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

2: 

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

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

5: 

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

7: 

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

9: \shortauthors{FARIHI, BECKLIN, \& ZUCKERMAN}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

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

14: 		MASSIVE PLANETARY AND COLD BROWN DWARF

15: 		COMPANIONS TO YOUNG AND OLD DEGENERATES}

16: 

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

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

19: 	 B. Zuckerman\altaffilmark{1}}

20: 

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

22: 			University of California,

23: 			430 Portola Plaza,

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

25: \altaffiltext{2}{Gemini Observatory,

26: 			Northern Operations,

27: 			670 North A'ohoku Place,

28: 			Hilo, HI 96720}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: 

32: This paper presents a sensitive and comprehensive IRAC $3-8$ $\mu$m photometric 

33: survey of white dwarfs for companions in the planetary mass regime with temperatures 

34: cooler than the known T dwarfs.  The search focuses on descendents of intermediate 

35: mass stars with $M\ga3$ $M_{\odot}$ whose inner, few hundred AU regions cannot 

36: be probed effectively for massive planets and brown dwarfs by any alternative existing 

37: method.  Furthermore, examination for mid-infrared excess explores an extensive range 

38: of orbital semimajor axes, including the intermediate $5-50$ AU range poorly covered 

39: and incompletely accessible by other techniques at main sequence or evolved stars.

40: Three samples of white dwarfs are chosen which together represent relatively young as 

41: well as older populations of stars: 9 open cluster white dwarfs, 22 high mass field white 

42: dwarfs, and 17 metal-rich field white dwarfs.  In particular, these targets include: 7 Hyads 

43: and 4 field white dwarfs of similar age; 1 Pleiad and 19 field white dwarfs of similar age; 

44: van Maanen 2 and 16 similarly metal-rich white dwarfs with ages between 1 and 7 Gyr.  

45: 

46: No substellar companion candidates were identified at any star.  By demanding a 15\% 

47: minimum photometric excess at 4.5 $\mu$m to indicate a companion detection, upper limits 

48: in the planetary mass regime are established at 34 of the sample white dwarfs, 20 of which 

49: have limits below 10 $M_{\rm J}$ according to substellar cooling models.  Specifically, limits

50: below the minimum mass for deuterium burning are established at all Pleiades and Hyades

51: white dwarfs, as well as similarly young field white dwarfs, half a dozen of which receive limits 

52: at or below 5 $M_{\rm J}$.  Two IRAC epochs at vMa 2 rule out $T\ga200$ K proper motion 

53: companions within 1200 AU.

54: 

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: \keywords{binaries: general ---

58: 	stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs ---

59: 	infrared: stars ---

60: 	planetary systems ---

61: 	stars: evolution ---

62: 	white dwarfs}

63: 

64: \section{INTRODUCTION}

65: 

66: The first strong candidate and certain substellar objects identified outside the Solar system 

67: were all discovered orbiting evolved degenerate stars: the probable brown dwarf companion to

68: the white dwarf GD 165 \citep*{kir99,bec88}, and the planetary system orbiting the pulsar PSR 

69: 1257$+$12 \citep*{wol92}.  Furthermore, the first directly detected, unambiguous substellar and 

70: planetary mass objects were imaged as wide companions orbiting low luminosity primaries: the 

71: brown dwarf secondary to the M dwarf Gl 229 \citep*{nak95}, and the planetary mass secondary 

72: to the young brown dwarf commonly known as 2M1207 \citep*{son06,cha05}.  Historically, as 

73: well as astrophysically, these properties provide a clear advantage over other types of primaries 

74: in the quest to directly detect radiation from bound substellar objects of the lowest mass, such 

75: as planets.

76: 

77: Observations indicate that bound substellar objects and planetary system components survive 

78: post-main sequence evolution.  First, there now exist roughly one dozen first ascent giant stars 

79: known to harbor substellar and planetary companions \citep*{nie07,ref06,hat06,hat05,sat03,fri02}.

80: Second, there are at least 3 white dwarfs which have close, unaltered and unevolved substellar 

81: companions \citep*{bur06,max06,far05a}.  Third, there are at least 10 white dwarfs with infrared

82: excess due to debris disks which indicate a growing probability of orbiting rocky planetesimals 

83: \citep*{far08,jur07b,jur07a,kil07,rea05}.  These cool white dwarfs with warm orbiting dust also 

84: display anomalous photospheric metals which are almost certainly accreted from their circumstellar 

85: material.  The origin of the orbiting material and the dynamical interactions necessary to bring it close 

86: enough to the star to be accreted, are consistent with remnant planetary systems \citep*{jur03,deb02}.

87: 

88: The earth-size radii and consequent low luminosities typical of white dwarfs are clear advantages 

89: when searching for light emitted from cold jupiter-size planets and brown dwarfs.  Prior to the 

90: launch of {\em Spitzer}, generally speaking, only M and L dwarf companions could be detected 

91: directly as excess infrared emission from white dwarfs \citep*{tre07,hoa07,bur06,far06,far05a,

92: far05b,far04a,wac03,zuc87,pro83}.  As a benchmark, a typical 10000 K degenerate and an 

93: L5 dwarf are about equally luminous at $K$-band \citep*{dah02,ber95b}, while ground-based 

94: observations of white dwarfs at longer wavelengths (where the contrast for cooler companions 

95: would improve) are prohibited by overwhelming sky brightness \citep*{gla99}.

96: 

97: Owing to the capabilities of {\em Spitzer} \citep*{wer04}, a Cycle 1 IRAC \citep*{faz04} program 

98: was undertaken to photometrically search for massive planets and cold substellar companions 

99: to relatively young and old white dwarfs, respectively.  Specifically, the target sample includes

100: white dwarfs in the Hyades and Pleiades, high mass field white dwarfs, and metal-rich field

101: white dwarfs.  Farihi, Zuckerman, \& Becklin (2008; Paper I) describe photometry for all the 

102: older (metal-rich) degenerate targets, while this paper presents a synopsis of the IRAC results 

103: for the younger (open cluster and high mass) degenerates, and upper mass limits for unresolved 

104: companions to all the Cycle 1 targets.

105: 

106: \section{RELATIVELY YOUNG AND OLD DEGENERATE TARGETS}

107: 

108: While highly evolved, white dwarfs are not necessarily old.  This fact is exemplified by the 

109: nearest and brightest degenerate star in the sky, Sirius B, with a mass of $M\approx1.00$ 

110: $M_{\odot}$ and a total age of $\tau\approx240$ Myr \citep*{lie05b}.  For stars which evolved 

111: essentially as single objects, there is a correlation between main sequence progenitor mass and 

112: white dwarf mass, derived primarily from studies of open clusters \citep*{dob06a,kal05,wil04,cla01,

113: wei00,wei90,wei87}.  This initial-to-final mass relation yields an estimate of the total age for any 

114: particular white dwarf provided its mass and cooling age are accurately known.  For white dwarf 

115: masses below 0.6 $M_{\odot}$, the initial-to-final mass relation is quite steep and small errors in 

116: degenerate mass can lead to large errors in main sequence lifetime \citep*{bur02}.

117: 

118: \subsection{Hyad and Pleiad Targets}

119: 

120: The Hyades and Pleiades are relatively young and nearby open clusters; the former at $d=46$ 

121: pc and $\tau=625$ Myr \citep*{per98,pin98}, and the latter at $\tau=125$ Myr and $d=132$ pc 

122: \citep*{sta98,pin98,sod98}.  Classically, the only white dwarf Pleiad is EG 25 (LB 1497), but recently 

123: the possibility has been raised that the massive white dwarfs GD 50 and PG 0136$+$251 may have 

124: originated in the same region which gave rise to the cluster \citep*{dob06b}.  The latter stars are 

125: considered in the following section, and only EG 25 is listed among cluster targets.  Table \ref{tbl1} 

126: lists all observed open cluster white dwarfs, including the seven classical single white dwarf Hyads 

127: and EG 265 (V411 $\tau$), which is either a proper cluster member or part of the Hyades supercluster 

128: \citep*{rei93,egg84}.  Excluded are the white dwarf Hyads in binary systems; V471 $\tau$ and HZ 9.  

129: The open cluster targets come from this study ({\em Spitzer} Program 3549; PI Becklin), with the exception 

130: of Hyades targets EG 39 and EG 42, which were extracted from the {\em Spitzer} archive (Program 2313; 

131: PI Kuchner).  

132: 

133: \subsection{High Mass Targets}

134: 

135: As with Sirius B and the white dwarf Pleiad, a white dwarf mass near 1.0 $M_{\odot}$ implies 

136: a short main sequence lifetime for unadulterated single star evolution, regardless of association.  

137: More specifically, were these young white dwarfs identical in mass (depending on the reference, 

138: their masses differ by no more than 10\%; \citealt*{lie05b,cla01}), their total age difference can be

139: estimated from the difference in their effective temperatures; $T_{\rm eff}=25,200$ K for Sirius B, and 

140: $T_{\rm eff}=31,700$ K for EG 25.  For these temperatures, log $g=8.6$ (very nearly 1.0 $M_{\odot}$) 

141: hydrogen atmosphere models predict cooling ages of 130 and 60 Myr respectively, which by itself 

142: would account for 60\% of their total age difference \citep*{bar05,cla01,ber95b,ber95c,ber95a}.  

143: In reality the total difference in their ages is due both to differential cooling and unequal main 

144: sequence progenitor lifetimes.

145: 

146: Any hot, high mass white dwarf which evolved as a single star will be similarly young, or even 

147: younger for higher temperatures or masses.  In this paper, it is assumed that all high mass white 

148: dwarfs are descended from single main sequence star progenitors of intermediate mass, but this may 

149: not be the case.  There appears to be indirect evidence in favor of, as well as against, the existence of 

150: high mass white dwarfs resulting from mergers, but no direct evidence exists \citep*{han06,fer05,lie05a}.

151: Ten hot and massive white dwarf targets come from this study ({\em Spitzer} Program 3549; PI Becklin) 

152: and one dozen similar targets were extracted from the {\em Spitzer} archive (Program 3309; PI Hansen).  

153: Table \ref{tbl2} lists the 22 hot field white dwarfs with masses $M\geq0.9$ $M_{\odot}$ selected for study.  

154: 

155: \subsection{Older Targets}

156: 

157: Included in the sample are metal-rich white dwarfs from Paper I ({\em Spitzer} Program 3548; PI Zuckerman) 

158: with the addition of vMa 2, which was extracted from the {\em Spitzer} archive (Program 33; PI Fazio).  

159: These targets are relatively old, with total ages between $1-7$ Gyr and are listed in Table \ref{tbl3} 

160: for completeness, although their IRAC fluxes are previously published in Paper I with the exception 

161: of vMa 2.

162:  

163: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA}

164: 

165: For white dwarf targets in Programs 3548 and 3549, the details of the IRAC observing strategy, 

166: data reduction and analysis are described in full detail in Paper I.  In these programs a total 

167: exposure time of 600 s was utilized for each target in all bandpasses.  For white dwarf targets 

168: extracted from the {\em Spitzer} archive, the exposure times were shorter and occasionally in 

169: only 2 bandpasses (see \citealt*{mul07,han06}).  Fortunately, all targets were unambiguously 

170: detected at 4.5 $\mu$m, the wavelength which places the best constraints on spatially unresolved 

171: cold substellar and massive planetary companions, according to models for the appropriate range 

172: of ages and masses \citep*{bur03,bar03}.

173: 

174: \subsection{Photometry and Upper Limits}

175: 

176: Paper I contains a detailed discussion regarding the consistency of measured IRAC fluxes of white 

177: dwarfs compared to model predictions and concludes the photometric accuracy is well described 

178: as 5\%.  Also described there is a conservative approach to estimating the signal-to-noise of IRAC 

179: detections in the presence of possible confusion and spatially varying background.  In Paper I, all 

180: targets were detected at all wavelengths, which is not the case here.

181: 

182: To create upper limits for nondetections, aperture photometry was performed as described 

183: in Paper I at the nominal location of the white dwarf, derived from one or more IRAC channels

184: in which the source was positively detected.  Utilizing the smallest radius ($r=2$ pixels) for which 

185: there are published aperture corrections, the flux in this aperture was compared to the per pixel 

186: sky noise multiplied by the area of the aperture, and the larger of these values was taken to be 

187: the upper limit, after an appropriate aperture correction.  In nearly all cases, the larger value 

188: was given by the additive noise in the aperture, but there were a few cases in which there was 

189: flux measured above this level.  In these cases, it appeared possible or likely that the measured

190: flux originated from background sources as evidenced by pixel shifts in the centroid of the source 

191: flux compared to the other IRAC channels, or sources which were apparently extended.

192: 

193: It is noteworthy that the photometric errors used here, as well as the derived upper limits for 

194: nondetections, are somewhat larger than those published in \citet*{han06} and \citet*{mul07} 

195: for the same observations.  In some cases where white dwarf flux is reported by those authors, 

196: Table \ref{tbl4} indicates only an upper limit for the reasons stated at the end of the previous 

197: paragraph.  IRAC fluxes and upper limits for 32 of 48 studied stars (excepting those previously 

198: published in Paper I) are listed in Table \ref{tbl4} and plotted in Figures \ref{fig1}--\ref{fig8}.

199: 

200: \section{ANALYSIS}

201: 

202: \subsection{Total Ages}

203: 

204: To infer companion mass limits using substellar cooling models, each white dwarf 

205: target requires an assessment of its total age since formation as a main sequence star.  

206: Substellar companions which form in a binary will be truly coeval, while massive planets 

207: are thought to form within 10 Myr of their main sequence hosts.  For the open cluster white 

208: dwarfs, their total age is the cluster age, while for field white dwarfs the following methods 

209: are used to estimate their ages.

210: 

211: First, any field white dwarf with a mass and effective temperature similar to or higher 

212: than the Pleiad EG 25 is assumed to be of similar age, roughly 0.1 Gyr.  There are sufficient 

213: uncertainties in both the masses and temperatures of these stars, as evidenced by the $10-20$\% 

214: variation among parameters cited in the literature for the same objects (see Table \ref{tbl2} for a list 

215: of references) which translates into errors in cooling ages on the order of $10-20$ Myr.  Fortunately, 

216: this type of error should be offset when assessing a total age because higher mass white dwarfs cool 

217: more slowly (smaller surface area) yet have shorter inferred main sequence lifetimes than their less 

218: massive counterparts.  For the high mass field stars considered here, the modest errors in cooling age 

219: and inferred main sequence lifetime, which result from uncertainties in white dwarf parameters, are 

220: comparable in magnitude and therefore tend to cancel out.  Given these uncertainties for the hot and 

221: massive field white dwarfs, it seems prudent to assign a 20\% uncertainty in their total ages, or 

222: $\tau=0.125\pm0.025$ Gyr.

223: 

224: Second, all cooler and less massive (i.e. older) field degenerates have their total ages assessed 

225: following the procedure employed originally by \citet*{bur02} and more recently by \citet*{deb07}.

226: This latter method utilizes the initial-to-final mass to relation to obtain a main sequence mass from 

227: the current, known white dwarf mass.  A main sequence lifetime is then assigned based on the 

228: inferred main sequence mass, and this is added to the white dwarf cooling lifetime to obtain an 

229: approximate total age

230: 

231: \begin{equation}

232: \tau = t_{\rm ms} + t_{\rm wd}

233: \end{equation}

234: 

235: \noindent

236: Cooling ages come from models of P. Bergeron (2002, private communication; 

237: \citealt*{ber95b,ber95c}), while main sequence lifetimes were calculcated using the formulae of 

238: \citet*{hur00}.  Tables \ref{tbl5} and \ref{tbl6} list the relevant ages for all targets together with upper 

239: mass limits for substellar companions determined as described below.  It should be stated that this 

240: general method is the best available to estimate the total age of white dwarfs not belonging to open 

241: clusters or multiple systems from which another age constraint might be gleaned.  However, there 

242: are several sources of uncertainty in the estimation of total ages, including but not limited to: the 

243: slope of the initial-to-final mass relation, assumed main sequence lifetimes, and white dwarf model 

244: uncertainties; specifically, spectroscopic parameter fits and cooling ages \citep*{kal08,dob06a,fer05}.  

245: Owing to these facts, the uncertainty in the total ages of older field white dwarfs is taken to be 25\%.  

246: 

247: \subsection{Unresolved Companion Mass Limits from 4.5 $\mu$m Fluxes}

248: 

249: All white dwarfs in Tables \ref{tbl1}--\ref{tbl3} have measured IRAC fluxes at 4.5 $\mu$m, where 

250: cold ($T_{\rm eff}<1000$ K) substellar objects are predicted to be brightest \citep*{bar03,bur03}.  

251: This bandpass is best for placing limits on any spatially unresolved substellar companions.  The 

252: flux errors in Table \ref{tbl4} are $1\sigma$ values, but for reasons discussed in Paper I, and to be 

253: conservative, an unambiguous detection of excess at this wavelength is defined here as $3\sigma$ 

254: above the expected white dwarf flux.  By demanding this level of excess, blackbody models will 

255: suffice to predict the expected 4.5 $\mu$m photospheric flux of the white dwarf targets (Paper I).  

256: The absolute magnitude corresponding to the minimally reliable excess flux from each white dwarf 

257: target, is then given by

258: 

259: \begin{equation}

260: M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}} = -2.5 \log \left( \frac{3 \sigma}{F_0} \left( \frac{d}{10} \right)^2 \right) 

261: \end{equation}

262: 

263: \noindent

264: where $\sigma$ is the total flux error in Jy at 4.5 $\mu$m from Table \ref{tbl4}, $d$ is the distance 

265: to the white dwarf in pc, and $F_0=179.7$ Jy \citep*{ssc06a}.  Substellar cooling models updated 

266: to include fluxes in the IRAC bandpasses were used to transform the expected flux into a mass for 

267: a given age (I. Baraffe 2007, private communication; \citealt*{bar03}).  Some representative, model 

268: predicted values for $M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ at the ages of interest are given in Table \ref{tbl7}.  It is 

269: noteworthy that this analysis rules out unresolved sub-T dwarf companions at 25 white dwarfs in 

270: Table \ref{tbl5}; the known T dwarf sequence ends near $M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}=13.5$ mag and T8

271: \citep*{pat06}, and limits at these stars reach 13.6 $\leq M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}} \leq$ 15.2 mag (typically

272: $M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}=14.3\pm0.5$ mag).

273: 

274: Additionally, any spatially resolved point sources detected within several arcseconds of the white 

275: dwarf were photometrically examined for the possibility of companionship via their IRAC colors and 

276: any available ground-based photometric or astrometric data.  Owing to the higher sensitivity of the 

277: 2 short IRAC wavelengths, some resolved substellar objects may not be detected at the 2 long

278: IRAC wavelengths, resulting in a potential ambiguity for some visual companions.  Generally speaking, 

279: no candidate companions were identified in this manner, but a few possibilties are discussed in \S5.7.

280: 

281: \subsection{Resolved Companion Mass Limits from 7.9 $\mu$m Fluxes}

282: 

283: In order to detect T and sub-T dwarfs as spatially resolved companions, and to differentiate such 

284: objects from background point-like sources, they must be reliably detected at all 4 IRAC wavelengths.

285: The 2 long wavelength IRAC channels in particular, together with the 2 short wavelength channels, 

286: provide unique information which should eliminate the color degeneracy between cool brown dwarfs 

287: and red extragalactic (point-like) sources in the near-infrared and short wavelength IRAC channels alone 

288: \citep*{pat06}.  This fact appreciably limits any wide field IRAC search for T dwarf companions due to the 

289: lower sensitivity of the long wavelength IRAC channels \citep*{ssc06b}, as detailed below.  There are 7 

290: white dwarfs from Table \ref{tbl3} which met the necessary criteria for such a search: 1) IRAC imaging of 

291: their surrounding fields in all 4 channels and; 2) a distance within approximately 20 pc.  The entire known 

292: T dwarf sequence (down to T8) should be detected at all 4 wavelengths at these distances \citep*{pat06}. 

293: 

294: Figure \ref{fig9} shows the number of detected sources in each IRAC channel, as a function of 

295: magnitude, in the full IRAC fields of the 16 white dwarfs from Paper I which shared 600 s integration 

296: times per filter, and identical 20-point dithering patterns.  These sources were successfully detected 

297: and extracted photometrically by the IRAF tasks {\sf daofind} and {\sf daophot}.  Based on the number of 

298: detections per magnitude bin (disregarding any trends in the number of source counts as a function of 

299: wavelength), it is clear that the 7.9 $\mu$m channel would limit any 4 channel IRAC survey for objects 

300: whose spectral energy distributions are not rising towards longer wavelengths.

301: 

302: \subsubsection{Detectability of T and sub-T Dwarfs}

303: 

304: There exist a total of 58 white dwarfs which have been observed with IRAC at 7.9 $\mu$m utilizing 

305: a common experimental design; 22 targets from the present work, 16 white dwarfs from Paper I, and 

306: 10 degenerates from \citet*{jur07a}.  This white dwarf dataset allows an empirical assessment of the

307: photometric sensitivity at this longest wavelength, and contains 35 unambiguous detections in that 

308: channel, with point sources as faint as 0.06 mJy reliably detected in all backgrounds.  This finding is 

309: consistent with: 1) the published sensitivities for IRAC \citep*{ssc06b}; 2) calculations by the Sensitivity 

310: Performance Estimation Tool; and 3) the number of sources detected as a function of magnitude in 

311: Figure \ref{fig9}.  Therefore at $m_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}=15.0$ mag, or 0.064 mJy, point sources should be 

312: well detected regardless of background.

313: 

314: The T dwarf sequence down to spectral type T8 ends at $M_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}=13.3$ mag 

315: \citep*{pat06}.  This corresponds to $m_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}=14.8$ mag at a distance of 20 pc and thus 

316: any widely separated T dwarf companions to the $d\leq20$ pc targets should be readily detected in 

317: this channel.  Similar calculations in the other 3 IRAC channels estimate that a T8 dwarf should 

318: be correspondingly well detected out to; 20 pc at 5.7 $\mu$m, 60 pc at 3.6 $\mu$m, and 100 pc at 4.5 

319: $\mu$m \citep*{pat06}.  For the white dwarf targets closer than 20 pc, the IRAC observations should be 

320: sensitive to small range of substellar companions with $M_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}>13.3$ mag, and potentially 

321: of a later spectral type than T.

322: 

323: Owing to the nature of the dithering pattern, a further assessment must be made in regards 

324: to the effective field of view for the depth described above.  For all but vMa 2, the medium sized 

325: cycling pattern was used, which should result in an effective coverage equal to the IRAC field of 

326: view minus about 25 pixels at each edge, or approximately $4.1'\times4.1'$, consistent with the 

327: analyzed images.  For vMa 2, the effective field of view is about 12 pixels larger at each edge, 

328: or approximately $4.6'\times4.6'$, and the sensitivity was 0.75 mag less at each channel owing 

329: to a 150 s total integration time.

330: 

331: \subsubsection{Selection of T and sub-T Dwarfs}

332: 

333: For each white dwarf searched for wide T and sub-T dwarf companions, all 4 IRAC filter 

334: images were aligned and combined to create a single master coordinate image. The IRAF 

335: task {\sf daofind} was executed on this master IRAC image to select point sources with counts 

336: at or above $3\sigma$ and the resulting coordinate list was then fed into {\sf daophot} for 

337: each filter image in order to perform automated point spread function fitting photometry. 

338: 

339: Template point spread functions were created by running {\sf daophot} on IRAC images of the 

340: Galactic component of the {\em Spitzer} Galactic First Look Survey to select approximately half 

341: to one dozen bright, unsaturated point sources in each filter.  The magnitudes of these selected 

342: template soures were calculated by creating zero points which included the zero magnitude fluxes 

343: for IRAC, multiplication by the appropriate unit area on the array, and the necessary conversion of 

344: units.  If the standard $r=10$ pixel radius aperture is used for photometry, these zero points are 

345: (17.30, 16.81, 16.33, 15.69) mag at (3.6, 4.5, 5.7, 7.9) $\mu$m.

346: 

347: The extracted sources in each filter were cross-correlated using the master coordinate list, and 

348: 2 color-color diagrams were generated from the results; $m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}-m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ 

349: versus $m_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}-m_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$, and $m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}-m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ versus 

350: $m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}-m_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}$.  In these planes, T and sub-T dwarf candidates were selected 

351: by demanding an object meet 3 criteria suggested by the IRAC colors presented in \citet*{pat06}; 

352: $0.2< m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}-m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}<3.0$, $0.0<m_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}-m_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}<1.5$, 

353: and $-1.5<m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}-m_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}<1.0$, with error bars ignored in the first cut.  All objects 

354: thus selected were examined individually; their images inspected and photometric data further evaluated.

355: Although the mid-infrared colors of sub-T type objects are somewhat uncertain, model predictions yield 

356: colors which fit with the selection criteria above (D. Saumon 2006, private communication).  Unfortunately, 

357: the earliest T dwarfs do not stand out strongly in IRAC color-color diagrams, and require near-infrared 

358: photometry to be clearly distinguished \citep*{pat06}.

359: 

360: No candidates which met all the criteria and passed critical examination were found in 

361: the IRAC fields of the 7 white dwarfs within $d=20$ pc.  While testing the color-color selection 

362: and extraction algorithm, the procedure was conducted at all 17 metal-rich white dwarfs in Table 

363: \ref{tbl3}.  A typical detection which met the color criteria had one or more of the following problems: 

364: 1) large photometric errors; 2) a location near the noisy edge of the image; 3) probable confusion with 

365: another source; 4) association with a known image artifact; 5) a substantially discrepant color-magnitude 

366: at the expected distance.  Less often a detection would be a very red, unresolved extragalactic source 

367: whose nature was confirmed via existing optical astrometric and photometric catalogs. Table \ref{tbl6} 

368: lists the resulting upper limits on substellar mass companions achieved using this method, calculated 

369: by transforming $m_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}=15.0$ mag to the expected $M_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$ at the target 

370: distance, then using substellar cooling models to obtain a mass from this flux at the appropriate total 

371: age (I. Baraffe 2007, private communication; \citealt*{bar03}).  

372: 

373: To test the selection and extraction algorithm, the IRAC fields of 3 T dwarfs were downloaded 

374: from the {\em Spitzer} archive (Program 35; PI Fazio) and the procedure was run on images containing 

375: objects with spectral types T2.0, T5.0, and T8.0 \citep*{pat06}.  All 3 objects were selected correctly 

376: by the color-color cuts, and with modest photometric error bars indicating genuine detections.  There 

377: is a non-zero probability that a bona fide cold brown dwarf companion escaped detection among our

378: white dwarf target fields, despite the ability of {\sf daophot} to spatially and photometrically deconvolve

379: overlapping point sources.  Based on the detection logs and the statistics from Figure \ref{fig9}, in the 

380: two short wavelength IRAC filter images there were roughly 1000 sources per field with brightnesses 

381: greater than the completeness limit in those bandpasses.  Taking a worst case scenario where all

382: these sources represent potential spoilers yields a 2\% probability of chance alignment within the 

383: relatively large, reduced image field of view.

384: 

385: \subsubsection{The Hyades}

386: 

387: Figure \ref{fig10} plots color-magnitude diagrams for all detected point-like sources in the fields 

388: of the 6 Hyades white dwarfs observed in both of the short wavelength IRAC channels.  Included in

389: the plot is the expected T dwarf sequence (T1$-$T8; \citealt*{pat06}) at the 46 pc distance to the open 

390: cluster.  The cooler part of the T dwarf sequence appears to standout from most field objects.  All 

391: sources with $m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}-m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}>1.0$ were investigated individually, revealing 

392: a few extragalactic sources, spurious detections near bright stars or the edge of the mosaic, and 

393: sources with large photometric errors.  No reliable candidates near the T dwarf sequence were 

394: identified.  Since T and sub-T dwarfs should not be detected at the distance to the Hyades in the 

395: 2 long wavelength IRAC channels, this limits what can be done with single epoch IRAC data to 

396: constrain wide, methane-bearing substellar companions.  Moreover, because very cool brown dwarfs 

397: will have $K-m_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}\ga1$ \citep*{pat06}, they should not be detected in 2MASS, as any such 

398: companions in the Hyades would have $K\ga16$ mag.  Therefore, further analysis of these datasets can 

399: only be be achieved with deep near-infrared imaging from the ground or proper motion analysis with a 

400: second epoch IRAC observation.

401: 

402: \section{LIMITS ON MASSIVE PLANETS AND COLD BROWN DWARF COMPANIONS}

403: 

404: Clearly, none of the 32 stars in Figures \ref{fig1}--\ref{fig8} display reliably measured photometric 

405: excess at 4.5 $\mu$m.  When combined with similar results for the white dwarfs analyzed in Paper I, 

406: there are a total of 47 observed degenerates which reveal no evidence for unresolved, cold brown 

407: dwarf or massive planetary companions.  This is a striking result, especially considering the large 

408: number of relatively young white dwarfs where massive planets would be detectable. There are 34 

409: white dwarfs for which the IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m observations were sensitive to unresolved planetary 

410: mass companions in the range $2-13$ $M_{\rm J}$, and 10 white dwarfs for which the data

411: were sensitive to brown dwarf companions in the range $14-20$ $M_{\rm J}$, according to 

412: substellar cooling models used here (I. Baraffe 2007, private communication; \citealt*{bar03}).

413: 

414: \subsection{The Influence of Stellar Evolution on Massive Planets}

415: 

416: The aperture photometry and image analysis places limits on the presence of unresolved or

417: partially resolved companions out to approximately 5 pixels or $6''$, the largest aperture used for 

418: photometry (Paper I).  This angle on the sky corresponds to a several hundred AU region around 

419: the target white dwarfs, which lie at typical distances in the range $d\approx20-100$ pc.  However, 

420: any planets which formed in the $5-50$ AU range during the main sequence phase, should now 

421: be located further out due to orbital expansion via mass loss during the asymptotic giant branch 

422: \citep*{far06,far05b,bur02,zuc87,jea24}, yet still within a region to which the IRAC photometry is 

423: sensitive.  While a typical expansion factor (equal to the ratio of the main sequence progenitor mass 

424: to the white dwarf mass) is $2-3$ for F-type stars, the massive young degenerates studied here are 

425: likely to produce much larger increases, up to a factor of 6 or so.

426: 

427: Tidal interactions should be relatively strong for massive planets orbiting intermediate mass 

428: stars, whose radii can become as large as several AU at the tip of the asymptotic giant branch.  

429: For example, a 5 $M_{\odot}$ main sequence star should grow to a maximum radius near 5 AU 

430: \citep*{vil07}, directly engulfing any planets in that range.  Using Equation 6 of \citet*{ras96} for such 

431: a star, and assuming a convective envelope mass near 3 $M_{\odot}$, a 10 $M_{\rm J}$ planet 

432: at 10 AU should tidally decay within the 1 Myr lifetime of its asymptotic giant branch host \citep*{vas93}.  

433: Although this calculation is likely oversimplified, it is instructive; eschewing direct engulfment is not 

434: sufficient for a planet to survive the post-main sequence.  Rather, the more massive the planet, the 

435: more it will induce tides in the giant star and the more likely it will experience orbital decay and be 

436: destroyed \citep*{ras96}.  One competing factor is the fact that by the time an asymptotic giant has 

437: reached it maximum radius there has been significant mass lost and the orbits of any planets should 

438: already have expanded commensurately.  However, a complete, time-dependent treatment of these 

439: competing forces -- orbital expansion due to mass loss versus orbital decay due to tidal forces -- on 

440: planets during the asymptotic giant branch has not been carried out.  Such a study would be highly

441: valuable but is beyond the scope of this paper.

442: 

443: \subsection{Massive Planets and Brown Dwarfs at Evolved Stars}

444: 

445: Recent work indicates a substantial percentage of substellar, radial velocity companions to 

446: first ascent giant stars are potentially or certainly above the deuterium burning minimum mass.

447: Presently 4 of 13 or 31\% of known substellar companions to giant stars have masses above 

448: 13 $M_{\rm J}$ \citep*{liu07,lov07,nie07,hat05}.  Two items of interest for white dwarf planetary

449: system studies emerge from these results at giant stars.  First, the $M\sin{i}$ distribution of close 

450: substellar companions to intermediate mass, evolved stars is markedly different than for solar-type 

451: main sequence stars.  Second is the fact that all 4 brown dwarf hosting giants have 2 $M_{\odot} 

452: < M < 4$ $M_{\odot}$, and are thus related to the population of white dwarfs studied in this paper.

453: 

454: With orbital semimajor axes 0.5 AU $< a < 2.5$ AU \citep*{liu07,lov07,nie07}, all of the known 

455: substellar radial velocity companions to first ascent giant stars risk destruction during the ensuing 

456: asymptotic giant phase.  However, the most apparently brown dwarf-like companions have 

457: $M\sin{i}\approx20$ $M_{\rm J}$ \citep*{liu07,lov07}; potentially massive enough to eject the giant 

458: stellar envelope as have the $50-60$ $M_{\rm J}$ substellar companions to the white dwarfs WD 

459: 0137$-$049 and GD1400 \citep*{bur06,max06,far05b,far04b}).  The close, $P\approx2$ hr substellar 

460: companion to WD 0137$-$049 is thought to have ejected the dense first ascent giant envelope of its 

461: host, as evidence by the fact the white dwarf is a low mass, helium core degenerate.  This is not the 

462: case for GD 1400B, whose degenerate host is a typical, carbon-oxygen core white dwarf, but its 

463: $P\approx10$ hr period (Burleigh et al. 2008, in preparation) indicates likely prior orbital decay 

464: due to the ejection of the asymptotic giant envelope.  By inference, both these substellar survivors 

465: would have originally orbited within roughly 1 AU of their host intermediate mass stellar progenitors.

466: 

467: \subsection{Formation, Persistence, and Sacrifice}

468: 

469: The results of this IRAC white dwarf study may imply that close massive planetary and brown 

470: dwarf companions to intermediate mass stars do not typically survive the asymptotic giant branch.  

471: Robust statistics are not yet available, but \citet*{lov07} estimate at least 3\% of stars with $M\ga1.8$ 

472: $M_{\odot}$ mass stars host $M\sin{i}>5$ $M_{\rm J}$ companions, and as discussed in \S5.2, about 

473: $1/3$ of these are brown dwarfs (according to the IAU definition).  Hence, a reasonably optimistic 

474: expectation for an IRAC search of 46 white dwarfs would be 1 or 2 detections.  This negative result 

475: suggests the possibility that a higher (substellar) companion mass is required to survive the entire 

476: post-main sequence -- specifically the asymptotic giant phase -- at orbital separations of a few to 

477: several AU.

478: 

479: However, recent evidence has suggested a mechanism which may allow planets to survive within 

480: the inner regions through both giant phases; sacrifice of the innermost components.  Analogous 

481: to the formation of several types of post-main sequence binaries, substellar companions can 

482: dynamically eject the (first or second phase) giant envelope \citep*{nel98,sok98}, thereby shielding 

483: any remaining components in a planetary system.  This process -- common envelope evolution -- is 

484: responsible for the close orbits of numerous low mass stellar and substellar companions to white 

485: dwarfs \citep*{far06,sch03}.  Essentially, unstable mass transfer from the giant results in a frictional 

486: exchange of orbital energy between the secondary and the envelope material, resulting in an orbit 

487: decrease and an efficient envelope ejection \citep*{pac76}.  The $M\sin{i}\approx3$ $M_{\rm J}$,

488: $a=1.7$ AU planet recently detected at the sdB star V391 Pegasi \citep*{sil07} has survived a first 

489: ascent giant phase involving significant mass loss, possibly due to such an interaction \citep*{han02,

490: nel98,sok98}.  Similarly, the $M\sin{i}\approx2$ $M_{\rm J}$, $a=2.5$ AU planet candidate at the 

491: pulsating white dwarf GD 66 \citep*{mul08}, may owe its inner region survival to the sacrfice of closer 

492: planets.

493: 

494: While intermediate separation planets may have indeterminate fates, any massive planets 

495: originally orbiting at $a\ga5$ AU, should now be located at tens to hundreds of AU in the white 

496: dwarf phase, having essentially eluded any substantial post-main sequence interaction with their 

497: host star \citep*{vil07}.  The results of this IRAC search imply that massive, $M\ga10$ $M_{\rm J}$ 

498: planets and brown dwarfs form rarely ($f\la3$\%) at these wide separations.

499: 

500: \subsection{Planets in the Hyades}

501: 

502: The massive planet recently found at the Hyades giant $\epsilon$ Tauri \citep*{sat07} is very interesting 

503: in light of the 7 classical white dwarf Hyads surveyed with IRAC -- would such an planet have been detected 

504: if it persisted into the white dwarf evolutionary phase?  The most likely mass of the planet at $\epsilon$ Tauri 

505: is near 10 $M_{\rm J}$, and the IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m photometry was sensitive to objects of this mass at 

506: virtually every Hyades target, although in reality such a detection might prove more or less difficult due to 

507: differences from the model predictions used here.  However, it is uncertain whether this Hyades planet at

508: $a=1.9$ AU will survive the asymptotic giant phase of its host, since the maximum radius of the star will

509: reach at least 3 AU \citep*{vil07}.

510: 

511: A clear advantage of the IRAC search of the Hyades white dwarfs is insensivitiy to orbital separation 

512: or inclination, parameter spaces which limit radial velocity and direct imaging searches for planets.  

513: The resulting substellar mass sensitivities achieved here for the Hyades are comparable to those produced 

514: via direct imaging with {\em HST} / NICMOS -- also around 10 $M_{\rm J}$ \citep*{fri05} -- but for {\em any} 

515: orbits out to $a\approx250$ AU.  Only very widely separated massive planets should have escaped detection.

516: 

517: \subsection{Cold Brown Dwarfs}

518: 

519: The previous sections have covered discussions of mass, but not of temperature.  For 27 targets 

520: in the survey, the IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m photometry was sensitive to the entire known T dwarf sequence, 

521: independent of the corresponding masses, and in a few cases more than a full magnitude fainter than 

522: a T8 dwarf \citep*{pat06}.  In fact, with the exception of a single target (G21-16; see \S5.7) whose IRAC 

523: image was confused with other sources, this survey rules out brown dwarf companions down to 25 

524: $M_{\rm J}$ within a few hundred AU of all white dwarf targets, implying a brown dwarf companion 

525: fraction less than around 2\%.  If the minimal sensitivity achieved here for these 46 targets is matched 

526: by similar IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m results for 124 nearby white dwarfs \citep*{mul07}, this fraction could be 

527: smaller than 0.6\%, and consistent with previous white dwarf studies which were sensitive to somewhat 

528: higher temperatures and masses (L dwarfs; \citealt*{hoa07,far05a,far04a,wac03,zuc87}).

529: 

530: \subsection{No Evidence for Merger Products}

531: 

532: Although not the focus of this study, the results give no indication of lasting merger products at any 

533: of the 10 additional massive white dwarfs observed specifically for this study.  Combined with the 

534: results of \citet*{han06}, there is as yet no indication of disks (and subsequent pollution) or reforged 

535: planets at nearly 2 dozen massive white dwarfs which could conceivably have formed as a merger 

536: of lower mass degenerates \citep*{lie05a}.  Given the recent results on externally-polluted white 

537: dwarfs with debris disks, it is possible that any dust disks formed via white dwarf mergers would dissipate 

538: rapidly, the particles becoming gaseous through mutual collisions within the disk (Paper I).

539: 

540: \subsection{Individual Objects}

541: 

542: {\em 0046$+$051} (vMa 2) At 4.4 pc, this degenerate represents a unique and advantageous hunting ground 

543: for planets and planetary system remnants.  This cool, helium atmosphere, metal-rich white dwarf has been 

544: externally polluted by interstellar or circumstellar matter.  Previous ground- and space-based mid-infrared 

545: imaging and photometry have ruled out the presence of a substellar companion suggested by \citet*{mak04}, 

546: down to $T_{\rm eff}\ga500$ K and corresponding to around 25 $M_{\rm J}$ at 5 Gyr \citep*{far04c,bur03}.

547: The IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m photometry of vMa 2 and the models used here rule out the presence of a companion 

548: as cool as 400 K, and a mass close to the deuterium burning limit at 4.4 Gyr.  Furthermore, the IRAC 4 channel 

549: color-color search for resolved substellar companions rules out the presence of any widely bound object as 

550: cool as $T_{\rm eff}\approx550$ K within $r\approx1200$ AU of vMa 2.  Models predict this should correspond 

551: to a mass of 25 $M_{\rm J}$ at the age of this well studied white dwarf.  

552: 

553: Deep ground-based $J$-band imaging observations have ruled out widely-bound planetary mass companions

554: to vMa 2 as small as 7 $M_{\rm J}$ at orbital separations near $10-200$ AU \citep*{bur08}.  There exist 2 epochs 

555: of IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m imaging of vMa 2 in the {\em Spitzer} archive, separated by 2.1 yr and clearly revealing $6.2''$ 

556: of proper motion upon blinking the aligned frames.  There are no field objects comoving with the white dwarf, ruling 

557: out well detected, resolved objects with $m_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}=16.7$ mag (see Figure \ref{fig9}) or 36 $\mu$Jy as 

558: companions within 1200 AU of vMa 2.  At the 4.4 pc distance and 4.4 Gyr age of vMa2, models predict that this 

559: very sensitive observational limit corresponds to a mass of 4 $M_{\rm J}$ and a temperature of just $T_{\rm eff}

560: \approx200$ K; signficantly lower than the known T dwarfs and only 40 K warmer than Jupiter(!).

561: 

562: {\em 0236$+$498} (EUVE J0239$+$50.0) Very little reliable photometry exists on this hot and faint 

563: degenerate, making it difficult to properly calibrate its spectral energy distribution (see Figure \ref{fig2}).  

564: The 2MASS $J$-band flux is likely the most reliable photometric data available, while the $H$-band flux 

565: has a large associated error.  The white dwarf is clearly detected in the short wavelength IRAC images, 

566: but significant uncertainty exists at the long wavelengths, where the flux in the photometric aperture could 

567: be due to a background source or noise.  Unfortunately, complications plague the short wavelength IRAC 

568: observations; a column pull-down artifact at the position of the white dwarf and a photometrically overlapping 

569: point source located $3.6''$ away.  The IRAF routine {\sf daophot} was used to deconvolve the flux of the white 

570: dwarf and the nearby point source, after manually correcting the column pull-down artifact by adding the median 

571: value of nearby columns.  Despite these efforts, it is possible or even likely the photometry of the white dwarf is

572: contaminated.  If the 2MASS $H$-band flux and IRAC photometry are somewhat accurate, then the white dwarf 

573: may possess an excess.  Ground-based near-infrared photometry is needed for this source.

574: 

575: {\em 0325$-$857AB}  (LB 9802AB) This visual pair has long been a binary suspect \citep*{han06,bar95} 

576: but its physical companionship is confirmed here for the first time.  Previous arguments for binarity relied 

577: on space density, which is insufficient to firmly establish companionship, especially in a rare system 

578: such as this, where the more massive of the pair white dwarfs is the hotter and apparently younger 

579: star.  Common proper motion is demonstrated by measuring the astrometric offsets of the white dwarfs 

580: and 20 background point sources between 2 epochs of SuperCOSMOS data.  Two scans of UKST 

581: photographic plates were used for this purpose, one image taken in 1976.7 and another from 2001.9, 

582: providing a 25.3 yr baseline.  Using the IRAF routine {\sf geomap} to measure both the motion of the

583: white dwarfs and the random centroiding errors from the positions of the background sources, the

584: component proper motions are: $\mu_A=0.074''$ ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ at $\theta_A=244\arcdeg$ and

585: $\mu_B=0.083''$ ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ at $\theta_B=242\arcdeg$, with $\sigma_{\mu}=0.012''$ ${\rm yr}^{-1}$ 

586: and $\sigma_{\theta}=6\arcdeg$.  The separation between primary and secondary from the 2MASS 

587: $J$-band image is $6.9''$ at position angle of $325\arcdeg$.

588: 

589: {\em 1455$+$298} (G166-58) This metal-rich white dwarf displays excess flux in the 2 long wavelength 

590: IRAC channels, but not at 4.5 $\mu$m (Paper I).  Therefore, it was included in the photometric analysis 

591: for unresolved substellar companions.

592: 

593: {\em 2326$+$049} (G29-38) Not included in the analysis for unresolved companions due to its large

594: photometric excess at all IRAC wavelengths (Paper I).  However, the field surrounding G29-38 

595: was searched for widely-bound, cold substellar companions using the method described in \S4.3, 

596: revealing no candidates down to 25 $M_{\rm J}$ within 3500 AU.

597: 

598: \section{CONCLUSION}

599: 

600: A relatively comprehensive look at both young and older white dwarfs with IRAC reveals no 

601: promising evidence for massive planets or cold brown dwarf companions at orbital separations

602: within a few hundred AU.  By conducting a search for substellar companions via excess emission 

603: in the mid-infrared, the data cover the widest range of orbital phase space possible; nearly all

604: possible semimajor axes, eccentricities and inclinations, including the missed middle ground

605: ($5-50$ AU) between radial velocity and direct imaging searches.  The uncovered range of

606: possible orbits lies roughly beyond a few hundred AU.

607: 

608: While it is somewhat uncertain how substellar objects evolve (dynamically or otherwise) within $5-10$ 

609: AU of mass losing asymptotic giant stars, avoidance of direct engulfment may not suffice for ultimate 

610: survival to the white dwarf phase.  However, massive inner planets could act as sacrificial guardians for 

611: remaining outer planetary system components.   Any planets and brown dwarfs outside of this region should 

612: be relatively unaffected, and the IRAC results demonstrate a dearth of cold substellar companions down 

613: into sub-T dwarf temperatures.  The $2-3$ $M_{\rm J}$ planets suspected at the sdB star V 391 Pegasi 

614: and the white dwarf GD 66 are just beyond the reach of this survey.

615: 

616: The negative results for the Hyades and comparably aged white dwarfs yield upper mass limits at or 

617: somewhat below 10 $M_{\rm J}$ for objects which may have formed around 3 $M_{\odot}$ main sequence 

618: stars.  Similar limits at the Pleiades and analogously hot and massive field white dwarfs provide the first 

619: evidence that massive planets are not commonly formed or do not survive the post-main sequence evolution 

620: of intermediate mass stars with $M\ga4$ $M_{\odot}$.  This latter result was only achievable via observations

621: of white dwarfs, as their main sequence, B-type progenitors are not amenable to other planet detection 

622: techniques.

623: 

624: The lack of 4.5 $\mu$m excess at all white dwarf targets, especially when combined with similar 

625: IRAC searches \citep*{mul07}, confirms that L and T-type brown dwarf companions are rare ($f<0.6\%$) 

626: within a few hundred AU, down to masses near the deuterium burning limit.  These results suggest the

627: possibility that the lowest mass companions, and especially planets, orbiting intermediate mass stars 

628: may be altered or destroyed prior to or during the post-main sequence, or are (more likely) too cold to 

629: directly detect with current facilities.

630: 

631: \acknowledgments

632: 

633: The authors are grateful to referee F. Mullally for comments which resulted in an improved manuscript.

634: J. Farihi thanks M. Jura for helpful discussions on post-main sequence evolution.  This work is based 

635: on observations made with the {\em Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion 

636: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.  Support for this work was 

637: provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech, and by NASA grants to UCLA.

638: 

639: {\em Facility:} \facility{Spitzer (IRAC)}

640: 

641: \begin{thebibliography}{}

642: 

643: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{bar03} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, 

644: 		F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, \aap, 402, 701

645: 

646: \bibitem[Barstow et al.(1995)]{bar95} Barstow, M. A., Jordan, S., O' Donoghue, 

647: 		Burleigh, M. R., Napiwotzki, R., \& Harrop-Allin, M. K. 1995, \mnras, 277, 

648: 		971

649: 	

650: \bibitem[Barstow et al.(2005)]{bar05} Barstow, M. A., Bond, H. E., Holberg, J. B., 

651: 		Burleigh, M. R., Hubeny, I., \& Koester, D. 2005, \mnras, 362, 1134	

652: 		

653: \bibitem[Becklin, \& Zuckerman.(1988)]{bec88} Becklin, E. E., \& Zuckerman, B. 

654: 		1988, \nat, 336, 656

655: 

656: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(2004)]{ber04} Bergeron, P., Fontaine, G., Billeres, M., 

657: 		Boudreault, S., \& Green, E. M. 2004, \apj, 600, 404

658: 

659: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(2001)Bergeron, Leggett, \& Ruiz]	{ber01} Bergeron, P., 

660: 		Leggett, S. K., \& Ruiz, M. T. 2001, \apjs, 133, 413

661: 

662: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995a)Bergeron, Liebert, \& Fullbright]{ber95a} Bergeron, 

663: 		P., Liebert, J., \& Fullbright, M. S. 1995a, \apj, 444, 810

664: 

665: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1997)Bergeron, Ruiz, \& Leggett]	{ber97} Bergeron, P., 

666: 		Ruiz, M. T., \& Leggett, S. K. 1997, \apjs, 108, 339

667: 		

668: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1992)Bergeron, Saffer, \& Liebert]{ber92} Bergeron, P., 

669: 		Saffer, R. A., \& Liebert, J. 1992, \apj, 394, 228

670: 	

671: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995b)Bergeron, Saumon, \& Wesemael]{ber95b} Bergeron, 

672: 		P., Saumon, D., \& Wesemael, F. 1995b, \apj, 443, 764

673: 

674: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995c)Bergeron, Wesemael, \& Beauchamp]{ber95c} 

675: 		Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., \& Beauchamp, A. 1995c, \pasp, 107, 1047

676: 

677: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1995d)]{ber95d} Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., Lamontagne, 

678: 		R., Fontaine, G., Saffer, R. A., \& Allard, N. F. 1995d, \apj, 449, 258

679: 

680: \bibitem[Burleigh et al.(2002)Burleigh, Clarke, \& Hodgkin]{bur02} Burleigh, M. R., 

681: 		Clarke, F. J., \& Hodgkin, S. T. 2002, \mnras, 331, L41

682: 	

683: \bibitem[Burleigh et al.(2006)]{bur06} Burleigh, M. R., Hogan, E., Dobbie, P. D., 

684: 		Napiwotzki, R., Maxted, P. F. L. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L55

685: 

686: \bibitem[Burleigh et al.(2008)]{bur08} Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2008, \mnras, 386, L5

687: 

688: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2003)Burrows, Sudarsky, \& Lunine]{bur03} Burrows, A., 

689: 		Sudarsky, D., \& Lunine, J. I. 2003, \apj, 596, 587

690: 

691: \bibitem[Carey(2006)]{car06} Carey, S. 2006, Spitzer Calibration Workshop, 

692: 		(Pasadena: SSC)		

693: 

694: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2005)]{cha05} Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A. M., Dumas, C., 

695: 		Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J. L., \& Lowrance, P. 2005,

696: 		\aap, 438, L25	

697: 

698: \bibitem[Cheselka et al.(1993)]{che93} Cheselka, M., Holber, J., Watkins, R., 

699: 		Collins, J., \& Tweedy, R. W. 1993, \aj, 106, 2365

700: 	

701: \bibitem[Claver et al.(2001)]{cla01} Claver, C. F., Liebert, 	J., Bergeron, P., \& 

702: 		Koester, D. 2001, \apj, 563, 987

703: 

704: \bibitem[Dahn et al.(2002)]{dah02} Dahn, C. C., et al. 2002, \aj, 124, 1170

705: 		

706: \bibitem[Debes \& Sigurdsson(2002)]{deb02} Debes, J. H., \& 	Sigurdsson, S. 

707: 		2002, \apj, 572, 556

708: 		

709: \bibitem[Debes et al.(2007)Debes, Sigurdsson, \& Hansen]{deb07} Debes, J. H., 

710: 		Sigurdsson, S., \& Hansen, B. 2007, \aj, 134, 1662

711: 		

712: \bibitem[Dobbie et al.(2006a)]{dob06a} Dobbie, P. D., et al. 2006a, \mnras, 369, 383

713: 	

714: \bibitem[Dobbie et al.(2006b)]{dob06b} Dobbie, P. D., Napiwotzki, R., Lodieu, N., 

715: 		Burleigh, M. R., Barstow, M. A., \& Jameson, R. F. 2006b, \mnras, 373, L45	

716: 

717: \bibitem[Dupuis et al.(2002)Dupuis, Vennes, \& Chayer]{dup02} Dupuis, J., Vennes, 

718: 		S., \& Chayer, P. 2002, \apj, 580, 1091

719: 

720: \bibitem[Eggen(1984)]{egg84} Eggen, O. J. 1984, \aj, 89, 830

721: 		

722: \bibitem[Eggen \& Greenstein(1965)]{egg65} Eggen, O. J., \& Greenstein, J. L. 1965, 

723: 		\apj, 141, 83

724: 		

725: \bibitem[Farihi(2004)]{far04a} Farihi, J. 2004, Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA

726: 

727: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2005a)Farihi, Becklin, \& Zuckerman]{far05a} Farihi, J., Becklin, 

728: 		E. E., \& Zuckerman, B. 2005a, \apjs, 161, 394

729: 

730: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2004)Farihi, Becklin, \& Macintosh]{far04c} Farihi, J., Becklin, 

731: 		E. E., \& Macintosh, B. A. 2004, \apj, 608, L109

732: 

733: \bibitem[Farihi \& Christopher(2004)]{far04b} Farihi, J., \&	Christopher, M. 2004, \aj, 

734: 		128, 1868

735: 

736: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2006)Farihi, Hoard, \& Wachter]{far06} Farihi, J., Hoard, D. W., 

737: 		\& Wachter, S. 2006, \apj, 646, 480

738: 

739: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2005b)Farihi, Zuckerman, \& Becklin]{far05b} Farihi, J., Zuckerman, 

740: 		B., \& Becklin, E. E. 2005b, \aj, 130, 2237

741: 		

742: \bibitem[Farihi et al.(2008)Farihi, Zuckerman, \& Becklin]{far08} Farihi, J., Zuckerman, 

743: 		B., \& Becklin, E. E. 2008, \apj, 674, 431 (Paper I)

744: 	

745: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{faz04} Fazio, G. G. et al.	2004, \apjs, 154, 10

746: 

747: \bibitem[Ferrario et al.(1997)]{fer97} Ferrario, L., Vennes,	S., Wickramasinghe, D. T., 

748: 		Bailey, J. A., \& Christian, D. J. 1997, \mnras, 292, 205

749: 

750: \bibitem[Ferrario et al.(2005)]{fer05} Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Liebert, J., 

751: 		\& Williams, K. A. 2005, \mnras, 361, 1131

752: 

753: \bibitem[Finley et al.(1997)Finley, Koester, \& Basri]{fin97} Finley, D. S., Koester, D., 

754: 		\& Basri, G. 1997, \apj, 488, 375

755: 

756: \bibitem[Friedrich et al.(2005)]{fri05} Friedrich, S., Zinnecker, H., Brandner, W., Correia, S.,

757: 		\& McCaughrean, M. 2005, Proceedings of the	$14^{\rm th}$ European Workshop 

758: 		on White Dwarfs, eds. D. Koester \& S. moehler (San Francisco: ASP), 431

759: 

760: \bibitem[Frink et al.(2002)]{fri02} Frink, S., Mitchell, D. S., Quirrenbach, A., Fischer, 

761: 		D. A., Marcy, G. W., \& Butler, R. P. 2002, \apj, 576, 478

762: 	

763: \bibitem[Glass(1999)]{gla99} Glass, I. S. 1999, Handbook of Infrared Astronomy, 

764: 		(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press)

765: 

766: \bibitem[Han et al.(2002)]{han02} Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R.,

767: 		\& Ivanova, N. 2002, \mnras, 336, 449

768: 

769: \bibitem[Hansen et al.(2006)Hansen, Kulkarni, \& Wiktorowicz]	{han06} Hansen, B. 

770: 		M. S., Kulkarni, S., \& Wiktorowicz, S. 2006, \aj, 131, 1106

771: 

772: \bibitem[Hatzes et al.(2005)]{hat05} Hatzes, A. P., Guenther, E. W., Endl, M., Cochran, 

773: 		W. D., D\"ollinger, M. P., \& Bedalov, A. 2005, \aap, 437, 743

774: 	

775: \bibitem[Hatzes et al.(2006)]{hat06} Hatzes, A. P., et al. 2006, \aap, 457, 335

776: 

777: \bibitem[Hoard et al.(2007)]{hoa07} Hoard, D. W., Wachter, S., Sturch, L. K., Widhalm, 

778: 		A. M., Weiler, K. P., Pretorius, M. L., Wellhouse, J. W., Gibiansky, M. 2007, 

779: 		\aj, 134, 26

780: 

781: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2000)Hurley, Pols, \& Tout]{hur00} Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., \& 

782: 		Tout, C. A. 2000, \mnras, 315, 543

783: 

784: \bibitem[Jeans(1924)]{jea24} Jeans, J. 1924, \mnras, 85, 2

785: 

786: \bibitem[Jura(2003)]{jur03} Jura, M. 2003, \apj, 584, L91

787: 

788: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2007a)Jura, Farihi, \& Zuckerman]{jur07a} Jura, M., Farihi, J., \& 

789: 		Zuckerman, B. 2007a, \apj, 663, 1285

790: 	

791: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2007b)]{jur07b} Jura, M., Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B., \& Becklin, E. 

792: 		E. 2007b, \aj, 133, 1927

793: 

794: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2008)]{kal08} Kalirai, J. S., Hansen, B. M. S., Kelson, D. D., 

795: 		Reitzel, D. B., Rich, R. M., \& Richer, H. B. 2008, \apj, 676, 594

796: 

797: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2005)]{kal05} Kalirai, J. S., Richer, H. B., Reitzel, D., Hansen, 

798: 		B. M. S., Rich, R. M., Fahlman, G. G., Gibson, B. K., \& von Hippel, T. 2005,

799: 		\apj, 618, L123

800: 

801: \bibitem[Kilic \& Redfield(2007)]{kil07} Kilic, M., \& Redfield, S. 2007, \apj, 660, 641 

802: 

803: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al.(1999)]{kir99} Kirkpatrick, J. D., Allard, F., Bida, T., Zuckerman, 

804: 		B., Becklin, E. E., Chabrier, G., \& Baraffe, I. 1999, \apj, 519, 834

805: 

806: \bibitem[Koester et al.(2001)]{koe01} Koester, D., et al. 2001, \aap, 378, 556

807: 	

808: \bibitem[Liebert et al.(2005a)Liebert, Bergeron, \& Holberg]{lie05a} Liebert, J., 

809: 		Bergeron, P., \& Holberg, J. B. 2005a, \apjs, 156, 47

810: 

811: \bibitem[Liebert et al.(2005b)]{lie05b} Liebert, J., Young, P. A., Arnett, D., Holberg, 

812: 		J. B., \& Williams, K. A. 2005b, \apj, 630, L69

813: 

814: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2007)]{liu07} Liu, Y. J., et al. 2007, \apj, 672, 553 

815: 

816: \bibitem[Lovis \& Mayor(2007)]{lov07} Lovis, C., \& Mayor, M. 2007, \aap, 472, 657

817: 

818: \bibitem[Makarov(2004)]{mak04} Makarov, V. V. 2004, \apj, 600, L71

819: 

820: \bibitem[Marsh et al.(1997)]{mar97} Marsh, M. C., et al. 1997, \mnras, 286, 369

821: 	

822: \bibitem[Maxted et al.(2006)]{max06} Maxted, P. F. L., Napiwotzki, R., Dobbie, P. D., 

823: 		\& Burleigh, M. R. 2006, \nat, 442, 543

824: 

825: \bibitem[McCook \& Sion(2006)]{mcc06} McCook, G. P., \& Sion, E. M. 2006, 

826: 		Spectroscopically Identified White Dwarfs (Strasbourg: CDS)

827: 

828: \bibitem[Mermilliod(1986)]{mer86} Mermilliod, J. C. 1986, Catalog of Eggen's 

829: 		UBV Data (Strasbourg: CDS)

830: 	

831: \bibitem[Mullally et al.(2007)]{mul07} Mullally, F., Kilic, M., Reach, W. T., Kuchner, 

832: 		M. J., von Hippel, T., Burrows, A., \& Winget, D. E. 2007, \apjs, 171, 206

833: 

834: \bibitem[Mullally et al.(2008)]{mul08} Mullally, F., Winget, D. E., Degennaro, S., Jeffery, 

835: 		E., Thompson, S. E., Chandler, D., \& and Kepler, S. O. 2008, \apj, 676, 573

836: 	

837: \bibitem[Nakajima et al.(1995)]{nak95} Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, 

838: 		S. R., Golimowski, D. A., Matthews, K., \& Durrance, S. T. 1995, \nat, 378, 

839: 		463

840: 

841: \bibitem[Nelemans \& Tauris(1998)]{nel98} Nelemans, G., \& Tauris, T. M. 1998,

842: 		\aap, 335, L85

843: 	

844: \bibitem[Niedzielski et al.(2007)]{nie07} Niedzielski, A., et al. 2007, \apj, 669, 1354

845: 

846: \bibitem[Paczynski(1976)]{pac76} Paczynski, B. 1976, Proceedings of IAU Symposium 

847: 		73, eds. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, \& J. Whelan (Dordrecht: D. Reidel), 75	

848: \bibitem[Patten et al.(2006)]{pat06} Patten, B. M., et al. 2006, \apj, 651, 502

849: 

850: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1998)]{per98} Perryman, M. A. C., et al. 1998, \aap, 331, 81

851: 

852: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(1998)]{pin98} Pinsonneault, M. H., Stauffer, J., 

853: 		Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., \& Hanson, R. B. 1998, \apj, 504, 170

854: 	

855: \bibitem[Probst(1983)]{pro83} Probst, R. 1983, \apjs, 53, 335

856: 

857: \bibitem[Rasio et al.(1996)]{ras96} Rasio, F. A., Tout, C. A., Lubow, S. H., \& Livio, M. 

858: 		1996, \apj, 470, 1187

859: 	

860: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005)]{rea05} Reach, W. T., Kuchner, 	M. J., von Hippel, 

861: 		T., Burrows, A., Mulally, F., Kilic, M., \& Winget, D. E. 2005a, \apj, 635, L161.

862: 	

863: \bibitem[Reffert et al.(2006)]{ref06} Reffert, S., Quirrenbach, A., Mitchell, D. S., 

864: 		Albrecht, S., Hekker, S., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., \& Butler, R. P. 

865: 		2006, \apj, 652, 661

866: 

867: \bibitem[Reid(1993)]{rei93} Reid, I. N. 1993, \mnras, 265, 785

868: 

869: \bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2003)]{sal03} Salim, S., \& Gould, A. 2003, \apj, 582, 1011

870: 

871: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2003)]{sat03} Sato, B., et al. 2003, \apj, 597, L157

872: 

873: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2007)]{sat07} Sato, B., et al. 2007, \apj, 661, 527

874: 

875: \bibitem[Schreiber \& G\"ansicke(2003)]{sch03} Schreiber, M. R., \& G\"ansicke,

876: 		B. T 2003, \aap, 406, 305

877: 	

878: \bibitem[Silvotti et al.(2007)]{sil07} Silvotti, R., et al. 2007, \nat, 449, 189

879: 

880: \bibitem[Smart et al.(2003)]{sma03} Smart, R. L., et al. 2003, \aap, 404, 317

881: 	

882: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1998)]{sod98} Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., Hanson, R. 

883: 		B., Jones, B. F., Fischer, D. A., Stauffer, J. R., \& Pinsonneault, M. H. 1998, 

884: 		\apj, 504, 192

885: 		

886: \bibitem[Soker(1998)]{sok98} Soker, N. 1998, \aj, 116, 1308

887: 

888: \bibitem[Song et al.(2006)]{son06} Song, I., Schneider, G., Zuckerman, B., Farihi, J., 

889: 		Becklin, E. E., Bessell, M. S., Lowrance, P., \& Macintosh, B. A. 2006, \apj,

890: 		652, 724

891: 

892: \bibitem[Spitzer Science Center(2006a)]{ssc06a} Spitzer Science Center. 2006a, 

893: 		IRAC Data Handbook Version 3.0 (Pasadena: SSC)

894: 

895: \bibitem[Spitzer Science Center(2006b)]{ssc06b} Spitzer Science Center. 2006b, 

896: 		Spitzer Observer's Manual Version 7.1 (Pasadena: SSC)	

897: 	

898: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(1998)Stauffer, Schultz, \& Kirkpatrick]{sta98} Stauffer, J. R., 

899: 		Schultz, G., \& Kirkpatrick, J. D. 1998, \apj, 499, L199

900: 

901: \bibitem[Trembley \& Bergeron(2007)]{tre07} Tremblay, P. E., \& Bergeron, P. 2007, \apj, 

902: 		657, 1013

903: 

904: \bibitem[Upgren et al.(1985)Upgren, Weis, \& Hanson]{upg85} Upgren, A. R., Weis, 

905: 		E. W., \& Hanson, R. B. 1985, \aj, 90, 2039

906: 

907: \bibitem[Vassiliadis \& Wood(1993)]{vas93} Vassiliadis, E., \& Wood, P. R. 1993,

908: 		\apj, 413, 641

909: 			

910: \bibitem[Vennes(1999)]{ven99a} Vennes, S. 1999, \apj, 525, 995

911: 

912: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(1999)Vennes, Ferrario, \& Wickramasinghe]{ven99b} Vennes, S., 

913: 		Ferrario, L., \& Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1999, 302, L99

914: 

915: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(2003)]{ven03} Vennes, S., Schmidt, G. D., Ferrario, L., Christian, 

916: 		D. J., Wickramasinghe, D. T., \& Kawka, A. 2003, \apj, 593, 1040

917: 

918: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(1997)]{ven97} Vennes, S., Thejll, P. A., Galvan, R. G., \& Dupuis, 

919: 		J. 1997, \apj, 480, 714

920: 	

921: \bibitem[Vennes et al.(1996)]{ven96} Vennes, S., Thejll, P. A., Wickramasinghe, D. T., 

922: 		Bessell, M. S. 1996, \apj, 467, 782	

923: 

924: \bibitem[Villaver \& Livio(2007)]{vil07} Villaver, E., \& Livio, M. 2007, \apj, 661, 1192

925: 	

926: \bibitem[Wachter et al.(2003)]{wac03} Wachter, S., Hoard, D. W., Hansen, K. H., Wilcox, 

927: 		R. E., Taylor, H. M., \& Finkelstein, S. L. 2003, \apj, 586, 1356

928: 

929: \bibitem[Weidemann(1987)]{wei87} Weidemann, V. 1987, \aap, 188, 74

930: 

931: \bibitem[Weidemann(1990)]{wei90} Weidemann, V. 1990, \aapr, 28, 103

932: 

933: \bibitem[Weidemann(2000)]{wei00} Weidemann, V. 2000, \aap, 363, 647

934: 

935: \bibitem[Werner et al.(2004)]{wer04} Werner, M. W., et al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 1

936: 

937: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2004)Williams, Bolte, \& Koester]{wil04} Williams, K. A., Bolte, 

938: 		M., \& Koester, D. 2004, \apj, 615, L49

939: 

940: \bibitem[Wolszczan \& Frail(1992)]{wol92} Wolszczan, A., \& Frail, D. A. 1992, \nat, 

941: 		355, 145

942:  	

943: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Becklin(1987)]{zuc87} Zuckerman, B., \& Becklin, E. E. 1987, 

944: 		\apj, 319, 99

945: 		

946: \bibitem[Zuckerman et al.(2003)]{zuc03} Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Reid, I. N., \& 

947: 		H\"unsch, M. 2003, \apj, 596, 477

948: 		

949: \end{thebibliography}

950: 

951: \clearpage

952: 

953: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

954: %\rotate

955: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

956: \tablecaption{Young Cluster White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl1}}

957: \tablewidth{0pt}

958: \tablehead{

959: \colhead{WD\#}			&

960: \colhead{Name}			&

961: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

962: \colhead{$V$ (mag)}			&

963: \colhead{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$)}	&

964: \colhead{References}}

965: 

966: \startdata

967: 

968: 0349$+$247	&EG 25		&31700	&16.64	&1.09	&1,2,3\\

969: 0352$+$096	&EG 26		&14800	&14.52	&0.71	&1,2,4\\

970: 0406$+$169	&EG 29		&15200	&15.35	&0.80	&1,2,4\\

971: 0415$+$271\tablenotemark{a}	

972: 			&EG 265		&11500	&15.00	&0.55	&5,6,7\\

973: 0421$+$162	&EG 36		&19600	&14.29	&0.68	&1,2,4\\

974: 0425$+$168	&EG 37		&24400	&14.02	&0.70	&1,2,4\\

975: 0431$+$126	&EG 39		&21300	&14.24	&0.65	&1,2,3\\

976: 0437$+$138	&GR 316		&15300	&14.93	&0.68	&1,2,7\\

977: 0438$+$108	&EG 42		&27400	&13.86	&0.75	&1,2,3\\	

978: 

979: \enddata

980: 

981: \tablenotetext{a}{EG 265 is a member of the Hyades cluster or 

982: supercluster \citep*{rei93,egg84}.}

983: 

984: \tablerefs{

985: (1) \citealt*{cla01};

986: (2) \citealt*{ber95a}; 

987: (3) \citealt*{che93};

988: (4) \citealt*{egg65};

989: (5) \citealt*{ber04};

990: (6) \citealt*{rei93};

991: (7) \citealt*{upg85}}

992: 

993: \end{deluxetable}

994: 

995: \clearpage

996: 

997: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

998: %\rotate

999: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1000: \tablecaption{Young Field White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl2}}

1001: \tablewidth{0pt}

1002: \tablehead{

1003: \colhead{WD\#}			&

1004: \colhead{Name}			&

1005: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

1006: \colhead{$V$ (mag)}			&

1007: \colhead{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$)}	&

1008: \colhead{References}}

1009: 

1010: \startdata

1011: 

1012: 0001$+$433	&EUVE		&42400	&16.8	&1.37		&1,2,3\\

1013: 0136$+$251	&PG			&39400	&15.87	&1.32		&1,3,4\\

1014: 0235$-$125	&PHL 1400	&32400	&14.98	&1.03		&1,2,5\\

1015: 0236$+$498	&EUVE		&33800	&15.8	&0.94		&6,7\\

1016: 0325$-$857A	&LB 9802A	&16200	&14.11	&0.85		&8,9\\

1017: 0325$-$857B	&LB 9802B	&33800	&14.90	&1.33		&1,8,10\\

1018: 0346$-$011	&GD 50		&43200	&14.04	&1.37		&1,2\\

1019: 0440$-$038	&EUVE		&65100	&16.7	&1.33		&1,2,7\\

1020: 0518$-$105	&EUVE		&33000	&15.82	&1.07		&1,2,3\\

1021: 0531$-$022	&EUVE		&29700	&16.20	&0.97		&6,7\\

1022: 0652$-$563	&EUVE		&35200	&16.6	&1.18		&1,2\\

1023: 0730$+$487	&GD 86		&15500	&14.96	&0.90		&12\\

1024: 0821$-$252	&EUVE 		&43200	&16.4	&1.21		&13\\

1025: 0914$-$195	&EUVE		&56400	&17.4	&1.33		&1,2\\

1026: 1022$-$301	&EUVE		&35700	&15.9	&1.27		&1,6,7\\

1027: 1440$+$753\tablenotemark{a}

1028: 			&EUVE 		&35000	&15.22	&1.06		&3,13,14\\

1029: 1529$-$772	&EUVE		&51600	&16.9	&1.24		&2,13\\

1030: 1543$-$366	&EUVE		&45200	&15.81	&1.17		&6,15\\

1031: 1609$+$631	&PG			&30400	&16.68	&1.05		&4,6\\

1032: 1642$+$413\tablenotemark{b}

1033: 			&PG			&26500	&16.21	&0.96		&4,6\\

1034: 1658$+$440	&PG			&30500	&15.02	&1.41		&1,4\\

1035: 1740$-$706	&EUVE		&46800	&16.51	&1.18		&1,13,15\\

1036: 

1037: \enddata

1038: 

1039: \tablenotetext{a}{1440$+$753 is a close double degenerate}

1040: 

1041: \tablenotetext{b}{\citet*{fin97} list 0.96 $M_{\odot}$ (109pc) for 1642$+$413, while \citet*{lie05a} 

1042: give 0.79 $M_{\odot}$ (145 pc)}

1043: 

1044: \tablerefs{

1045: (1) \citealt*{han06};

1046: (2) \citealt*{ven97};

1047: (3) \citealt*{mar97};

1048: (4) \citealt*{lie05a};

1049: (5) \citealt*{dup02};

1050: (6) \citealt*{fin97};

1051: (7) \citealt*{mcc06};

1052: (8) \citealt*{bar95};

1053: (9) \citealt*{fer97};

1054: (10) \citealt*{ven03};

1055: (12) \citealt*{ber92};

1056: (13) \citealt*{ven99a};

1057: (14) \citealt*{ven99b};

1058: (15) \citealt*{ven96}}

1059: 

1060: \end{deluxetable}

1061: 

1062: \clearpage

1063: 

1064: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1065: %\rotate

1066: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1067: \tablecaption{Metal-Rich Field White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl3}}

1068: \tablewidth{0pt}

1069: \tablehead{

1070: \colhead{WD\#}			&

1071: \colhead{Name}			&

1072: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)}	&

1073: \colhead{$V$ (mag)}			&

1074: \colhead{$M$ ($M_{\odot}$)}	&

1075: \colhead{References}}

1076: 

1077: \startdata

1078: 

1079: 0032$-$175	&G266-135	&9240	&14.94	&0.60	&1,2\\

1080: 0046$+$051	&vMa 2		&6770	&12.39	&0.83	&3\\

1081: 0235$+$064	&PG			&15000	&15.5	&0.61	&4\\

1082: 0322$-$019	&G77-50		&5220	&16.12	&0.61	&5,6\\

1083: 0846$+$346	&GD 96		&7370	&15.71	&0.59	&1,7\\

1084: 1102$-$183	&EC			&8060	&15.99	&0.60	&1,7\\

1085: 1124$-$293	&EC			&9680	&15.02	&0.63	&5,8\\

1086: 1204$-$136	&EC			&11500	&15.67	&0.60	&1,9\\

1087: 1208$+$576	&G197-47		&5880	&15.78	&0.56	&3\\

1088: 1344$+$106	&G63-54		&7110	&15.12	&0.65	&3\\

1089: 1407$+$425	&PG			&10010	&15.03	&0.73	&10\\

1090: 1455$+$298	&G167-8		&7390	&15.60	&0.58	&3,10\\

1091: 1632$+$177	&PG			&10100	&13.05	&0.58	&10\\

1092: 1633$+$433	&G180-63		&6690	&14.84	&0.72	&3,10\\

1093: 1826$-$045	&G21-16		&9480	&14.58	&0.57	&3\\

1094: 1858$+$393	&G205-52		&9470	&15.63	&0.60	&1,7\\

1095: 2326$+$049	&G29-38		&11600	&13.04	&0.69	&7,11\\

1096: 

1097: \enddata

1098: 

1099: \tablecomments{For those stars with no spectroscopic or trigonometric mass-radius estimate, 

1100: log $g=8.0$ was assumed.}

1101: 

1102: \tablerefs{

1103: (1) \citealt*{zuc03};

1104: (2) \citealt*{mer86};

1105: (3) \citealt*{ber01};

1106: (4) This work;

1107: (5) \citealt*{ber97};

1108: (6) \citealt*{sma03};

1109: (7) \citealt*{mcc06};

1110: (8) \citealt*{koe01};

1111: (9) \citealt*{sal03};

1112: (10) \citealt*{lie05a};

1113: (11) \citealt*{ber95d}}

1114: 

1115: \end{deluxetable}

1116: 

1117: \clearpage

1118: 

1119: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1120: %\rotate

1121: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1122: \tablecaption{IRAC Fluxes for White Dwarf Targets\label{tbl4}}

1123: \tablewidth{0pt}

1124: \tablehead{	

1125: \colhead{WD\#}					&

1126: \colhead{$F_{3.6\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1127: \colhead{$F_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1128: \colhead{$F_{5.7\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1129: \colhead{$F_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$ ($\mu$Jy)}	&

1130: \colhead{Pipeline}}

1131: 

1132: \startdata

1133: 

1134: 0001$+$433	&$18\pm6$		&$13\pm7$		&30\tablenotemark{a}	&29\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1135: 0046$+$051	&$8040\pm400$	&$5360\pm270$	&$3680\pm190$		&$2080\pm110$		&14.0\\

1136: 0136$+$251	&$46\pm6$		&$26\pm7$		&34\tablenotemark{a}	&35\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1137: 0235$-$125	&$111\pm8$		&$63\pm7$		&36\tablenotemark{a}	&35\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1138: 0236$+$498	&$107\pm11$		&$72\pm9$		&20\tablenotemark{a}	&27\tablenotemark{a}	&11.0\\

1139: 0325$-$857A	&$396\pm20$		&$238\pm14$		&$139\pm27$			&$87\pm25$			&14.0\\

1140: 0325$-$857B	&$149\pm9$		&$92\pm8$		&$53\pm28$			&33\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1141: 0346$-$011	&$263\pm14$		&$164\pm11$		&$145\pm34$			&47\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1142: 0349$+$247	&$27\pm3$		&$15\pm4$		&22\tablenotemark{a}	&39\tablenotemark{a}	&11.4\\

1143: 0352$+$096	&$295\pm15$		&$168\pm9$		&$99\pm21$			&$44\pm28$			&11.4\\

1144: 0406$+$169	&$134\pm7$		&$69\pm5$		&$55\pm20$			&$61\pm34$			&11.4\\

1145: 0415$+$271	&$245\pm13$		&$148\pm8$		&$100\pm19$			&$68\pm23$			&11.4\\

1146: 0421$+$162	&$275\pm14$		&$163\pm9$		&$121\pm20$			&$58\pm23$			&11.4\\

1147: 0425$+$168	&$313\pm16$		&$185\pm10$		&$133\pm21$			&$101\pm27$			&11.4\\

1148: 0431$+$126	&\nodata			&$179\pm10$		&\nodata				&51\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1149: 0437$+$138	&$186\pm10$		&$107\pm6$		&$62\pm17$			&42\tablenotemark{a}	&11.4\\

1150: 0438$+$108	&\nodata			&$211\pm12$		&\nodata				&$76\pm38$			&14.0\\

1151: 0440$-$038	&$20\pm5$		&$19\pm6$		&23\tablenotemark{a}	&21\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1152: 0518$-$105	&$51\pm5$		&$33\pm7$		&32\tablenotemark{a}	&31\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1153: 0531$-$022	&$47\pm4$		&$26\pm5$		&20\tablenotemark{a}	&37\tablenotemark{a}	&11.4\\

1154: 0652$-$563	&$16\pm11$		&$18\pm9$		&32\tablenotemark{a}	&30\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1155: 0730$+$487	&$218\pm11$		&$127\pm7$		&$98\pm22$			&$66\pm24$			&10.5\\

1156: 0821$-$252	&$26\pm10$		&$13\pm7$		&21\tablenotemark{a}	&20\tablenotemark{a}	&11.0\\

1157: 0914$-$195	&$13\pm5$		&$9\pm6$			&33\tablenotemark{a}	&32\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1158: 1022$-$301	&$33\pm6$		&$22\pm7$		&30\tablenotemark{a}	&31\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1159: 1440$+$753	&$88\pm6$		&$58\pm5$		&$27\pm16$			&16\tablenotemark{a}	&11.0\\

1160: 1529$-$772	&$22\pm5$		&$12\pm4$		&20\tablenotemark{a}	&18\tablenotemark{a}	&12.4\\

1161: 1543$-$366	&$51\pm5$		&$31\pm5$		&23\tablenotemark{a}	&23\tablenotemark{a}	&11.4\\

1162: 1609$+$631	&$24\pm3$		&$13\pm3$		&15\tablenotemark{a}	&22\tablenotemark{a}	&11.0\\

1163: 1642$+$413	&$38\pm3$		&$21\pm4$		&16\tablenotemark{a}	&17\tablenotemark{a}	&11.4\\

1164: 1658$+$440	&$131\pm8$		&$81\pm7$		&$56\pm27$			&28\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1165: 1740$-$706	&$25\pm4$		&$14\pm4$		&16\tablenotemark{a}	&19\tablenotemark{a}	&14.0\\

1166: 

1167: \enddata

1168: 

1169: \tablenotetext{a}{Upper limit.}

1170: 

1171: \tablecomments{Photometric errors and upper limits are described in \S3.1.}

1172: 

1173: \end{deluxetable}

1174: 

1175: \clearpage

1176: 

1177: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}

1178: %\rotate

1179: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1180: \tablecaption{Target Ages and Upper Mass Limits for Unresolved Companions\label{tbl5}}

1181: \tablewidth{0pt}

1182: \tablehead{

1183: \colhead{WD\#}					&

1184: \colhead{$t_{\rm ms}$ (Gyr)}			&

1185: \colhead{$t_{\rm wd}$ (Gyr)}			&

1186: \colhead{$\tau$\tablenotemark{a} (Gyr)}	&

1187: \colhead{$d$ (pc)}					&

1188: \colhead{$M_{4.5\mu{\rm m}}$ (mag)}	&

1189: \colhead{Mass ($M_{\rm J}$)}}

1190: 

1191: \startdata

1192: 

1193: \cutinhead{Young Cluster White Dwarfs}

1194: 

1195: 0349$+$247	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&132	&12.3		&9\\

1196: 0352$+$096	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.7		&10\\

1197: 0406$+$169	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&14.4		&7\\

1198: 0415$+$271	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.9		&9\\

1199: 0421$+$162	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.7		&10\\

1200: 0425$+$168	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.6		&10\\

1201: 0431$+$126	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.6		&10\\

1202: 0437$+$138	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&14.2		&8\\

1203: 0438$+$108	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.6		&46		&13.4		&11\\

1204: 

1205: \cutinhead{Young Field White Dwarfs}

1206: 

1207: 0001$+$433	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&96		&12.4		&9\\

1208: 0136$+$251	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&73		&13.0		&6\\

1209: 0235$-$125	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&65		&13.3		&5\\

1210: 0236$+$498	&0.1			&0.1			&0.2		&107	&11.9		&11\\

1211: 0325$-$857A	&0.1			&0.3			&0.4		&35		&13.9		&6\\

1212: 0325$-$857B	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.4		&35		&14.5		&5\\

1213: 0346$-$011	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&30		&14.5		&3\\

1214: 0440$-$038	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&134	&11.9		&10\\

1215: 0518$-$105	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&92		&12.5		&8\\

1216: 0531$-$022	&0.1			&0.1			&0.2		&107	&12.6		&9\\

1217: 0652$-$563	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&119	&11.7		&11\\

1218: 0730$+$487	&0.1			&0.4			&0.5		&39		&14.5		&6\\

1219: 0821$-$252	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&105	&12.2		&10\\

1220: 0914$-$195	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&175	&11.3		&12\\

1221: 1022$-$301	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&61		&13.4		&5\\

1222: 1440$+$753	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&101	&12.7		&7\\

1223: 1529$-$772	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&137	&12.3		&9\\

1224: 1543$-$366	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&111	&12.5		&8\\

1225: 1609$+$631	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&134	&12.6		&8\\

1226: 1642$+$413	&0.1			&0.1			&0.2		&109	&12.8		&8\\

1227: 1658$+$440	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&32		&14.8		&2\\

1228: 1740$-$706	&\nodata		&\nodata		&0.1		&76		&13.5		&5\\

1229: 

1230: \cutinhead{Metal-Rich Field White Dwarfs}

1231: 

1232: 0032$-$175	&1.5			&0.7			&2.2		&31		&13.9		&18\\

1233: 0046$+$051	&0.2			&3.7			&3.9		&4.4		&15.2		&13\\

1234: 0235$+$064	&1.2			&0.2			&1.4		&70		&13.3		&20\\

1235: 0322$-$019	&1.2			&4.4			&5.6		&17		&15.1		&17\\

1236: 0846$+$346	&1.9			&1.4			&3.3		&30		&14.6		&17\\

1237: 1102$-$183	&1.5			&1.1			&2.6		&40		&14.2		&17\\

1238: 1124$-$293	&0.9			&0.6			&1.5		&34		&14.3		&12\\

1239: 1204$-$136	&1.5			&0.4			&1.9		&62		&13.5		&20\\

1240: 1208$+$576	&4.0			&2.5			&6.5		&20		&14.7		&25\\

1241: 1344$+$106	&0.7			&1.9			&2.6		&20		&14.7		&14\\

1242: 1407$+$425	&0.3			&0.9			&1.2		&33		&14.6		&10\\

1243: 1455$+$298	&2.4			&1.4			&3.8		&36		&14.1		&25\\

1244: 1632$+$177	&2.4			&0.6			&3.0		&16		&14.1		&20\\

1245: 1633$+$433	&0.3			&2.7			&3.0		&15		&14.8		&14\\

1246: 1826$-$045	&3.0			&0.8			&3.8		&29		&13.0		&35\\

1247: 1858$+$393	&1.5			&0.7			&2.2		&45		&14.2		&16\\

1248: 

1249: \enddata

1250: 

1251: \tablenotetext{a}{The total age of the Pleiad EG 25 (Table \ref{tbl1}) and the similarly hot and 

1252: massive field white dwarfs (Table \ref{tbl2}) is taken to be 0.125 Gyr (see \S4.1).  The seventh

1253: column lists the companion mass upper limit.}

1254: 

1255: \end{deluxetable}

1256: 

1257: \clearpage

1258: 

1259: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}

1260: %\rotate

1261: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1262: \tablecaption{Target Ages and Upper Mass Limits for Resolved Companions\label{tbl6}}

1263: \tablewidth{0pt}

1264: \tablehead{

1265: \colhead{WD\#}				&

1266: \colhead{$t_{\rm ms}$ (Gyr)}		&

1267: \colhead{$t_{\rm wd}$ (Gyr)}		&

1268: \colhead{$\tau$ (Gyr)}			&

1269: \colhead{$d$ (pc)}				&

1270: \colhead{$M_{7.9\mu{\rm m}}$ (mag)}		&

1271: \colhead{Mass ($M_{\rm J}$)}}

1272: 

1273: \startdata

1274: 

1275: 0046$+$051	&0.2		&3.7		&3.9		&4.4		&16.0	&25\\

1276: 0322$-$019	&1.2		&4.4		&5.6		&17		&13.8	&65\\

1277: 1208$+$576	&4.0		&2.5		&6.5		&20		&13.5	&70\\

1278: 1344$+$106	&0.7		&1.9		&2.6		&20		&13.5	&60\\

1279: 1632$+$177	&2.4		&0.6		&3.0		&16		&14.0	&50\\

1280: 1633$+$433	&0.3		&2.7		&3.0		&15		&14.1	&50\\

1281: 2326$+$049	&0.4		&0.5		&0.9		&14		&14.3	&25\\

1282: 

1283: \enddata

1284: 

1285: \tablecomments{The exposure time for 0046$+$051 was 150 s versus 600 s for the other targets, 

1286: resulting in an overall sensitivity about half of that calculated in \S4.3.1.}

1287: 

1288: \end{deluxetable}

1289: 

1290: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}

1291: %\rotate

1292: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1293: \tablecaption{Representative 4.5 $\mu$m Absolute Magnitudes for Substellar Objects\label{tbl7}}

1294: \tablewidth{0pt}

1295: \tablehead{

1296: \colhead{Mass ($M_{\rm J}$)}	&

1297: \colhead{0.1 Gyr}			&

1298: \colhead{0.5 Gyr}			&

1299: \colhead{1.0 Gyr}			&

1300: \colhead{5.0 Gyr}}

1301: 

1302: \startdata

1303: 

1304: 2	&14.8	&16.7	&17.7	&21.1\\

1305: 5	&13.2	&14.9	&15.7	&17.9\\

1306: 10	&12.0	&13.5	&14.3	&16.1\\

1307: 15	&11.1	&12.7	&13.5	&15.3\\

1308: 20	&10.9	&12.2	&12.9	&14.7\\

1309: 

1310: \enddata

1311: 

1312: \tablecomments{Entries are in magnitudes \citep*{ssc06a}.  The table is based on the models

1313: of I. Baraffe (2007, private communication; \citealt*{bar03})}

1314: 

1315: \end{deluxetable}

1316: 

1317: \clearpage

1318: 

1319: \begin{figure}

1320: \plotone{f1.eps}

1321: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EUVE J0003$+$43.5, vMa 2, PG 0136$+$251, and

1322: PHL 1400.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1323: \label{fig1}}

1324: \end{figure}

1325: 

1326: \clearpage

1327: 

1328: \begin{figure}

1329: \plotone{f2.eps}

1330: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EUVE J0239$+$50.0, LB 9802A, LB 9802B, and

1331: GD 50.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1332: \label{fig2}}

1333: \end{figure}

1334: 

1335: \clearpage

1336: 

1337: \begin{figure}

1338: \plotone{f3.eps}

1339: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EG 25, EG 26, EG 29, and EG 265.  Downward arrows 

1340: represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1341: \label{fig3}}

1342: \end{figure}

1343: 

1344: \clearpage

1345: 

1346: \begin{figure}

1347: \plotone{f4.eps}

1348: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EG 35, EG 37, EG 39, and GR 316.  Downward arrows 

1349: represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1350: \label{fig4}}

1351: \end{figure}

1352: 

1353: \clearpage

1354: 

1355: \begin{figure}

1356: \plotone{f5.eps}

1357: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EG 42, EUVE J0443$-$03.7, EUVE J0521$-$10.4, 

1358: and EUVE J0534$-$02.2.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1359: \label{fig5}}

1360: \end{figure}

1361: 

1362: \clearpage

1363: 

1364: \begin{figure}

1365: \plotone{f6.eps}

1366: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EUVE J0653$-$56.4, GD 86, EUVE J0823$-$25.4,

1367: and EUVE J0916$-$19.7.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1368: \label{fig6}}

1369: \end{figure}

1370: 

1371: \clearpage

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure}

1374: \plotone{f7.eps}

1375: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of EUVE J1024$-$30.3, EUVE J1439$+$75.0, 

1376: EUVE J1535$-$77.4, and EUVE J1546$-$36.7.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1377: \label{fig7}}

1378: \end{figure}

1379: 

1380: \clearpage

1381: 

1382: \begin{figure}

1383: \plotone{f8.eps}

1384: \caption{Spectral energy distribution of PG 1609+631, PG 1642$+$413, PG 1658$+$440,

1385: and EUVE J1746$-$70.6.  Downward arrows represent upper limits (\S3.1).

1386: \label{fig8}}

1387: \end{figure}

1388: 

1389: \clearpage

1390: 

1391: \begin{figure}

1392: \plotone{f9.eps}

1393: \caption{The sum of the number of point-like source detections as a function of magnitude at each 

1394: wavelength in the IRAC imaged fields of 16 metal-rich white dwarfs with 600 s exposure times (Paper I).

1395: \label{fig9}}

1396: \end{figure}

1397: 

1398: \clearpage

1399: 

1400: \begin{figure}

1401: \plotone{f10.eps}

1402: \caption{IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m color-magnitude diagrams for all point-like sources in the 

1403: fields of the 6 Hyades white dwarfs observed at both short wavelengths.  Also plotted ({\em stars}) 

1404: are representative points in the IRAC T dwarf sequence (T1$-$T8; \citealt*{pat06}) at the 46 pc 

1405: distance to the open cluster.

1406: \label{fig10}}

1407: \end{figure}

1408: 

1409: 

1410: 

1411: \end{document}