1: % to make eps files, use macghostview
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{THE ABSOLUTE FLUX DISTRIBUTION OF LDS749B}
7:
8: \author{R.~C.\ Bohlin\altaffilmark{1} \& D.\ Koester\altaffilmark{2}}
9: \altaffiltext{1}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
10: Baltimore, MD 21218}
11: \altaffiltext{2}{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik,
12: Universit\"at Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany}
13: \email{bohlin@stsci.edu}
14: % Submitted 2007Oct19, Accepted 2007Dec27
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17:
18: Observations from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph define the flux of
19: the DBQ4 star LDS749B from 0.12--1.0~$\mu$m with an uncertainty of $\sim$1\%
20: relative to the three pure hydrogen WD primary \emph{HST} standards. With
21: $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575~K$, $\log g=8.05$, and a trace of carbon at
22: $<$1$\times10^{-6}$ of solar, a He model atmosphere fits the measured STIS
23: fluxes within the observational noise, except in a few spectral lines with
24: uncertain physics of the line broadening theory. Upper limit to the atmospheric
25: hydrogen and oxygen fractions by number are 1$\times10^{-7}$ and
26: 7$\times10^{-10}$, respectively. The excellent agreement of the model flux
27: distribution with the observations lends confidence to the accuracy of the
28: modeled IR fluxes beyond the limits of the STIS spectrophotometry. The estimated
29: precision of $\sim$1\% in the predicted IR absolute fluxes at 30~$\mu$m should
30: be better than the model predictions for Vega and should be comparable to the
31: absolute accuracy of the three primary WD models.
32:
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \keywords{stars: atmospheres --- stars: fundamental parameters ---
36: stars: individual (LDS749B) --- techniques: spectroscopic}
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39:
40: The DBQ4 star LDS749B (WD2129+00) has long been considered for a flux standard
41: (e.g., Bohlin et~al.\ 1990). To establish the flux on the \emph{Hubble Space
42: Telescope} (\emph{HST}) white dwarf (WD) flux scale, STIS spectrophotometry was
43: obtained in 2001--2002. The virtues of LDS749B as a flux standard include an
44: equatorial declination and a significantly cooler flux distribution than the
45: 33000--61000~K primary DA standards GD71, GD153, and G191B2B. Full STIS
46: wavelength coverage is provided from 0.115--1.02~$\mu$m, and the peak in the SED
47: is near 1900~\AA. At $V=14.674$ (Landolt \& Uomoto 2007), LDS749B is among the
48: faintest \emph{HST} standards and is suitable for use with larger ground-based
49: telescopes and with the more sensitive \emph{HST} instrumentation, such as the
50: ACS/SBC and COS. The bulk of the STIS data was obtained as part of the FASTEX
51: (Faint Astronomical Sources Extention) program. Finding charts appear in
52: Turnshek et~al.\ (1990) and in Landolt \& Uomoto (2007); but there is a large
53: proper motion of 0.416 and 0.034 arcsec/yr in right ascension and declination,
54: respectively.
55:
56: The absolute flux calibration of \emph{HST} instrumentation is based on models
57: of three pure hydrogen WD stars GD71, GD153, and G191B2B (Bohlin 2000; Bohlin,
58: Dickenson, \& Calzetti 2001; Bohlin 2003). In particular, the NLTE model fluxes
59: produced by by the Tlusty code (Hubeny \& Lanz 1995) determine the shape of the
60: flux distributions using the known physics of the hydrogen atom and of stellar
61: atmospheres. If there are no errors in the basic physics used to determine the
62: stellar temperatures and gravities from the Balmer line profiles, then the
63: uncertainty of 3000~K for the effective temperature of G191B2B means that the
64: relative flux should be correct to better than 2.5\% from 0.13 to 1~$\mu$m and
65: to better than 1\% from 0.35 to 1~$\mu$m.
66:
67: A model that matches the observations serves as a noise free surrogate for the
68: observational flux distribution and provides a reliable extrapolation beyond the
69: limits of the observations for use as a calibration standard for \emph{JWST},
70: \emph{Spitzer}, and other IR instrumentation. Currently, the best IR absolute
71: flux distributions are found in a series of papers from the epic and pioneering
72: work of M.~Cohen and collaborators, i.e., the Cohen-Walker-Witteborn (CWW)
73: network of absolute flux standard (e.g., Cohen, Wheaton, \& Megeath 2003; Cohen
74: 2007). The CWW IR standard star fluxes are all ultimately based on models for
75: Vega and Sirius (Cohen et~al.\ 1992). More recently, Bohlin \& Gilliland (2004)
76: observed Vega and published fluxes on the \emph{HST}/STIS WD flux scale. A small
77: revision in the STIS calibration resulted in excellent agreement of the STIS
78: flux distribution with a custom made Kurucz model with $T_\mathrm{eff}=9400$~K
79: (Bohlin 2007), which is the same $T_\mathrm{eff}$ used for the Cohen et~al.\
80: (1992) Vega model.
81:
82: The model presented here for LDS749B and archived in the CALSPEC
83: database\footnote{The absolute spectral energy distributions discussed in this
84: paper are available in digital form at
85: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/observatory/cdbs/calspec.html.} should have a better
86: precision than the Kuruzc $T_\mathrm{eff}=9400$~K model for Vega, especially
87: beyond $\sim$12~$\mu$m, where the Vega's dust disk becomes important (Engleke,
88: Price, \& Kraemer 2006). Vega is also a pole-on rapid rotator, which may also
89: cause IR deviations from the flux for a single temperature model. Our modeled
90: flux distribution for LDS749B should have an accuracy comparable to the pure
91: hydrogen model flux distributions for the primary WD standards GD71, GD153, and
92: G191B2B.
93:
94: \section{The Model}
95:
96: A helium model atmosphere flux distribution for LDS749B is calculated with the
97: LTE code of Koester (e.g., Castanheira et~al.\ 2006) for
98: $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575$~K and $\log g=8.05$. At such a cool temperature, the
99: differences between LTE and NLTE in the continuum flux distributions should be
100: $<$0.1\% from the far-UV to the IR. For example for a pure hydrogen DA, the
101: difference between the continua of a hot 40,000~K LTE/NLTE pair of models is 1\%
102: between 0.1--2.5~$\mu$m. The same maximum difference at 20,000~K is only 0.3\%.
103: Napiwotzki (1997) did not discuss pure He models but concludes that NLTE effects
104: tend to become smaller with lower effective temperature. For cool DA WDs,
105: Koester et~al. (1998) show that the only NLTE effect that approaches 1\% is a
106: deeper line core of H$\alpha$. The matter densities in helium-rich white dwarfs
107: are significantly higher, leading to a higher ratio of collisional versus
108: radiative transitions between atomic levels. The larger importance of collisions
109: increases the tendency towards LTE occupation numbers because of the robust
110: Maxwell distribution of particle velocities.
111:
112: The $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575$~K is higher than the $T_\mathrm{eff}=13000$~K
113: published for LDS749B (alias G26$-$10) in Castanheira et~al.\ (2006), because
114: only UV spectra of lower precision (\emph{IUE} heritage) were used in that
115: analysis. Voss et~al.\ (2007) found $T_\mathrm{eff}=14440$~K with large
116: uncertainty, because only line profiles in the optical range were used and $\log
117: g$ had to be assumed. A trace of carbon at $10^{-6}$ of the solar C/He ratio is
118: included, i.e. the C/He number ratio is 3.715$\times10^{-9}$. The model mass is
119: 0.614~$M_{\sun}$ and the stellar radius is 0.01224~$R_{\sun}$, which corresponds
120: to a distance of 41~pc for the measured STIS flux.
121:
122: The line broadening theory for the He lines combines van der Waals, Stark, and
123: Doppler broadening to make a Voigt profile. However, the Stark broadening uses a
124: simple Lorentz profile with width and shift determined from the broadening data
125: in Griem (1964), instead of the elaborate calculations of Beauchamp et~al.\
126: (1997). The Griem method is computationally much faster, and data are available
127: for more lines than are calculated by Beauchamp et~al.
128:
129: The fit of the higher series He lines is much improved, if the neutral-neutral
130: interaction is decreased in comparison to the original formalism of the
131: Hummer-Mihalas occupation probabilities. A similar effect was noticed by Koester
132: et~al.\ (2005), and our model uses the same value of the quenching parameter
133: that Koester et~al.\ derived ($f=0.005$). The model wavelengths are all on a vacuum
134: scale.
135:
136: \section{STIS Spectrophotometry}
137:
138: The sensitivities of the five STIS low dispersion spectrophotometric modes have
139: been carefully tracked since the STIS commissioning in 1997. After correcting
140: for changing sensitivity with time (Stys, Bohlin, \& Goudfrooij 2004) and for
141: charge transfer efficiency (CTE) losses for the three STIS CCD spectral modes
142: (Bohlin \& Goudfrooij 2003; Goudfrooij et~al.\ 2006), STIS internal
143: repeatability is often better than 0.5\% (Bohlin 2003). Thus, \emph{HST}/STIS
144: observations of LDS749B provide absolute spectrophotometry with a precision that
145: is superior to ground based flux measurements, which require problematic
146: corrections for atmospheric extinction.
147:
148: Observations with a resolution $R=1000$--1500 in four STIS modes from
149: 1150--1710~\AA\ (G140L), 1590--3170~\AA\ (G230L), 2900--5690~\AA\ (G430L), and
150: 5300--10200~\AA\ (G750L) were obtained in 2001--2002. Earlier observations of
151: LDS749B in 1997 to test the time-tagged mode were unsuccessful. Two observations
152: in the CCD G230LB mode overlap the wavelength coverage of the MAMA G230L but are
153: too noisy to include in the final combined absolute flux measurement from the
154: other four modes. Table~1 summarizes the individual observations used for the
155: final combined average, along with the unused G230LB data for completeness.
156:
157: Figure 1 shows the ratios of the three individual G230L and the two G230LB
158: observations to the model fluxes, which are normalized to the STIS flux in the
159: 5300--5600~\AA\ range. The excellent repeatability of STIS spectrophotometry
160: over broad bands is illustrated and the global average ratio over the
161: 1750--3000~\AA\ band pass is written in each panel. This ratio is unity to
162: within 0.3\%, even for the shorter CCD G230LB exposures despite their almost
163: $3\times$ higher noise level and CTE corrections. The other CCD modes G430L and
164: G750L also require CTE corrections. Repeatability for all the STIS spectral
165: modes is comparable, i.e., the global ratio deviates rarely from unity by more
166: than 0.6\%.
167:
168: The observations in each of the four spectral modes are averaged and the four
169: segments are combined. This composite standard star spectrum extends from
170: 1150--10226~\AA\ and can be obtained at
171: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/observatory/cdbs/calspec.html/ along with the remainder
172: of the \emph{HST} standard star library (Bohlin, Dickenson, \& Calzetti 2001).
173: This binary fits table named $lds749b\_stis\_001.fits$ has 3666 wavelength
174: points and seven columns. An ascii file of the flux distribution in Table~2 is
175: available via the electronic version of this paper. Table~2 contains the
176: wavelength in \AA\ and the flux in erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$ in the
177: first two columns, while columns~3--4 are the Poisson and systematic uncertainty
178: estimates in flux units, respectively. Column~5 is the FWHM of the resolution in
179: \AA. The $fits$ version has two more columns than the ascii version: Column~6
180: is a data-quality flag, where one is good and zero may be poor quality. The
181: seventh column is the exposure time in seconds. The fluxes at the shortest
182: wavelengths below 1160~\AA\ are unreliable because of the steepness of the
183: sensitivity drop-off.
184:
185: \section{Comparison of the Observations with the Model}
186:
187: \subsection{The Continuum}
188:
189: To compare the model and observations, a convenient method of removing the slope
190: of the spectral energy distribution (SED) is to divide both fluxes by the same
191: theoretical model continuum. Small differences between the observations and the
192: model, either in the lines or in the actual continuum, are easily illustrated in
193: such plots. The theoretical continuum contains only continuum opacities with an
194: extrapolation across the He~\textsc{i} opacity edges at 2601, 3122, and
195: 3422~\AA, in order to avoid discontinuities. Figure~2 shows an overview of the
196: comparison of the STIS fluxes with the model after division of both SEDs by this
197: same smooth line-and-edge-free continuum. The mean continuum level of the data
198: between the absorption lines agrees with the model within $\sim$1\% almost
199: everywhere.
200:
201: The most significant deviation of the data from the model is in the broad
202: 1400--1550~\AA\ region, where each of the three spectra comprising the G140L
203: average have 350,000 photo-electron events in this 150~\AA\ band. The background
204: level is $<$0.1\% of the net signal, so that neither counting statistics nor
205: background subtraction error could cause the observed $\sim$1.5\% average
206: disparity. Of the five low dispersion modes, G140L shows the worst photometric
207: repeatability of individual spectra in broad bands of $\sigma\sim$0.6\%. The
208: three individual spectra comprising the G140L average do show occasional
209: 2--3$\sigma$ broadband dips within their 550~\AA\ coverage region; but the
210: probability of such a large excursion as 1.5\% in their average is extremely
211: unlikely at any particular wavelength. However, the probability is much greater
212: that such a large excursion could occur in some 150~\AA\ band. Individual G140L
213: spectra of the monitoring standard GRW+70$^{\circ}$5824 often show a broad
214: region differing by 1--2\% from the average. The cause of such excursions could
215: be flat field errors, temporal instabilities in the flat field, or other
216: detector effects that might make the flat field inapplicable to a narrow
217: spectral trace.
218:
219: \subsubsection{Uncertainties in $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\log g$}
220:
221: The uncertainty in the model $T_\mathrm{eff}$ is determined by the uncertainty
222: in the slope of the UV flux distribution. For a constant $\log g$ model that is
223: cooler or hotter by 50~K and normalized to the measured 5300--5600~\AA\ flux,
224: there are increasing differences with the data from 1\% near 2000~\AA\ to 2\% at
225: the shorter wavelengths. Such a large change in the modeled continuum level in
226: Figure~2 (red line) is inconsistent with the STIS flux (black line). This 50~K
227: uncertainty of the model $T_\mathrm{eff}$ is an internal uncertainty relative to
228: the temperatures of the primary WD standards GD71, GD153, and G191B2B. If a
229: re-analysis of the Balmer lines in these primary DA standards produces a
230: systematic shift in the temperature scale, this shift would be reflected in a
231: revised $T_\mathrm{eff}$ for LDS749B that is independent of the 50~K internal
232: uncertainty. A 50~K temperature difference causes a $<$0.5\% flux change in the
233: IR longward of 1~$\mu$m.
234:
235: To estimate the uncertainty in $\log g$, models are computed at the 13575~K
236: baseline temperature but with an increment in $\log g$. Positive and negative
237: increments produce nearly mirror image changes in the flux distribution. For a
238: decrease of 0.7 in $\log g$, the flux decreases by a nearly uniform 1.5\% below
239: 3600~\AA\ after normalizing to unity in the 5300--5600~\AA\ range. Increasing
240: the $T_\mathrm{eff}$ by the full 50~K uncertainty to 13625~K can compensate for
241: this flux decrease below $\sim$2000~\AA. However, the +50~K increase compensates
242: little in the 2500--3600~\AA\ range, leaving a disparity of $\sim$1\%. Because
243: this 2500--3600~\AA\ range includes some of the best S/N STIS data, a 1\%
244: disparity establishes the uncertainty of 0.7~dex in $\log g$ as barely
245: compatible with the STIS flux distribution. The IR uncertainty corresponding to
246: this limiting case of $T_\mathrm{eff}=13625~K$ and $\log g=7.35$ is $\sim$1\%
247: longward of 1~$\mu$m, because the fractional percent changes in the IR from the
248: higher temperature and from the lower $\log g$ are both in the same direction.
249:
250: \subsubsection{Interstellar Reddening}
251:
252: Another source of error in the model $T_\mathrm{eff}$ is interstellar reddening.
253: The standard galactic reddening curve has a strong broad feature around
254: 2200~\AA; and a tiny limit to the extinction $E(B-V)$ is set by the precise
255: agreement of STIS with the model in this region of Figure~2. For the upper
256: temperature limit of $13575+50=13625$~K, an $E(B-V)= 0.002$ brings the reddened
257: model into satisfactory agreement with STIS. However, for a temperature
258: increment of 100~K and $E(B-V)= 0.004$, the model is $\sim$1\% high at 1300~\AA\
259: and $\sim$1\% low at 2200~\AA. Thus, for standard galactic reddening, $E(B-V)$
260: must be less than 0.004, and $T_\mathrm{eff}$ is less than 13675~K. In this case
261: of $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $E(B-V)$ at these allowed limits, the IR flux beyond
262: 1~$\mu$m is still the same as for the unreddened baseline
263: $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575$~K within 0.5\%.
264:
265: However, Bohlin (2007) presented arguments for reddening with a weak 2200~\AA\
266: bump for other lines of sight with tiny amounts of extinction. Reddening curves
267: measured in the SMC (e.g., Witt \& Gordon 2000) are missing the 2200~\AA\
268: feature and can cause larger uncertainty in $T_\mathrm{eff}$. Additional
269: evidence for extinction curves more like those in the Magellanic clouds is
270: presented by Clayton et~al.\ (2000) for the local warm intercloud medium, where
271: the reddening is low. Changes in the shape of the flux distribution after
272: reddening with the SMC curve of Witt and Gordon are similar to the change in
273: shape with $T_\mathrm{eff}$. For example, reddening a model with
274: $T_\mathrm{eff}=14130$~K by SMC extinction of 0.015 is required to make an
275: equally unacceptable fit as for 13675~K and galactic extinction of $E(B-V)=
276: ~0.004$. In this extreme limiting case of SMC extinction, the IR flux beyond
277: 1~$\mu$m is still the same within $\sim$1\% as for $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575$~K and
278: $E(B-V)=0$.
279:
280: Despite small uncertainties in the interstellar reddening and consequent
281: uncertainty in $T_\mathrm{eff}$, our modeling technique still predicts the
282: continuum IR fluxes to 1\% from 1~$\mu$m to 30~$\mu$m. Discounting the most
283: pathological case of SMC reddening, the worst far-IR uncertainty is from the
284: combined 50~K temperature and 0.7 $\log g$ uncertainties, because the changes in
285: the slope from the visual band normalization region into the IR due to higher
286: temperature and lower $\log g$ are both in the same direction. In the absence of
287: modeling errors or other physical complications like IR excesses from dust
288: rings, the measured fluxes of LDS749B relative to the three primary WDs should
289: be the same as predicted by the relative fluxes of the respective models to a
290: precision of 1\% in the IR.
291:
292: \subsection{The Stellar Absorption Lines}
293:
294: \subsubsection{Hydrogen}
295:
296: An upper limit on the equivalent width for H$\alpha$ of $\sim$0.1~\AA\
297: constrains the fraction by number of hydrogen in the atmosphere of LDS749B to
298: $<$1$\times10^{-6}$ of helium. However, a stricter limit of $<$1$\times10^{-7}$
299: is provided by the weak Ly$\alpha$ line. Because interstellar absorption at
300: Ly$\alpha$ could be significant, zero hydrogen is consistent with the
301: observations and is adopted for the final best model for LDS749B. After
302: normalization in the $V$~band, the continuum of a model with $1\times10^{-7}$
303: hydrogen composition and the baseline $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575$~K and $\log g=8.05$
304: agrees with the zero hydrogen baseline continuum to $\sim$0.5\% from
305: Ly$\alpha$ to 30~$\mu$m.
306:
307: \subsubsection{Helium}
308:
309: Figure 3 compares the observed He\,\textsc{i} lines with the baseline model after
310: correcting the model wavelengths by the radial velocity of $-$81~km s$^{-1}$
311: (Greenstein \& Trimble 1967). The model is smoothed with a triangular profile of
312: FWHM corresponding to a resolution $R=1500$ for the MAMA spectra shortward of
313: 3065~\AA\ and to $R=1000$ for the CCD spectra longward of 3065~\AA. In general,
314: the model underestimates the line strengths, even for the quenching of the
315: neutral-neutral interactions with $f=0.005$. There is a suggestion of some
316: systematic asymmetry with stronger absorption in the short wavelength side of
317: the line profile. This asymmetry could be in the STIS line spread function
318: (LSF); or perhaps, a more exact treatment of the Stark line broadening theory
319: would reproduce the observed asymmetries.
320:
321: \subsubsection{Carbon}
322:
323: With a C/He ratio of $<$1$\times10^{-6}$ solar, i.e. a C/He number ratio of
324: 3.715$\times10^{-9}$, the modeled C~\textsc{i} and C~\textsc{ii} lines reproduce
325: the observations within the observational noise, as shown in Figure~4. In
326: particular, the agreement of the modeled C~\textsc{i}(1329)/C~\textsc{ii}(1335)
327: line ratio with the observed ratio means that the carbon ionization ratio
328: corresponds to the photospheric temperature of the star. With this small amount
329: of carbon, the spectral clasification of LDS749B should more properly be DBQ
330: (Wesemael et al.\ 1993).
331:
332: \subsubsection{Oxygen}
333:
334: The oxygen triplet at 1302.17, 1304.87, and 1306.04~\AA\ constrains the fraction
335: of oxygen in the LDS749B atmosphere. This triplet absorption feature extends
336: over 4~\AA\ or about seven STIS pixels; but no obvious absorption feature
337: appears above the noise level. After binning the STIS data by seven pixels, the
338: rms noise in the 1300~\AA\ region is 0.8\%. The corresponding 3$\sigma$ upper
339: limit to the equivalent width is 0.10~\AA, which implies an upper limit to the
340: atmospheric oxygen fraction by number of 7$\times10^{-10}$ of helium.
341:
342: \section{Conclusion}
343:
344: In the absence of any interstellar reddening, a helium model with
345: $T_\mathrm{eff}=13575~K\pm50$, $\log g=8.05\pm0.7$, and a trace of carbon at
346: $<$1$\times10^{-6}$ of solar fits the measured STIS flux distribution for
347: LDS749B. The noise-free, absolute flux distribution from the model after
348: normalization to the observed broadband visual flux is preferred for most
349: purposes. This normalized model SED is a high fidelity far-UV to far-IR
350: calibration source; and the flux distribution is available via Table~3 in the
351: electronic version of the \emph{Journal}. Both the observed flux distribution
352: and the modeled fluxes are also available from the CALSPEC
353: database.\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/hst/observatory/cdbs/calspec.html/.}
354:
355: \acknowledgments
356:
357: Primary support for this work was provided by NASA through the Space Telescope
358: Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract
359: NAS5-26555. Additional support came from DOE through contract number C3691 from
360: the University of California/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This
361: research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg,
362: France.
363:
364:
365: \begin{references}
366:
367: \reference{}Beauchamp, A., Wesemael, F., \& Bergeron, P. 1997, ApJS, 108, 559
368: \reference{}Bohlin, R.~C. 2000, AJ, 120, 437
369: \reference{}Bohlin, R.~C. 2003, in 2002 HST Calibration Workshop,
370: eds.\ S.~Arribas, A.~Koekemoer, \& B.~Whitmore, (Baltimore: STScI),
371: p.~115
372: \reference{}Bohlin, R. C. 2007, in The Future of Photometric, Spectrophotometric,
373: and Polarimetric Standardization, ASP Conf.\ Series, Vol.~364, p.~315
374: ed.\ C.~Sterken; also Astro-ph 0608715
375: \reference{}Bohlin, R.~C., Dickinson, M.~E., \& Calzetti, D. 2001, AJ, 122, 2118
376: \reference{}Bohlin, R.~C., \& Gilliland, R.~L. 2004, AJ, 127, 3508
377: \reference{}Bohlin, R., \& Goudfrooij, P. 2003, Instrument Science Report,
378: STIS 03-03, (Baltimore: STScI)\footnote{This STScI internal document can be found at: %\hfil\break
379: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/documents/isrs/.}
380: \reference{}Bohlin, R.~C., Harris, A.~W., Holm, A.~V., \& Gry, C. 1990, ApJS, 73,
381: 413
382: \reference{}Castanheira, B., Kepler, S., Handler, G., \& Koester, D. 2006,
383: A\&A, 450, 331
384: \reference{}Clayton, G., Gordon, K., \& Wolff, M. 2000, ApJS, 129, 147
385: \reference{}Cohen, M. 2007, in The Future of Photometric, Spectrophotometric, and
386: Polarimetric Standardization, ASP Conf.\ Series, Vol.~364, p.~333, ed.\
387: C.~Sterken
388: \reference{}Cohen, M., Walker, R.~G., Barlow, M.~J., \& Deacon, J.~R. 1992, AJ,
389: 104, 1650
390: \reference{}Cohen, M., Wheaton, W., \& Megeath, S. 2003, AJ, 126, 1090
391: \reference{}Engleke, C., Price, S., \& Kraemer, K. 2006, AJ, 132, 1445
392: \reference{}Goudfrooij, P., Bohlin, R., Ma\'{\i}z-Apell\'aniz, J., \& Kimble, R. 2006,
393: PASP, 118, 1455
394: \reference{}Griem, H. R. 1964, Plasma Spectroscopy, (New York: McGraw-Hill)
395: \reference{}Greenstein J.~L., \& Trimble V.~L. 1967, ApJ, 149, 283
396: \reference{}Hubeny, I., \& Lanz, T. 1995, ApJ, 439, 875
397: \reference{}Koester, D., Dreizler, S., Weidemann, V., \& Allard, N. F. 1998,
398: A\&A, 338, 612
399: \reference{}Koester, D., Napiwotzki, R., Voss, B., Homeier, D., \& Reimers, D.
400: 2005, A\&A, 439, 317
401: \reference{}Landolt, A.~U., \& Uomoto, A.~K. 2007, AJ, 133, 768
402: \reference{}Napiwotzki, R. 1997, A\&A, 322, 256
403: \reference{}Stys, D.~J., Bohlin, R.~C. \& Goudfrooij, P. 2004, Instrument
404: Science Report, STIS 2004-04, (Baltimore: STScI)\footnote{This STScI internal document can be found at: %\hfil\break
405: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/documents/isrs/.}
406: \reference{}Turnshek, D.~A., Bohlin, R.~C., Williamson, R.~L., Lupie, O.~L.,
407: Koornneef, J., \& Morgan D.~H. 1990, AJ, 99, 1243
408: \reference{}Voss, B., Koester, D., Napiwotzki, R., Christlieb, N., \& Reimers, D.
409: 2007, A\&A, 470, 1079
410: \reference{}Wesemael, F, et~al.\ 1993, PASP, 105, 761
411: \reference{}Witt, A., \& Gordon, K. 2000, ApJ, 528, 799
412:
413: \end{references}
414:
415: \clearpage
416: \begin{figure} %1
417: \centering
418: \includegraphics*[height=7in]{new-fig1.eps}
419: \caption{%\baselineskip=18pt
420: Ratio of individual STIS observations to the LDS749B model fluxes. Both the data
421: and the model are binned to the $\sim$2~pixel resolution of STIS before
422: dividing. The global average and rms for the range between the vertical dotted
423: lines are written in each panel along with the identifying information for each
424: observation: spectral mode, root name, aperture, and exposure time in
425: seconds. The noisier, short-exposure CCD mode G230LB data shown in the bottom
426: two panels are not used in the final average of the observations.}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: \begin{figure} %2
430: \centering
431: \includegraphics*[height=\textwidth,angle=90]{new-fig2.eps}
432: \caption{%\baselineskip=18pt
433: Comparison of the STIS observations with the model after scaling both SEDs by
434: the same edge-free theoretical model continuum. Both the model and its
435: theoretical continuum flux distributions are normalized to match the average
436: STIS flux in the 5300--5600~\AA\ region. The model flux is smoothed to the
437: approximate STIS resolution of $R=1500$ for the MAMA spectra (shortward of
438: 3065~\AA) and to $R=1000$ for the CCD spectra (longward of 3065~\AA). A thin
439: dashed line marks the unity level.}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442:
443: \begin{figure} %3
444: \includegraphics*[height=\textwidth,angle=90]{new-fig3.eps}
445: \caption{The 12 strongest He\,\textsc{i} lines in LDS749B as in Figure 2, except
446: on an expanded wavelength scale.}
447: \end{figure}
448:
449: \begin{figure} %4
450: \includegraphics*[height=\textwidth,angle=90]{new-fig4.eps}
451: \caption{Carbon lines in LDS749B as in Figure 2, except on an expanded wavelength
452: scale. The error bars are 1$\sigma$.}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \clearpage
456: \begin{deluxetable}{lllcc}
457: %\tabletypesize{\small}
458: \tablewidth{0pt}
459: \tablecaption{Journal of Observations}
460: \tablehead{\colhead{Rootname} &\colhead{Mode} &\colhead{Aperture} &\colhead{Date}
461: &\colhead{Exptime(s)}}
462: \startdata
463: O6IL01020 &G230LB &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &\phn576\\
464: O6IL01030 &G430L &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &\phn619\\
465: O6IL01040 &G750L &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &1380\\
466: O6IL01060 &G230LB &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &\phn576\\
467: O6IL01070 &G430L &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &\phn576\\
468: O6IL01080 &G750L &52$\times$2 &2001-07-13 &1584\\
469: O8H107010 &G140L &52$\times$2 &2002-09-01 &2266\\
470: O8H107020 &G430L &52$\times$2 &2002-09-01 &\phn400\\
471: O8H107030 &G430L &52$\times$2E1 &2002-09-01 &\phn400\\
472: O8H107040 &G230L &52$\times$2 &2002-09-01 &1469\\
473: O8H108010 &G140L &52$\times$2 &2002-10-16 &2266\\
474: O8H108020 &G430L &52$\times$2 &2002-10-16 &\phn400\\
475: O8H108030 &G430L &52$\times$2E1 &2002-10-16 &\phn400\\
476: O8H108040 &G230L &52$\times$2 &2002-10-16 &1469\\
477: O8H109010 &G140L &52$\times$2 &2002-12-27 &2266\\
478: O8H109020 &G430L &52$\times$2 &2002-12-27 &\phn400\\
479: O8H109030 &G430L &52$\times$2E1 &2002-12-27 &\phn400\\
480: O8H109040 &G230L &52$\times$2 &2002-12-27 &1469
481: \enddata
482: \end{deluxetable}
483:
484: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
485: \tablewidth{0pt}
486: \tablecaption{Measured STIS Absolute Flux Distribution for LDS749B}
487: \tablehead{Wavelength &Flux &Poisson &Systematic &FWHM}
488: \startdata
489: 1150.31 &1.68860e-14 &8.09170e-16 &1.68860e-16 &1.16699\\
490: 1150.89 &1.59170e-14 &7.54240e-16 &1.59170e-16 &1.16687\\
491: 1151.47 &1.51450e-14 &7.07050e-16 &1.51450e-16 &1.16687\\
492: 1152.06 &1.57620e-14 &7.02910e-16 &1.57620e-16 &1.16699\\
493: 1152.64 &1.54940e-14 &6.71560e-16 &1.54940e-16 &1.16699\\
494: \enddata
495: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic
496: edition of the \emph{Journal}. The printed edition contains only a sample.}
497: \end{deluxetable}
498:
499: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
500: \tablewidth{0pt}
501: \tablecaption{Model Absolute Flux Distribution for LDS749B}
502: \tablehead{Wavelength &Flux &Continuum}
503: \startdata
504: 900.000 &8.7713311e-15 &8.7863803e-15\\
505: 900.250 &8.7785207e-15 &8.7950878e-15\\
506: 900.500 &8.7853486e-15 &8.8037809e-15\\
507: 901.000 &8.7975857e-15 &8.8212095e-15\\
508: 901.500 &8.8064389e-15 &8.8386236e-15\\
509: \enddata
510: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic
511: edition of the \emph{Journal}. The printed edition contains only a sample.}
512: \end{deluxetable}
513:
514: \end{document}
515: