

1563: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=1.0]{paper_h_all.ps}}

1564: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=180,scale=.8]{f2.eps}}

1565: \caption{\label{hmaps}

1566: Images recovered from data in the H filter over 11 observing epochs.

1567: See caption to Figure~\ref{kmaps} for details.

1568: }

1569: \end{figure}

1570: 

1571: 

1572: 

1573: \clearpage

1574: 

1575: \begin{figure}

1576: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=1.0]{paper_l_all.ps}}

1577: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=180,scale=.8]{f3.eps}}

1578: \caption{\label{lmaps}

1579: Images recovered from data in the PAHCS filter over 6 observing epochs.

1580: Contour levels are 1, 2, 5, 10, 20\,\% of the peak. Otherwise

1581: similar to Figure~\ref{kmaps}. 

1582: }

1583: \end{figure}

1584: 

1585: 

1586: \clearpage

1587: 

1588: \begin{figure}

1589: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{mag_plot.ps}}

1590: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{f4.eps}}

1591: \caption{\label{lightcurves}

1592: Photometry data for WR~104 obtained in our three filter bandpasses

1593: (key inset), folded with the 241.5\,d period.

1594: }

1595: \end{figure}

1596: 

1597: \clearpage

1598: 

1599: \begin{figure}

1600: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.5]{cartoon.ps}}

1601: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.5]{f5.eps}}

1602: \caption{\label{cartoon}

1603: Schematic diagram of the key elements in the WR~104 system.

1604: The geometry depicted is that of a face-on view onto a 

1605: $20^\circ$ cone half-angle pinwheel. 

1606: The axis of the system, and the line of shadow cast at $84^\circ$ 

1607: to the spiral origin ($\theta=0$), are 

1608: indicated as dot-dashed lines. Key elements are labeled, and 

1609: some, such as the binary separation, are not to scale 

1610: (depicted here about a factor of ten too large).

1611: }

1612: \end{figure}

1613: 

1614: \clearpage

1615: 

1616: \begin{figure}

1617: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{spiralslice.ps}}

1618: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{f6.eps}}

1619: \caption{\label{slice}

1620: Average brightness profile of the plume as a function of angular displacement 

1621: along the spiral model locus.

1622: Data for our three filter bandpasses are given (linetypes indicated in the key)

1623: together with a profile extracted from the numerical radiative transfer 

1624: simulations of \citet{Harries04} specific to our CH4 filter in the K band.

1625: Data for H and PAHCS are terminated shortly after the first full

1626: turn, at which point the signal-to-noise in the images is insufficient to 

1627: discern real structure from noise.

1628: For convenience, intervals of 1 and 2 complete revolutions are marked.

1629: }

1630: \end{figure}

1631: 

1632: 

1633: \clearpage

1634: 

1635: 

1636: \begin{figure}

1637: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{rot_gridfit.ps}}

1638: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1.0]{f7.eps}}

1639: \caption{\label{rotfig}

1640: (Upper panel) The rotation of the pinwheel at each observing epoch

1641: from fits to data in Figure~\ref{kmaps}, plotted as a function of the 

1642: orbital phase. 

1643: The dashed line gives a simple model of uniform angular velocity.

1644: (Lower panel) the residual between the data and the uniform model.

1645: Both panels have overplotted dotted lines giving examples of expected

1646: curves for elliptical orbits with eccentricity $e = 0.1$ and 0.2.

1647: }

1648: \end{figure}

1649: 

1650: \clearpage

1651: 

1652: \begin{figure}

1653: %\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.5]{kstack.ps}}

1654: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.5]{f8.eps}}

1655: \caption{\label{kstack}

1656: Stacked composite image of all epochs of data in the CH4 filter.

1657: Contour levels are .1, .2, .5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 70\,\% of the peak. 

1658: Individual images have been projected to a face-on viewing angle

1659: and derotated to the first Apr98 epoch according to the best-fit

1660: Archimedian spiral model prior to coadding. 

1661: }

1662: \end{figure}

1663: 

1664: \clearpage

1665: 

1666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1667: % Table - Observing Log    %

1668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1669: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}

1670: \tablewidth{0pt}

1671: \tablecaption{Journal of Interferometric Observations.}

1672: \tablehead{

1673: \colhead{Date} & JD-2450000 &

1674: \colhead{Filter} } % & \colhead{Phase}}

1675: \startdata

1676: 1998 Apr 14 & ~918 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1677: 1998 Apr 15 & ~919 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1678: 1998 Jun 04 & ~969 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1679: 1998 Sep 29 & 1086 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1680: 1999 Apr 25 & 1294 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1681: 1999 Jul 29 & 1389 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1682: 2000 Jun 23 & 1719 & H,CH4,PAHCS \\

1683: 2001 Jun 11 & 2072 & H,CH4       \\

1684: 2002 Jul 23 & 2479 & H,CH4       \\

1685: 2003 May 12 & 2772 & H,CH4       \\

1686: 2004 May 28 & 3154 & H,CH4       \\

1687: 2004 Sep 03 & 3154 & H,CH4       \\

1688: \enddata

1689: \label{obstable}

1690: \end{deluxetable}

1691: 

1692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1693: % Table - Filters          %

1694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1695: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}

1696: \tablewidth{0pt}

1697: \tablecaption{Properties of Filters}

1698: \tablehead{

1699: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Center} & \colhead{Bandwidth} \\

1700:  &  \colhead{($\mu$m)} & \colhead{($\mu$m)}  \\

1701: }

1702: \startdata

1703: H      & 1.656 & 0.333 \\

1704: CH4    & 2.269 & 0.155 \\

1705: PAHCS  & 3.083 & 0.101 \\

1706: \enddata

1707: \label{filtable}

1708: \end{deluxetable}

1709: 

1710: \end{document}

1711: