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

2: \begin{document}

3: 

4: \shorttitle{STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM. V.}

5: \shortauthors{Redfield \& Falcon}

6: 

7: \title{THE STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM V: ELECTRON DENSITIES}

8: 

9: \author{Seth Redfield\altaffilmark{1} and Ross E. Falcon}

10: \altaffiltext{1}{Hubble Fellow}

11: \affil{\vspace{-2mm}Department of Astronomy and McDonald Observatory, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712}

12: \email{\vspace{-3mm}sredfield@astro.as.utexas.edu; cylver@astro.as.utexas.edu}

13: 

14: \begin{abstract}

15: 

16: We present a comprehensive survey of \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption

17: detections toward stars within 100~pc in order to measure the

18: distribution of electron densities present in the local interstellar

19: medium (LISM).  Using high spectral resolution observations of nearby

20: stars obtained by the Goddard High-Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and

21: the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) onboard the {\it

22: Hubble Space Telescope} ({\it HST}), we searched for all detections of

23: LISM \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption.  We identify 13 sight lines with

24: 23 individual \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption components, which provide

25: electron density measurements, the vast majority of which are new.  We

26: employ several strategies to determine more accurate \ion{C}{2} column

27: densities from the saturated \ion{C}{2} resonance line, including,

28: constraints of the line width from the optically thin

29: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ line, constraints from independent temperature

30: measurements of the LISM gas based on line widths of other ions, and

31: third, using measured \ion{S}{2} column densities as a proxy for

32: \ion{C}{2} column densities.  The distribution of electron densities

33: based on using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy for \ion{C}{2} is similar to the

34: distribution based on carbon alone, while significantly tighter, and

35: proves to be a promising technique to avoid grossly overestimating the

36: \ion{C}{2} column density based on the saturated line profile.  The

37: sample of electron densities appears consistent with a log-normal

38: distribution and an unweighted mean value of $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm

39: SII}) = 0.11^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ cm$^{-3}$.  Seven individual sight lines

40: probe the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), and all present a similar

41: value for the electron density, with a weighted mean of $n_e({\rm

42: LIC}) = 0.12 \pm 0.04$ cm$^{-3}$.  Two clouds, the NGP and Gem clouds,

43: show similar electron density properties as the LIC.  The Hyades

44: Cloud, a decelerated cloud at the leading edge of the platoon of LISM

45: clouds, has a significantly higher electron density than the LIC.

46: Observed toward G191-B2B, the high electron density may be caused by

47: the lack of shielding from such a strong radiation source.  No

48: evidence of a correlation between electron density and angular

49: separation of the sight line from the strongest extreme ultraviolet

50: radiation source, $\epsilon$ CMa, is found.  Given some simple

51: assumptions, the range of observed electron densities translates into

52: a range of thermal pressures, $P/k = 3300^{+5500}_{-1900}$

53: K~cm$^{-3}$.  This work greatly expands the number of electron density

54: measurements and provides important constraints on the ionization,

55: abundance, and evolutionary models of the local interstellar medium.

56: 

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: \keywords{atomic processes --- ISM: abundances --- line: profiles ---

60: solar neighborhood --- techniques: spectroscopic --- ultraviolet: ISM}

61: 

62: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}

63: 

64: More than a decade of use of high spectral resolution

65: ($R\equiv\lambda/\Delta\lambda$~$\gtrsim$~50,000) ultraviolet (UV)

66: spectrographs with wide spectral coverage, such as the Goddard High

67: Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and particularly the Space Telescope

68: Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) onboard the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}

69: ({\it HST}), has been a boon for observations of the local

70: interstellar medium (LISM).  Since the LISM, the collection of warm

71: gas in the immediate ($<$100 pc) vicinity of the Sun, is traversed by

72: all sight lines that extend beyond our solar system, the number of

73: observations with LISM absorption has grown tremendously.  The use of

74: this expanded database has been the impetus for many investigations

75: into the nature of the LISM, including the other papers in this

76: series, which present fits to LISM absorption in many ions (e.g.,

77: \ion{D}{1}, \ion{C}{2}, \ion{N}{1}, \ion{O}{1}, \ion{Mg}{2},

78: \ion{Al}{2}, \ion{Si}{2}, and \ion{Fe}{2},

79: \citealt{redfield02,redfield04sw}), temperature and turbulent velocity

80: measurements in LISM clouds \citep{redfield04tt}, and a dynamical

81: model of the LISM \citep{redfield07lism4}.

82: 

83: Due to the low column densities ($\log N($\ion{H}{1}$) \sim

84: 16.8-18.3$) typical of local clouds, the ionization structure of

85: hydrogen is vital to understanding the physical structure and origins

86: of the LISM.  An accurate accounting of the ionized fraction of

87: hydrogen (and the ionization levels of all ions) is critical for

88: measuring abundances and the depletion of gas phase ions onto dust

89: grains.  Low column density clouds, (i.e., $\log N($\ion{H}{1}$) <

90: 19.5$), like the LISM clouds, are not significantly shielded to

91: ionizing photons \citep{jenkins04,jenkins00,sofia98}.  The origin and

92: evolution of the Local Bubble, the $\sim$100 pc radius cavity in which

93: the warm LISM clouds reside \citep{lallement03}, is encoded in the

94: ionization structure.  Recent nondetections of high temperature lines

95: in the extreme UV \citep{hurwitz05} and the realization that soft

96: X-ray emission caused by the heliosphere \citep{lallement04} may

97: contribute to the emission formerly assigned to nearby hot gas

98: \citep{snowden90}, highlight the current challenges in understanding

99: the thermal structure and ionization level of the Local Bubble.  A

100: realistic Local Bubble can be modeled far from ionization equilibrium

101: \citep{breitschwerdt06} and the physical structure of the Local Bubble

102: can have a direct influence on the ionization structure of the warm

103: LISM clouds \citep{slavin02}.  Additionally, the structure of the

104: heliosphere, the interface between the LISM and the solar wind,

105: depends significantly on the ionization structure of the surrounding

106: interstellar medium \citep{muller06}.

107: 

108: The ionization fraction of hydrogen, $X({\rm H}) =

109: n($\ion{H}{2}$)/(n($\ion{H}{1}$) + n($\ion{H}{2}$))$, is computed

110: using the $n($\ion{H}{1}$) = n($\ion{He}{1}$) \times

111: N($\ion{H}{1}$)/N($\ion{He}{1}$)$ and $n($\ion{H}{2}$) \approx n_{\rm

112: e}$.  Typically, $n($\ion{He}{1}$)$ is derived from {\it in situ}

113: measurements of interstellar helium streaming through the heliospheric

114: interface into the inner solar system \citep{gloeckler04}, which of

115: course, is only a measurement of the helium density at one point in

116: the LISM.  $N($\ion{H}{1}$)/N($\ion{He}{1}$)$ is derived from extreme

117: UV observations of nearby white dwarfs (WDs), which contain the

118: ionization edge of \ion{He}{1}, and the continuum provides an estimate

119: of \ion{H}{1} \citep{dupuis95,barstow97}.  The weighted mean from this

120: work, based on nine white dwarf sight lines within 100\,pc, is

121: $N($\ion{H}{1}$)/N($\ion{He}{1}$)$ = $14.1 \pm 1.7$, although this is

122: a full sight line average, since this technique cannot separate

123: individual cloud components.

124:  

125: The remaining measurement in the calculation of the ionization

126: structure is the electron density, $n_e$.  The methods employed to

127: make this measurement utilize atomic transitions along interstellar

128: sight lines, which have the benefit of being able to resolve

129: individual absorbers if taken at high spectral resolution and can

130: provide a large number of measurements through various LISM

131: environments.  The ratio of magnesium ionization stage column

132: densities, $N($\ion{Mg}{2})$/N($\ion{Mg}{1}$)$, has provided a number

133: of $n_e$ measurements \citep[e.g.,][]{frisch90, lallement94, frisch94,

134: lallement97}.  However, this technique suffers from the requirement of

135: ionization equilibrium and a strong temperature dependence.

136: Alternatively, the ratio of the collisionally excited carbon line

137: column density to the resonance line column density,

138: $N($\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast})/N($\ion{C}{2}$)$, can provide $n_e$ estimates

139: without the need for ionization equilibrium and has a very weak

140: temperature dependence.  However, due to the weakness of the excited

141: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption and saturation of the only available UV

142: \ion{C}{2} resonance line, few LISM sight lines have been analyzed

143: using this technique.  \citet{wood97} used high spectral resolution

144: ($R \sim$ 100,000) spectra of $\alpha$ Aur to calculate $n_e$ along

145: the line of sight and demonstrated that the relatively simple

146: absorption profiles through the LISM provide an excellent opportunity

147: to make precise measurements of the electron density.

148: \citet{holberg99} used the same technique to measure the electron

149: density in ISM absorbers along the line of sight toward WD 1029+537, a

150: white dwarf $\sim$132\,pc away.  The excited absorption along other

151: LISM sight lines has been measured at moderate resolution ($R \sim$

152: 20,000) with {\it Copernicus} \citep[e.g.,][]{york79} and the {\it Far

153: Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer} ({\it FUSE}) \citep{lehner03},

154: although typically individual absorbers are not resolved, so the

155: estimates are full sight line averages.  A few $n_e$ measurements in

156: slightly warmer, and possibly local, \ion{O}{6}-bearing gas, derived

157: by comparisons of \ion{O}{6} emission \citep{dixon06} and absorption

158: \citep{lehner03}, have led to $n_e$ estimates of $\sim$0.2 cm$^{-3}$.

159: 

160: We present an inventory of high spectral resolution

161: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ detections along LISM sight lines from the

162: complete {\it HST} spectroscopic database.  We employ various

163: strategies to circumvent one of the challenges of using the

164: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$/\ion{C}{2} ratio technique, namely obtaining a

165: reliable \ion{C}{2} column density from a saturated resonance line:

166: (a) Simultaneously fitting the optically thin \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ and

167: saturated \ion{C}{2} profiles puts realistic constraints on the

168: Doppler width and column densities of the resonance line; (b) Use of

169: previously determined LISM temperatures and turbulent velocities,

170: typically derived from the same dataset \citep{redfield04tt},

171: constrains the Doppler width of the carbon lines; and (c) Use of

172: optically thin profiles of \ion{S}{2}, which has a similar ionization

173: potential as \ion{C}{2}, as a proxy of the \ion{C}{2} column density

174: \citep[e.g.,][]{oliveira03}.  This collection of new, high spectral

175: resolution UV observations of nearby stars presents an opportunity to

176: greatly expand the number of LISM electron density measurements and

177: probe the ionization structure of our most immediate interstellar

178: environment.

179: 

180: \section{Observations}\label{obs}

181: 

182: For our purpose, we are interested in sight lines toward stars within

183: 100~pc that show interstellar absorption in both \ion{C}{2}

184: (1334.5323~\AA) and the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ doublet (1335.6627~\AA\

185: and 1335.7077~\AA).  We compiled all moderate to high resolution

186: observations of nearby stars with the {\it HST} spectrographs: GHRS

187: and STIS.  The complete sample includes 417 unique targets within

188: 100~pc, almost half of which have spectra that cover the wavelength

189: region of \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$.  All these relevant

190: spectra were scrutinized for signs of \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption.

191: We found only 13 sight lines that show LISM absorption in both

192: transitions and list them in Table~\ref{starpar}.

193: 

194: The 100~pc distance limit is chosen to coincide with the approximate

195: extent of the Local Bubble \citep{lallement03}.  Observations of more

196: distant stars may be more difficult to analyze, as they are more

197: likely to traverse many absorbing clouds creating a blended line

198: profile.

199: 

200: Table~\ref{obspar} lists the observational parameters of the datasets

201: extracted from the {\it HST} Data Archive.  All observations are

202: necessarily moderate ($R \gtrsim$~20,000) to high ($R

203: \gtrsim$~100,000) spectral resolution in order to resolve narrow,

204: closely spaced interstellar absorption features and to increase the

205: likelihood of the detection of the weak \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ line.

206: 

207: We analyzed LISM absorption in the \ion{S}{2} multiplet (1250.578 \AA,

208: 1253.805 \AA, and 1259.518 \AA) in order to better constrain the

209: \ion{C}{2} column density.  Ten of the 13 targets have spectra that

210: include the \ion{S}{2} lines.  In addition, we fit the LISM absorption

211: in \ion{Mg}{1} (2852.9631 \AA) and the \ion{Mg}{2} doublet (2796.3543

212: \AA\ and 2803.5315 \AA) in order to further constrain the electron

213: density.  Only three of the 13 targets have spectra that include both

214: \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2}.  Observations utilized for these analyses

215: are also included in Table~\ref{obspar}.

216: 

217: We reduced the GHRS data acquired from the {\it HST} Data Archive with

218: the CALHRS software package using the Image Reduction and Analysis

219: Facility \citep[IRAF;][]{tody93} and the Space Telescope Science Data

220: Analysis System (STSDAS).  We used the most recent reference

221: calibration files.  Many of the echelle observations were obtained in

222: the FP-SPLIT mode to reduce fixed-pattern noise.  The individual

223: readouts of the FP-SPLIT spectra are combined using a

224: cross-correlation procedure called HRS\_MERGE \citep{robinson92}.  The

225: reduction included assignment of wavelengths using calibration spectra

226: obtained during the course of the observations.  The calibration

227: spectra include either a WAVECAL, a direct Pt-Ne lamp spectrum used to

228: derive the dispersion relation, or a SPYBAL (Spectrum Y-Balance),

229: which only provides a zero-point wavelength offset.  Any significant

230: errors involved in the wavelength calibration are included in our

231: central velocity determinations.  The wavelength calibration of the

232: \ion{Fe}{2} spectrum of $\alpha$ Gru is used to calibrate the

233: wavelength solution of \ion{C}{2}, since no wavelength calibration of

234: this segment of the spectrum was taken at the time.

235: 

236: We reduced the STIS data acquired from the {\it HST} Data Archive

237: using the STIS team's CALSTIS software package written in IDL

238: \citep{lindler99}.  The reduction included assignment of wavelengths

239: using calibration spectra obtained during the course of the

240: observations.  We used the ECHELLE\_SCAT routine in the CALSTIS

241: software package to remove scattered light.  However, the scattered

242: light contribution is negligible in this spectral range, and does not

243: influence the uncertainties in our spectral analysis.

244: 

245: \section{Data Analysis and Line Profile Fitting}\label{lysis}

246: 

247: Figures~\ref{9plot} and \ref{4plot} show the \ion{C}{2} resonance and

248: the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ excited absorption lines observed toward the

249: 13 targets listed in Table~\ref{starpar}.  The spectra (histogram) are

250: plotted in heliocentric velocity. Also plotted are the individual

251: interstellar component fits (dashed lines) and the total interstellar

252: absorption convolved with the instrumental profile (thick solid

253: lines).  As explained in Section~\ref{pro}, the resonance line plots

254: come from the simultaneous fits, and the excited line plots come from

255: the individual excited line fits.

256: 

257: The stellar continuum level (thin solid lines) illustrates our flux

258: estimates of the spectra without any interstellar absorption.  These

259: continua were determined by fitting polynomials to the spectral

260: regions adjacent to the observed interstellar features.  If the

261: intrinsic spectrum is a complex profile with intricate stellar

262: features, placing the continuum can be a difficult task.  All of our

263: target spectra have relatively smooth continua, and we are able to

264: easily reproduce the intrinsic continuum flux backgrounds with low

265: order polynomials.  Only two of the objects analyzed ($\alpha$ Aur and

266: EX Hya) include late-type stars, which are characterized by stellar

267: emission line spectra as opposed to smooth continuum spectra (e.g., as

268: seen in the white dwarf spectra), although their broad emission lines

269: allowed for simple continuum placement.

270: 

271: We used a Gaussian ISM absorption profile fitting algorithm to

272: determine the fits.  The program makes use of rest wavelengths and

273: oscillator strengths from \citet{morton03}, and the instrumental line

274: spread functions for GHRS and STIS spectra are taken from

275: \citet{gilliland94} and \citet{sahu99}, respectively.

276: 

277: \subsection{Fit Parameters}

278: 

279: Table~\ref{fitpar} lists the fit parameters measured, including

280: central velocity ($v$ [km s$^{-1}$]), Doppler width

281: ($b$~[km~s$^{-1}$]) and the logarithm of the column density

282: ($N$~[cm$^{-2}$]).  The central velocity is the mean radial velocity

283: of the absorbing component.  The Doppler width is a function of the

284: temperature ($T$~[K]) and turbulent velocity ($\xi$~[km s$^-1$]) of

285: the interstellar gas:

286: \begin{equation}

287: b^2=\frac{2kT}{m}+\xi^2=0.016629\frac{T}{A}+\xi^2,

288: \end{equation}

289: where $k$ is Boltzmann's constant, $m$ is the mass of the observed

290: ion, and $A$ is the atomic mass ($A_{\rm C} = 12.011$).  The column

291: density is a measure of the amount of material along the line of sight

292: to the target.

293: 

294: \subsection{Procedure}\label{pro}

295: 

296: For each target, we first fit the excited line alone.  Since the

297: excited line is actually a doublet, each paired absorption line

298: possesses the same intrinsic central velocity, Doppler width, and

299: column density; so these parameters are constrained accordingly to be

300: identical for both lines of the doublet.  We then fit the excited

301: (\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$) and resonance (\ion{C}{2}) lines simultaneously,

302: requiring the central velocities and Doppler widths to be identical.

303: Since the resonance line is typically saturated, $N$(\ion{C}{2}) is

304: not well constrained, but fitting the lines simultaneously allows us

305: to make use of information retained in the, albeit saturated,

306: resonance line, while retrieving vital constraints from the optically

307: thin excited line.  Thus, the final fit parameters for the resonance

308: line are derived from the simultaneous fits only.  For the excited

309: line fit parameters, we supplement the results from the simultaneous

310: fits with those from the individual fits in order to limit the impact

311: of systematic errors; these values are weighted means of the

312: parameters from both the simultaneous fits and individual excited line

313: fits.

314: 

315: In saturated lines, Doppler width and column density are tightly

316: coupled.  Thus, any available constraints on the $b$ value will yield

317: a more certain measurement for $N$, which in the case of \ion{C}{2}

318: and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$, is critical in determining electron

319: densities.  Consequently, we use measured LISM temperatures and

320: turbulent velocities from \citet{redfield04tt} to constrain the

321: Doppler widths for the $\alpha$~Aur, $\eta$ UMa, and G191-B2B lines of

322: sight.  Unfortunately, LISM temperatures and turbulent velocities have

323: been determined for only a limited number of sight lines, so we are

324: able to include this type of constraint for only these three targets.

325: 

326: Figure~\ref{4plot} shows four white dwarfs (WD~0050-332, WD~0232+035,

327: WD~2309+105, and WD~1210+533) that each possess a resonance line

328: component that does not have an excited line counterpart.  In each

329: case, the Doppler width and column density for the lone resonance

330: component are largely determined by what is not accounted for by the

331: other paired components; the \ion{C}{2} measurements of the component

332: without a \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ counterpart are poorly determined as

333: they lack the critical constraints provided by the optically thin

334: excited component.  Upper limits (3$\sigma$) are determined for the

335: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ column density for these components that show

336: absorption only in the resonance line.

337: 

338: The dominant source of systematic error, as mentioned earlier, is the

339: saturation of the \ion{C}{2} resonance line.  It is made evident upon

340: comparing our results for WD~0232+035 with those from

341: \citet{vennes00}.  Using the same datasets, \citet{vennes00} observed

342: two interstellar components toward WD~0232+035 with central velocities

343: of $3.1~\pm~0.2$~km~s$^{-1}$ and $17.6~\pm~0.9$~km~s$^{-1}$, in good

344: agreement with our measurements of $3.81~\pm~0.47$~km~s$^{-1}$ and

345: $17.4~\pm~4.6$~km~s$^{-1}$.  Their measured column density of

346: log$N$(\ion{C}{2}) = $14.32~\pm~0.57$ is a factor of 7 lower than our

347: measurement of log$N$(\ion{C}{2}) = $15.18~\pm~0.42$, but both have

348: large error bars, and the difference is just over 1$\sigma$.  In

349: contrast, the resonance line component that has no accompanying

350: excited line component is measured by \citet{vennes00} with a column

351: density log$N$(\ion{C}{2}) = $14.16~\pm~0.41$, a factor of 60 lower

352: than our measured value of log$N$(\ion{C}{2}) =

353: $15.96^{+0.32}_{-0.55}$, and a difference of almost 3$\sigma$.  The

354: critical factor in the disagreement concerns the treatment of the

355: Doppler width ($b$).  \citet{vennes00} allow for a range of $b$ values

356: (3.5--10.0~km~s$^{-1}$ and 4.0--10.0~km~s$^{-1}$ for the

357: $\sim$3~km~s$^{-1}$ and $\sim$17~km~s$^{-1}$ components,

358: respectively), while we allow $b$ to remain an independent variable.

359: Such a wide range of $b$ values appears to be unnecessary; for our

360: \ion{C}{2} fits to all sight lines, the weighted mean Doppler width is

361: $b=4.30~\pm~0.87$~km~s$^{-1}$, and inconsistent with a large b value

362: for WD0232+035.  In addition, our fit to the \ion{S}{2} lines, which

363: also shows two components at similar velocities (4.11 $\pm$

364: 0.64~km~s$^{-1}$ and 16.8 $\pm$ 3.8~km~s$^{-1}$), has a weighted mean

365: Doppler width of $b=3.95~\pm~0.79$~km~s$^{-1}$, also inconsistent with

366: a large Doppler width.

367: 

368: Simultaneously fitting the unsaturated excited line with the

369: accompanying saturated resonance line is the critical property of our

370: method, which allows us to more tightly constrain the observed column

371: density of the saturated line than if we were fitting it alone.

372: Essentially, the optically thin excited line provides the constraint

373: on the Doppler width, which thereby constrains the acceptable range of

374: column densities.

375: 

376: \subsection{Component Determination}

377: 

378: In determining the number of absorption components, we use the fewest

379: number of components that produce a satisfactory fit.  In most cases,

380: the resolution is high enough and the differences between component

381: velocities are great enough such that discernment of components is

382: almost trivial.  Other times, however, it is not so easily determined.

383: Components are added if a clear asymmetry is detected in either the

384: \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ profiles (e.g., $\eta$ UMa,

385: WD~1210+533, IX Vel), or if other ions indicate that additional

386: components are required (e.g., $\alpha$~Gru, $\rho$ Lup).  Our general

387: attitude toward this part of the analysis is to approach the

388: absorption feature with Ockham's razor in hand, so as to cut away any

389: unjustified components.

390: 

391: \subsection{\ion{S}{2}}

392: 

393: We are motivated to find an alternative means of estimating the

394: \ion{C}{2} column density, due to the difficulty of obtaining it

395: directly from the strongly saturated resonance line.  We use the

396: optically thin \ion{S}{2} triplet, located near the \ion{C}{2} lines,

397: as a proxy for \ion{C}{2} due to their similarity in ionization

398: potential, which is 24.4 eV for \ion{C}{2} and 23.3 eV for \ion{S}{2},

399: and their similarity in the ratio of their ionization and

400: recombination rates (defined as $P$ in \citet{sofia98}, where

401: \ion{S}{2} and \ion{C}{2}, among other ions, are compared in their

402: Figure~3).  Ten of the 13 sight lines with \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$

403: absorption also have spectra that cover the \ion{S}{2} wavelength

404: range.  We fit all three \ion{S}{2} lines simultaneously, and due to

405: the range of opacities of the three optically thin lines, we are able

406: to measure an accurate \ion{S}{2} column density.  The spectra and

407: fits are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:9plots2} and \ref{fig:4plots2}, and

408: the fit parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:s2fitpar}.

409: 

410: In order to convert from $N($\ion{S}{2}$)$ to $N($\ion{C}{2}$)$, we

411: need to take into account the different abundances and depletion

412: levels of sulfur and carbon in the LISM:

413: \begin{equation}

414: N({\rm CII}_{\rm SII})=N({\rm

415: SII})\times 10^{[{\rm C}_\odot + D({\rm C})] - [{\rm S}_\odot + D({\rm S})]},

416: \label{eq:s2toc2}

417: \end{equation}

418: where $N$(\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}$) is the estimated \ion{C}{2} column

419: density based on \ion{S}{2} as a proxy, $N$(\ion{S}{2}) is our

420: measured column density of \ion{S}{2}, $C_{\odot} = 8.39 \pm 0.05$ and

421: $S_{\odot} = 7.14 \pm 0.05$ are the solar abundances of carbon and

422: sulfur \citep{asplund05}, and $D($C$)$ and $D($S$)$ are the depletion

423: levels \citep{jenkins04}.  Here $D($S$) \sim 0.0$, as has been

424: detected in local and more distant ISM \citep{lehner03,welty99}, and

425: $D($C$) \sim -0.17 \pm 0.19$ from \citet{jenkins04}, where the error

426: incorporates some of the natural variation in the ISM (e.g., $D($C$)

427: \sim 0.0$ \citealt{cardelli96}; $\sim$--0.2 \citealt{lehner03};

428: $\sim$--0.4 \citealt{welty99}).

429: 

430: The \ion{C}{2} column density estimated using this technique is listed

431: in Table~\ref{fitpar}, and the comparison with the direct \ion{C}{2}

432: column density based on the \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ fits

433: shown in Figures~\ref{9plot} and \ref{4plot} is exhibited in

434: Figure~\ref{fig:cscomp}.  We present two errors based on this

435: calculation: the first simply propagates the error in $N({\rm SII})$,

436: while the second includes the errors in the solar abundances

437: \citep{asplund05} and the natural variation of depletions

438: \citep{jenkins04}.  Figure~\ref{fig:cscomp} demonstrates that

439: \ion{S}{2} is a reasonable proxy for \ion{C}{2}, where 12/20 (60\%)

440: agree within 2$\sigma$, and those that disagree by $>$2$\sigma$ are

441: all overestimated by measuring the strongly saturated \ion{C}{2}

442: resonance line directly.  Forcing $N({\rm CII}) = N({\rm CII}_{\rm

443: SII})$ in fitting \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ produces viable

444: fits to the data that are indistinguishable from those shown in

445: Figures~\ref{9plot} and \ref{4plot}.  The discrepancy between the

446: $N({\rm CII})$ and $N({\rm CII}_{\rm SII})$ originates from the

447: well-known problem when on the flat part of the curve-of-growth, that

448: very small changes in the Doppler width can produce very large changes

449: in the column density.  Despite the complication of using the ISM

450: average depletions for carbon and sulfur, estimating the \ion{C}{2}

451: column density is likely more accurately achieved by using \ion{S}{2}.

452: 

453: 

454: \subsection{\ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2}}

455: 

456: Spectra of three ($\eta$ UMa, $\alpha$ Gru, and G191-B2B) of the 13

457: sight lines with \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption also contain the

458: \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2} lines.  We fit the optically thin

459: \ion{Mg}{1} line separately and the two marginally saturated

460: \ion{Mg}{2} lines simultaneously.  The spectra and fits are shown in

461: Fig~\ref{fig:mgplot} and the fit parameters are listed in

462: Table~\ref{tab:mgfitpar}.  Due to the strength of the \ion{Mg}{2}

463: lines and relative weakness of the \ion{Mg}{1}, not all \ion{Mg}{2}

464: components are detected in \ion{Mg}{1}.  Although those that are, have

465: consistent velocities and Doppler widths, indicating both ions are

466: likely part of the same collections of gas.

467: 

468: \subsection{Individual Sight Lines}

469: 

470: {\it $\alpha$~Aur.}---The line of sight toward $\alpha$~Aur is well

471: known to exhibit a strong single interstellar absorption component

472: \citep{linsky93,linsky95} that has been identified with the Local

473: Interstellar Cloud (LIC; \citealt{lallement95}).  These

474: characteristics, complemented by the star's proximity, contributed to

475: it being the first LISM sight line with a $n_e$ measurement based on

476: absorption detected in \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$

477: \citep{wood97}.  The first fit plotted in Figure~\ref{9plot} is for

478: $\alpha$~Aur.  As noted by \citet{wood97}, who analyzed the same data,

479: the low signal-to-noise and the saturation of the resonance line make

480: the measurement of a precise Doppler width difficult.  For this

481: reason, we use the independently determined LISM temperature and

482: turbulent velocity along this line of sight to force the Doppler width

483: to be $3.48^{+0.15}_{-0.19}$ km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{redfield04tt}.  Our

484: measured central velocity of $v=20.78\pm0.28$ km~s$^{-1}$ agrees with

485: the $20.2\pm1.5$ km~s$^{-1}$ measured by \citet{wood97}.  Also, we

486: measure column densities of log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=14.67^{+0.14}_{-0.22}$

487: and log$N$(\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$)$=12.62\pm0.07$, which agree with their

488: log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=14.8\pm0.3$ and

489: log$N$(\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$)$=12.64\pm0.07$, respectively.

490: 

491: 

492: {\it $\eta$~UMa.}---The $\eta$~UMa sight line shows two components.

493: The Doppler width of the absorption observed toward this target is

494: constrained based on independent temperature and turbulent velocity

495: information \citep{redfield04tt}.  For the first component, $b$ is

496: fixed at $3.76^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ km~s$^{-1}$, and for the second

497: component, $b$ is fixed at $5.60^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ km~s$^{-1}$.  All

498: \ion{C}{2} fit parameters from \citet{redfield04sw} agree with our

499: measurements.  Both components are detected in \ion{Mg}{1} and

500: \ion{Mg}{2}, although the redward component is very weak and has a

501: poorly determined central velocity and Doppler width.  Indeed, the

502: blueward ($\sim$--2 km~s$^{-1}$) component is consistent in velocity

503: for both carbon and magnesium, but the measured velocity of the

504: redward component is significantly discrepant between the two,

505: although the errors are large.  \citet{frisch06aas} provided an

506: in-depth analysis of this particular sight line, including a

507: measurement of $n_e \sim 0.1$ cm$^{-3}$.

508: 

509: {\it $\alpha$~Gru.}---The spectra of $\alpha$~Gru were taken at the

510: lowest resolution allowed in our survey.  Based on this observation

511: alone, it is difficult to identify the appropriate number of

512: absorption components, but on the merit of past high spectral

513: resolution observations of other ions (e.g., \ion{Mg}{2},

514: \ion{Fe}{2}), three interstellar components have been determined along

515: this line of sight \citep{redfield02}.  We fit three components

516: accordingly and use the same difference in central velocities between

517: the three components as in \citet{redfield02} to constrain our

518: \ion{C}{2} fit.  We use the wavelength solution of \ion{Fe}{2} in

519: order to calibrate the \ion{C}{2} spectrum, which had no wavelength

520: calibration image at the same wavelength.  The errors are large for

521: Doppler width and column density due to the blending of the three

522: components.  Our measurements are consistent, though more reliable,

523: than those by \citet{redfield04sw}, in which the \ion{C}{2} resonance

524: line was fit alone.  Our \ion{Mg}{2} measurements agree well with

525: those of \citet{redfield02}.

526: 

527: 

528: {\it WD~0050-332.}---Using low-resolution ($R \sim $10,000; $\Delta$$v

529: \sim 30$ km~s$^{-1}$) International Ultraviolet Explorer ({\it IUE})

530: observations, \citet{holberg98} find interstellar \ion{C}{2} toward

531: WD~0050-332 at $10.69\pm3.20$ km~s$^{-1}$.  At higher resolution, our

532: \ion{C}{2} and \ion{S}{2} observations resolve this feature into two

533: components at $\sim$6.3 and $\sim$12.6 km~s$^{-1}$.  In agreement with

534: our claim of two components, two components have also been observed in

535: \ion{N}{1} and \ion{Si}{2} by \citet{oliveira05} at $\sim$6.8 and

536: $\sim$16.8 km~s$^{-1}$.  In \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$, however, we observe

537: only the stronger $\sim$6.3 km~s$^{-1}$ component.  Tentative

538: detections of highly ionized components associated with a

539: circumstellar shell have been observed toward this target

540: \citep{holberg98,bannister03}.

541: 

542: {\it EX~Hya and IX~Vel.}---Both targets have been scrutinized for

543: observational evidence for circumbinary disks \citep{belle04}.  In

544: this search, which used the same datasets employed here, they identify

545: absorption in \ion{C}{2}, \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$, and \ion{S}{2},

546: although the absorption was not identified with circumbinary

547: absorption for either star.  Instead, \citet{belle04} attributed the

548: observed absorption to the LISM and fit the profile with a single

549: Gaussian function, although particularly in the case of IX Vel, two

550: components are clearly present.  We fit both EX Hya and IX Vel with

551: two components, motivated by clear asymmetries in the

552: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ and \ion{S}{2} absorption.  The column-weighted

553: velocity of our components match fairly well with their estimates for

554: EX Hya.  However, the weaker \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ transition

555: (1335.6627~\AA) appears to be used as the wavelength standard instead

556: of the stronger transition (1335.7077~\AA), which overestimates the

557: velocity of absorption by $\sim$10~km~s$^{-1}$.  This correction

558: improves the agreement of their \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ velocity with the

559: other lines they measured and with our measurements.  Their IX Vel

560: estimates are significantly different from ours and are likely due to

561: the poor approximation of a single Gaussian to the absorption profile.

562: \citet{linnell07} also note the presence of interstellar absorption in

563: \ion{C}{2} and \ion{S}{2} in the spectrum of IX~Vel.

564: 

565: {\it G191-B2B.}---This is the third target which the Doppler width can

566: be constrained from independent measurements of temperature and

567: turbulent velocity \citep{redfield04tt}.  For the first and second

568: components, $b=4.10^{+0.29}_{-0.31}$ km~s$^{-1}$ and

569: $b=3.43^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$ km~s$^{-1}$, respectively.  The column

570: density measured by \citet{redfield04sw} for the $\sim$17~km~s$^{-1}$

571: component, log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=15.70\pm0.36$, is consistent with our

572: measurement, log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=15.42\pm0.17$.  The

573: $\sim$6~km~s$^{-1}$ component is in significant disagreement, with

574: their estimate at log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=16.12\pm0.33$ and ours at

575: log$N$(\ion{C}{2})$=14.8^{+0.3}_{-1.2}$.  The measurements by

576: \citet{redfield04sw} were obtained from fitting the saturated

577: \ion{C}{2} resonance line only, which typically overestimates the

578: column density.  The current fits are more reliable since both

579: \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ profiles are used simultaneously,

580: which more tightly constrain the fit parameters.  We measure

581: log$N$(\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$)$=12.28\pm0.09$ for the second component,

582: which matches a velocity believed to be attributed to the LIC

583: \citep{lallement95} in this direction.  Lying angularly close

584: ($\sim$2.5$^{\circ}$) and believed to traverse the LIC is the line of

585: sight towards $\alpha$~Aur.  We measure its column density to be

586: slightly greater with

587: log$N$(\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$)$=12.62\pm0.07$. Since the distance to

588: $\alpha$~Aur is 20\% that to G191-B2B, it is clear that the LIC does

589: not extend beyond $\sim$13 pc in that direction.  \ion{Mg}{1},

590: \ion{Mg}{2}, and \ion{S}{2} are also measured along this line of sight

591: using two components.  The velocities agree between magnesium and

592: sulfur, although they are slightly larger than those measured with

593: carbon.  Indeed, these \ion{C}{2} and \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ fits differ

594: in velocity even from the \ion{C}{2} fits alone from

595: \citet{redfield04sw}.  Again, since the current measurements are also

596: constrained by the optically thin excited line, these measurements are

597: more reliable.  Why the G191-B2B absolute radial velocities disagree

598: among different ions is unknown, but may be explained by systematic

599: wavelength calibration issues, as the difference in radial velocity

600: between the components agrees for all ions, and the spectra used for

601: different ions are coadditions of different individual observations at

602: various grating settings.  \citet{lemoine96} also measure LISM

603: absorption for two dominant components at $\sim$9.9 and $\sim$20.6

604: km~s$^{-1}$ and derive roughly similar column densities for

605: \ion{Mg}{2} and \ion{C}{2}.

606: 

607: {\it WD~0232+035.}---\citet{dupree82} identified interstellar

608: absorption in \ion{O}{1}, \ion{Si}{2}, and \ion{N}{1} while suggesting

609: the presence of a Str\"omgren sphere due to absorption observed in

610: \ion{C}{4}.  There have also been continued discussions of high

611: ionization circumstellar features for this star

612: \citep[e.g.,][]{vennes94,holberg98,bannister03}.  \citet{holberg98} observe

613: LISM absorption of \ion{C}{2} at $v=-4.28\pm2.78$ km~s$^{-1}$ with low

614: resolution {\it IUE} spectra.  Using the same datasets as

615: \citet{vennes00}, we resolve two components in both \ion{C}{2} and

616: \ion{S}{2} at $\sim$3.9 and $\sim$17.0 km~s$^{-1}$, which match their

617: $\sim$3.1 and $\sim$17.6 km~s$^{-1}$ components very well.  We find

618: evidence of the $\sim$17.0 km~s$^{-1}$ component in \ion{S}{2}, most

619: notably in the strong 1259.5~\AA\ line, whereas \citet{vennes00} only

620: fit the $\sim$3.9 km~s$^{-1}$ component.  We observe, just as they do,

621: only the $\sim$3.9 km~s$^{-1}$ component in the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$

622: excited line.

623: 

624: {\it WD~2309+105.}---\citet{holberg98} use low-resolution {\it IUE}

625: spectra to identify one LISM component in \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ at

626: $v=-8.27\pm3.19$ km~s$^{-1}$ and in all three \ion{S}{2} lines at

627: velocities ranging from --14.5 to --6.7 km~s$^{-1}$.  Two components

628: are seen in high resolution {\it HST} spectra analyzed by

629: \citet{oliveira03} in \ion{N}{1}, \ion{S}{2}, and \ion{Si}{2}, while

630: only the redward component is detected in \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$.  Using

631: the same dataset, we concur, and derive nearly identical fit

632: parameters.  Our central velocities are slightly different; ours are

633: measured at $\sim$--8.5 $\pm$ 1.2 and $\sim$1.3 $\pm$ 1.8 km~s$^{-1}$

634: and theirs at $\sim$--9.8 and $\sim$--0.6 km~s$^{-1}$, but the

635: differences are minimal given the large errors and almost identical

636: differential velocity.  Only the $\sim$--8.5 km~s$^{-1}$ component is

637: detected in \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ in agreement with the {\it IUE}

638: detection by \citet{holberg98}.

639: 

640: {\it WD~1210+533.}---Although only one component could be discerned in

641: the low resolution {\it IUE} spectra, \citet{holberg98} find

642: \ion{C}{2} absorption at $v=-7.32~\pm~3.21$ km~s$^{-1}$ and

643: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption at $v=-12.14~\pm~5.92$ km~s$^{-1}$.  We

644: detect three components in \ion{C}{2}, while only the two redward

645: components are seen in \ion{S}{2}, at velocities of $\sim$--23.4,

646: $\sim$--9.3, and $\sim$--3.0 km~s$^{-1}$.  The \ion{S}{2} 1253.8~\AA\

647: line suffers from considerable contamination, although the two

648: components are well characterized in the other two \ion{S}{2} lines.

649: 

650: {\it $\rho$~Lup.}---The two components characterizing the excited line

651: of $\rho$~Lup are similar in Doppler width and in column density,

652: lending difficulty to distinguishing the two despite a $\sim$7

653: km~s$^{-1}$ separation.  Fortunately, the asymmetric \ion{S}{2}

654: absorption profile allows us to discern two LISM components.  We use

655: velocities determined from these measurements to constrain our

656: \ion{C}{2} fits.  \citet{welsh05} observe two components in

657: \ion{Na}{1} (5890.0~\AA) and three components in \ion{Fe}{2}

658: (1608.5~\AA), \ion{S}{2} (1253,1259~\AA), and \ion{Al}{2}

659: (1670.8~\AA).  Although we only find evidence for two components in

660: \ion{C}{2} and \ion{S}{2}, our components agree fairly well, with

661: velocities $\sim$--16.1 and $\sim$--9.1 km~s$^{-1}$.  \citet{welsh05}

662: present a thorough discussion of cloud distances and identify the

663: $\sim$--9.1 km~s$^{-1}$ absorption with material at $\sim$90 pc while

664: identifying the $\sim$--16.1 km~s$^{-1}$ absorption with material at

665: the neutral boundary of the Local Bubble in the direction toward

666: $\rho$ Lup.

667: 

668: \section{Electron Density}

669: 

670: \subsection{Estimation Based On \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$}

671: 

672: Table~\ref{electron} lists the measured electron densities, $n_e$,

673: along the lines of sight towards the 13 targets analyzed.  The values

674: listed in column four of this table are calculated using a method

675: which compares the column densities of the resonance and excited lines

676: of \ion{C}{2}.  Our use of this method is similar to that implemented

677: by \citet{spitzer93} and \citet{oliveira03} but most parallels that of

678: \citet{wood97}.

679: 

680: The \ion{C}{2} resonance absorption line at 1334.5323~\AA\ corresponds

681: to the transition from the ground state ($J=1/2$), while the

682: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ excited absorption lines at 1335.6627~\AA\ and

683: 1335.7077~\AA\ correspond to the transition from the excited state of

684: the fine-structure doublet ($J=3/2$).  Collisions with electrons are

685: responsible for populating the excited state, and hence the ratio of

686: the column densities of the two lines is proportional to the electron

687: density.  For a detailed discussion of how the fine structure of

688: absorption lines can be used to determine density, see

689: \citet{bahcall68}.

690: 

691: The following relation is derived from thermal equilibrium between

692: collisional excitation of the $J=3/2$ state and radiative

693: de-excitation:

694: \begin{equation}

695: \frac{N({\rm CII^{\ast}})}{N({\rm CII})}=\frac{n_eC_{12}(T)}{A_{21}}.

696: \end{equation}

697: The effect of collisional de-excitation at these densities and

698: temperatures is negligible and therefore not included in the equation

699: above.  $N$(\ion{C}{2}) and $N$(\ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$) are the column

700: densities of the resonance and excited lines, respectively.  The

701: calculation of the electron density using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy for

702: \ion{C}{2}, simply replaces $N$(\ion{C}{2}) with $N($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm

703: SII})$, as derived from Equation~\ref{eq:s2toc2}.  The electron

704: densities based on $N($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII})$ are also listed in

705: Table~\ref{electron} (column five).  The radiative de-excitation rate

706: coefficient is $A_{21}=2.29\times10^{-6}$~s$^{-1}$, as listed by

707: \citet{nussbaumer81}.  The collision rate coefficient can be expressed

708: is cgs units as

709: \begin{equation}

710: C_{12}(T)=\frac{8.63\times10^{-6}\Omega_{12}}{g_1T^{0.5}}\exp{\Biggl(-\frac{E_{12}}{kT}\Biggr)},

711: \end{equation}

712: where the statistical weight of the ground state $g_1=2$, and the

713: energy of the transition $E_{12}=1.31\times10^{-14}$~ergs. Since the

714: collision strength $\Omega_{12}$ has a very weak temperature

715: dependence, for all targets we let $\Omega_{12}=2.81$ \citep{hayes84},

716: calculated at a temperature of 7000~K, very similar to the LISM

717: average of 6680~K \citep{redfield04tt}.

718: 

719: \subsection{Estimation Based On \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2}}

720: 

721: Three of our targets have both \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2} LISM

722: absorption measurements (see Table~\ref{tab:mgfitpar}).  We estimate

723: the electron density by following the procedure detailed by

724: \citet{lallement97} and \citet{frisch94}.  Assuming equilibrium, the

725: electron density can be estimated by formulating the balance of

726: ionization and recombination between neutral and singly ionized

727: magnesium:

728: \begin{equation}

729: \frac{N({\rm MgII})}{N({\rm MgI})}=\frac{\Gamma + n_{\rm e}\sigma_{\rm ex}}{n_{\rm e}\alpha},

730: \end{equation}

731: where $\Gamma$ is the photoionization rate of \ion{Mg}{1},

732: $\sigma_{\rm ex}$ is the formation rate of \ion{Mg}{2} based on charge

733: exchange, $\alpha$ is the total recombination rate, and we have

734: assumed that $N($\ion{Mg}{2}$)/N($\ion{Mg}{1}$) =

735: n($\ion{Mg}{2}$)/n($\ion{Mg}{1}$)$ and $n($\ion{H}{2}$) = n_{\rm e}$.

736: We use a photoionization rate of $\Gamma = 6.1 \times

737: 10^{11}$~s$^{-1}$ \citep{sofia98,jenkins00bcma}.  Although

738: photoionization typically dominates over charge exchange, at high

739: enough densities, the charge exchange contribution can be significant.

740: We have used the relationship derived by \citet{allan88}, $\sigma_{\rm

741: ex} = 1.74 \times 10^{-9} \exp(-22100/T)$ cm$^3$~s$^{-1}$.  The total

742: recombination rate, similar to \citet{frisch94}, is the sum of the

743: radiative recombination rate from \citet{aldrovandi73} and dielectric

744: recombination rate from \citet{nussbaumer86} and \citet{mazzotta98}.

745: All recombination rates are strongly dependent on temperature.

746: Table~\ref{electron} lists the calculated electron densities based on

747: the ratio of \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2} (column six).

748: 

749: 

750: \subsection{Previous Measurements}

751: 

752: Electron density estimates have been made by other researchers for a

753: few of the sight lines.  Toward $\alpha$~Aur, our electron density

754: ($n_e=0.140^{+0.060}_{-0.059}$ cm$^{-3}$) agrees well with the

755: measured $n_e=0.11^{+0.12}_{-0.06}$ cm$^{-3}$ by \citet{wood97}.  An

756: interstellar temperature of 6700~K \citep{redfield04tt} is included in

757: our determination of the electron density.  \citet{vennes00} obtained

758: an electron density estimate toward WD~0232+035 by assuming a wide

759: range of possible $b$ values which resulted in a density of $n_e=0.36$

760: cm$^{-3}$ for the interstellar component near $3.8$ km~s$^{-1}$.  This

761: is slightly higher, but within 2$\sigma$ of our estimates,

762: $n_e=0.10^{+0.17}_{-0.6}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_e({\rm CII}_{\rm

763: SII})=0.21^{+0.14}_{-0.08}$ cm$^{-3}$.  \citet{oliveira03} provide an

764: estimate of $n_e = 0.1 \pm 0.01$ cm$^{-3}$ for the --9.7 km~s$^{-1}$

765: component toward WD~2309+105, based on using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy of

766: \ion{C}{2} and assuming a temperature of 8000~K.  Our measurement

767: using the same technique, assuming the LISM average temperature of

768: 6680~K, matches quite well, $n_e = 0.084^{+0.052}_{-0.033}$ cm$^{-3}$.

769: 

770: \section{Discussion}\label{disc}

771: 

772: Figures~\ref{fig:cne}--\ref{hist} summarize the results of our

773: electron density measurements.  Figure~\ref{fig:cne} shows the

774: measured electron density as a function of the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$

775: column density.  Electron density estimates using both the saturated

776: \ion{C}{2} resonance line and \ion{S}{2} as a proxy for \ion{C}{2} are

777: shown.  The measurements using \ion{S}{2} are more precise, even when

778: we include systematic errors of the variation of depletion, than the

779: \ion{C}{2} measurements since \ion{S}{2} is optically thin.

780: Figure~\ref{den2} displays the same distribution of data points,

781: except instead of electron density, we plot the resonance line column

782: density versus the excited line column density.  Overplotted are

783: constant-density contours for the mean temperature of the LISM.  Both

784: plots show that the LISM electron density measurements are relatively

785: tightly log-normal distributed about the unweighted mean value of

786: $\sim$0.1~cm$^{-3}$.  Figure~\ref{hist} further emphasizes the tight

787: distribution of electron density measurements about the mean.  In

788: particular, by using optically thin \ion{S}{2} lines as a proxy for

789: \ion{C}{2}, we avoid systematically high column density measurements

790: commonly derived from saturated line profiles, which ultimately lead

791: to very low electron density determinations.  For this reason, in the

792: electron density distribution derived from \ion{S}{2}, we lose the low

793: electron density tail evident with the \ion{C}{2} measurements, and

794: the LISM average tightens to an unweighted mean of

795: 0.11$^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$~cm$^{-3}$, where the 1$\sigma$ errors are the

796: dispersion about the mean value.  All electron densities derived 

797: using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy range from 0.07--0.80~cm$^{-3}$.  The

798: distribution of $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII})$ measurements matches well

799: the $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$)$ distribution, but it is significantly tighter,

800: since the gross overestimates of the \ion{C}{2} column density are

801: avoided.  This is a strong endorsement for using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy

802: for \ion{C}{2}, in order to make more accurate electron density

803: measurements.

804: 

805: Figure~\ref{fig:comp} shows the solutions of electron density as a

806: function of temperature for the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$/\ion{C}{2}

807: technique, which does not require ionization equilibrium and has a

808: very modest temperature dependence, and for the

809: \ion{Mg}{1}/\ion{Mg}{2} technique, which does require ionization

810: equilibrium and has a very strong temperature dependence.  This type

811: of comparison was used by \citet{gry01} to measure the properties

812: along the sight line toward $\epsilon$ CMa.  Also shown in

813: Figure~\ref{fig:comp}, for several of the sight lines, is an

814: independent measurement of the temperature of the gas based on the

815: widths of absorption lines of different atomic mass

816: \citep{redfield04tt}.  Ideally, all three measurements should converge

817: at the same temperature and provide a single estimate of the electron

818: density.

819: 

820: \subsection{LISM Cloud Properties}

821: 

822: The last column of Table~\ref{electron} indicates the interstellar

823: cloud(s) by which the observed components may be identified.  The

824: criteria for identification include agreement with the predicted

825: projected velocity and spatial distribution of a given LISM cloud

826: \citep{redfield07lism4}.  Components for some of our targets

827: ($\alpha$~Aur, $\alpha$~Gru, and G191-B2B for the LIC; $\eta$~UMa for

828: the NGP cloud; G191-B2B for the Hyades cloud) had been previously

829: identified and assigned to specific clouds by \citet{redfield07lism4}.

830: Many of the remaining components could also be identified with known

831: LISM clouds (i.e., the observed radial velocity of absorption is

832: within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted projected velocity, and the line of

833: sight traverses the spatial distribution of the cloud).  Those clouds

834: listed in parentheses also agree in velocity, but the sight line only

835: passes near (within 20 degrees of) the given cloud boundary.  Given

836: the similarities of the LISM cloud velocities, it is not always easy

837: to uniquely identify cloud membership, although of the 23

838: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ components, 11 can be firmly identified with a

839: specific LISM cloud.

840: 

841: The Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) is the collection of gas that

842: dominates LISM absorption line observations because it is detected in

843: a large fraction of the sky.  The Sun is currently located just

844: outside of the LIC \citep{redfield00,redfield07lism4}.  While LIC

845: material has likely surrounded the Sun for the last $\sim$100,000

846: years, given the relative motion and location of the LIC and the Sun,

847: the solar system has moved, or will very shortly move, into a different

848: interstellar environment.  However, the proximity of the LIC means

849: that many LISM sight lines will probe this material.  Indeed, 7 of the

850: 11 identified cloud members are of the LIC.  The LIC $n_e$

851: measurements are shown by the shaded histogram in Figure~\ref{hist},

852: where all sight lines give a similar measurement.  The

853: $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII})$ measurements are used to calculate the

854: mean when available, while $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$)$ is used for

855: $\alpha$~Aur and $n_e($\ion{Mg}{2}$/$\ion{Mg}{1}$)$ is used for

856: $\alpha$~Gru.  The weighted mean is $n_e({\rm LIC}) = 0.12 \pm 0.04$

857: cm$^{-3}$.  Dramatic variation in electron density within the LIC is

858: not observed.  However, more sight lines would be required to do a

859: more involved investigation of intracloud variability.

860: 

861: Other electron density components are assigned to various other

862: clouds, but none have as many measurements as the LIC.  The North

863: Galactic Pole (NGP) Cloud has two $n_e$ measurements which agree quite

864: will with each other at $\sim$0.09 cm$^{-3}$ and are not too different

865: than the LIC measurement.  Likewise, the Gem Cloud is observed in the

866: second component of EX Hya ($n_e \sim 0.15$) and is similar to the LIC

867: measurement.  This is the first strong evidence that LISM clouds that

868: are dynamically distinct from the LIC nonetheless have a similar

869: electron density.  However, not all LISM clouds share similar electron

870: density properties.  The Hyades Cloud measurement observed in the

871: first component of G191-B2B is consistently measured at a high

872: electron density ($\sim$0.5) in all three techniques.  The Hyades

873: Cloud appears to be a decelerated cloud at the leading edge of the

874: platoon of LISM clouds beyond the LIC

875: \citep{redfield01,redfield07lism4}.  It is therefore closer to

876: G191-B2B than the LIC and without any obvious LISM clouds between it

877: and G191-B2B to shield the ionizing radiation.  The Hyades Cloud

878: appears to have an enhanced electron density due to the

879: photoionization of G191-B2B, while also shielding other LISM clouds,

880: such as the LIC, from the strong ionizing radiation of G191-B2B.  No

881: obvious measurements of the second largest LISM cloud and likely

882: future interstellar environment of the Sun, the G Cloud, exist in

883: this sample.

884: 

885: \subsection{Sources of Ionization and Self-Shielding}

886: 

887: Almost all of our background stars are white dwarfs or early-type

888: stars and therefore strong UV photon sources and significant

889: contributors to the local radiation field.  Indeed, \citet{vallerga98}

890: provided an inventory of 54 strong extreme-UV (EUV) stars that largely

891: determine the local radiation field.  The local EUV field is dominated

892: by the B star $\epsilon$ CMa and by three white dwarfs (Feige 24, HZ

893: 43, and G191-B2B).  Both Feige 24 and G191-B2B are identified here as

894: having detectable \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$, while $\epsilon$ CMa is a

895: relatively distant star ($\sim$130 pc) and not included in our search

896: sample, and HZ 43 did not have any detectable \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$,

897: although this may be due to the significantly lower amount of LISM

898: material in that direction.  Three more of our 13 sight lines

899: ($\alpha$ Aur, WD0050-332, and WD2309+105) are also included in the

900: radiation field inventory by \citet{vallerga98}, and we expect that

901: the other white dwarfs and early-type stars that make up our remaining

902: sight lines are also significant contributors to the local ionizing

903: radiation field.

904: 

905: In the left plot of Figure~\ref{fig:shield}, the electron density

906: measurements are shown as a function of the angle from $\epsilon$ CMa.

907: This is a test that was suggested in \citet{vallerga98}.

908: Unfortunately, most sight lines cluster around 90 degrees from the

909: direction of $\epsilon$ CMa, but nonetheless, no clear correlation is

910: detected.  This constrasts with a possible ionization gradient toward

911: $\epsilon$ CMa, based on hydrogen and helium column densities measured

912: in the extreme ultraviolet toward many nearby white dwarf stars

913: \citep{wolff99}.  Our measurements indicate that $\epsilon$ CMa does

914: not singularly dominate the ionization structure of the LISM, and

915: other contributors, such as the other nearby WDs and early type stars,

916: may be significant sources of the radiation field that dictates the

917: electron density in the LISM.

918: 

919: The right plot of Figure~\ref{fig:shield} demonstrates a possible test

920: of self-shielding in LISM clouds.  The figure plots the difference of

921: electron densities along the same sight line as a function of the

922: total column density along the line of sight.  Those with low columns

923: should show evidence of less shielding, while large columns will

924: provide significant shielding and a more dramatic difference in

925: electron density measurements.  No such correlation is seen,

926: indicating that for the entire LISM sample, there does not appear to

927: be pervasive shielding of ionizing radiation along each specific line

928: of sight.  This diagnostic assumes that for each sight line, the

929: dominant ionization source is the background star itself, which will

930: not necessarily be the case.  A more sophisticated three-dimensional

931: morphological model of the LISM that includes the effects of known

932: ionizing sources is needed to accurately determine if the observed

933: electron density is consistent with shielding of LISM clouds.

934: However, isolated sight lines of strong ionization sources may be used

935: to investigate the impact of shielding on electron density

936: measurements.

937: 

938: As mentioned in the previous section, the G191-B2B sight line provides

939: a possible example of self-shielding.  Because many of our background

940: targets are significant EUV sources, clouds closer to the source

941: (i.e., more distant from the Sun) should shield the clouds farther

942: from the source (i.e., nearer to the Sun).  The LIC components offer

943: excellent examples of this, since we know the LIC component is tracing

944: gas closest to the Sun.  The G191-B2B sight line, and others including

945: the $\alpha$ Gru, WD0232+035, and WD1210+533 sight lines, are cases

946: where the LIC component electron density is less than the other

947: observed component, presumably probing material from a more distant

948: cloud that lies closer to the ionizing source (assuming it is the

949: background star observed).  \citet{gry01} also noted this phenomena in

950: looking at the electron densities toward the most dominant ionization

951: source, $\epsilon$~CMa.  They identified two absorbers with local

952: clouds, the LIC and Blue Cloud, which had low electron densities, $n_e

953: = $0.08--0.17 and 0.016--0.088 cm$^{-3}$, respectively, while the

954: distant absorber, which was located closer to $\epsilon$~CMa, had a

955: significantly higher electron density, $n_e = $0.18--0.28 cm$^{-3}$.

956: Several counter-examples, such as GD659, and 74 Psc A and B, are also

957: observed, where the LIC does not have a significantly lower electron

958: density.  However, these are among the weakest ionizing sources in our

959: sample.  The 74 Psc stars are inactive and relatively cool A stars,

960: while GD659 is the coolest ($\sim$35000 K) of the singleton white

961: dwarfs in our sample, which are all $\gtrsim$50000 K

962: \citep{lajoie07,holberg06}.

963: 

964: \subsection{LISM Pressure Measurements}

965: 

966: The electron density is also important for its implication for

967: pressure measurements of LISM material.  This is a particularly

968: critical issue due to the apparent disparity of the warm LISM clouds,

969: such as those observed by \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption, which have

970: pressures, $P/k = nT \sim 3000$ K~cm$^{-3}$

971: \citep[e.g.,][]{redfield06,jenkins02}, and the hot, tenuous Local

972: Bubble gas that surrounds the warm clouds, which has pressures

973: $\sim$10000 K~cm$^{-3}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{snowden90}.  Recent evidence

974: of soft X-ray emission at the heliosphere due to charge exchange

975: between the solar wind and incoming LISM appears to contribute to the

976: soft X-ray emission that was previously fully attributed to the hot

977: Local Bubble gas \citep[e.g.,][]{lallement04}.  A revised inventory of

978: soft X-ray emission may lower the temperature and/or density of the

979: hot gas and reduce the pressure discrepancy.

980: 

981: The top axis of Figure~\ref{hist} shows the range of measured

982: pressures that we obtain from our electron density measurements.  This

983: calculation assumes temperature is constant for all sight lines, and a

984: simple photoionization relationship between the electron density

985: ($n_e$) and the neutral hydrogen density ($n_{\rm HI}$).  In the case

986: of temperature, we know this assumption is not completely valid since

987: we see some variation about the mean LISM value \citep[$T = 6680$

988: K][]{redfield04sw,redfield04tt}.  However, since independent

989: temperature measurements are not available for the majority of sight

990: lines studied here, and since the dispersion about the mean

991: temperature is not high, it is a reasonable initial assumption.  We

992: assume $n_{\rm HI} = n_e^2 \alpha({\rm H})/\Gamma({\rm H})$ \citep[see

993: Equation 7 in][]{sofia98}.  The balance of the recombination rate

994: ($\alpha$) and the ionization rate ($\Gamma$) are assumed to be

995: constant in the LISM and we calibrate this quantity such that the LISM

996: average electron density ($n_e$) is consistent with the LISM

997: measurement of $n_{\rm HI} = 0.222$ cm$^{-3}$, based on {\it in situ}

998: measurements of $n_{\rm HeI} = 0.0151$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{gloeckler04},

999: and the \ion{H}{1} to \ion{He}{1} column density ratio observed toward

1000: nearby white dwarfs \citep{dupuis95}.  We assume $n_p = n_{\rm e}$ and

1001: $n_{\rm He} = 0.1 n_{\rm H}$.  This calculation breaks down at very

1002: low densities ($n_e \leq 0.007$ cm$^{-3}$), where the derived hydrogen

1003: density is less than the minimum value allowed from observations of

1004: nearby stars, measured by dividing the observed hydrogen column

1005: density by the distance to the background source

1006: \citep{redfield04sw,linsky00}.  At high densities ($n_e \geq 0.4$

1007: cm$^{-3}$), our assumption of a constant ionization rate fails

1008: severely because the resulting column density through a typical LISM

1009: cloud ($N_{\rm HI} \geq 10^{19.5}$) leads to significant shielding of

1010: ionizing ratiation \citep{jenkins04}.  The top axis of

1011: Figure~\ref{hist} is only printed for the range of densities for which

1012: our calculation is reasonable.  The distribution of electron densities

1013: then translates into an unweighted mean $P/k = 3300^{+5500}_{-1900}$

1014: K~cm$^{-3}$, consistent with the range of values determined for other

1015: nearby stars using excited transitions of \ion{C}{1} by

1016: \citet{jenkins02}.

1017: 

1018: \section{Conclusions}\label{sions}

1019: 

1020: We analyze high spectral resolution observations of LISM absorption in

1021: order to survey the electron density in nearby interstellar material.

1022: These measurements should provide important constraints on the

1023: ionization and abundance patterns of the LISM

1024: \citep[e.g.,][]{slavin02,sofia98,jenkins00}, as well as on

1025: evolutionary models of all phases of the LISM \citep{breitschwerdt06}.

1026: A summary of our results is as follows:

1027: 

1028: \begin{enumerate}

1029: \item We searched the entire {\it HST} spectroscopic database of

1030: nearby stars ($<$100 pc) for detections of \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$.  Of

1031: the $\sim$417 total nearby sight lines, we find 13 that show

1032: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption in 23 different velocity components.

1033: The vast majority of these detections are new.

1034: 

1035: \item Using the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ to \ion{C}{2} ratio, we infer the

1036: electron density.  To increase the accuracy of our results,

1037: particularly in terms of measuring the column density of the saturated

1038: \ion{C}{2} resonance line, we employ three analytical strategies: (a)

1039: simultaneously fitting both the \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ and \ion{C}{2}

1040: profiles, allowing the optical thin \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ line to

1041: constrain the line width, (b) using independently derived temperatures

1042: from comparison of line widths to constrain the acceptable range of

1043: line widths for \ion{C}{2}, and (c) using easily measured \ion{S}{2}

1044: column densities as a proxy for \ion{C}{2} column density.

1045: 

1046: \item The distribution of electron densities based on using \ion{S}{2}

1047: as a proxy for \ion{C}{2} is similar to the distribution based on

1048: carbon alone, while significantly tighter.  This is a promising

1049: technique to avoid grossly overestimating the \ion{C}{2} column

1050: density based on the saturated line profile.

1051: 

1052: \item We find the distribution of measured LISM electron densities

1053: ($n_e$) is consistent with a log-normal profile, with a mean

1054: (unweighted) value of $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}) =

1055: 0.11^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ cm$^{-3}$.

1056: 

1057: \item We assign individual velocity components to specific LISM clouds

1058: based on kinematical and spatial properties.  In particular, the LIC

1059: is probed by seven different sight lines, which all give roughly

1060: identical electron density measurements.  The weighted mean value for

1061: the LIC is $n_e = 0.12 \pm 0.04$ cm$^{-3}$.

1062: 

1063: \item Two clouds, the NGP and Gem clouds, show similar electron

1064: density properties as the LIC.  The Hyades Cloud, a decelerated cloud

1065: at the leading edge of the platoon of LISM clouds, has a significantly

1066: higher electron density than the LIC.  Observed toward G191-B2B, the

1067: high electron density may be caused by the lack of shielding from such

1068: a strong radiation source.

1069: 

1070: \item Almost all of our background sources are significant ionizing

1071: sources that may influence the ionization structure and thereby the

1072: electron density of the gas along the line of sight.  We do not find

1073: evidence that the ionization structure of the LISM is dominated by a

1074: single source, namely $\epsilon$ CMa.

1075: 

1076: \item We see evidence of more distant clouds (i.e., those closest to

1077: the ionizing sources) shielding nearer clouds (i.e., those farthest

1078: from the ionizing sources).  In several examples, the LIC component

1079: which is known to be farthest from the ionizing source has a lower

1080: electron density than the component along the same line of sight that

1081: is nearer to the radiation source.  Although counter-examples exist,

1082: they are toward the weakest radiation sources in our sample.

1083: 

1084: \item The range in electron density is used to estimate the range of

1085: pressures that may be found in warm LISM clouds.  Given simple

1086: assumptions, the measured electron densities correspond to an

1087: unweighted mean pressure $P/k = 3300^{+5500}_{-1900}$ K cm$^{-3}$.

1088: 

1089: \end{enumerate}

1090: 

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \acknowledgements 

1094: The authors would like to thank Jeff Linsky and Brian Wood for reading

1095: the draft and providing helpful comments.  We thank the referee for a

1096: careful reading and many excellent suggestions.  S.R. would like to

1097: acknowledge support provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant

1098: HST-HF-01190.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,

1099: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in

1100: Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.  This research

1101: has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic

1102: Services.  This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated

1103: at CDS, Strasbourg, France.  Some of the data presented in this paper

1104: were obtained from the Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope

1105: Science Institute (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of

1106: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract

1107: NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA

1108: Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and by other grants and

1109: contracts.

1110: 

1111: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (GHRS, STIS)}

1112: 

1113: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1114: %\bibliography{/home/cobalt/sredfield/bigbib/bigbib}

1115: 

1116: \begin{thebibliography}{69}

1117: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1118: 

1119: \bibitem[{{Aldrovandi} \& {Pequignot}(1973)}]{aldrovandi73}

1120: {Aldrovandi}, S.~M.~V., \& {Pequignot}, D. 1973, \aap, 25, 137

1121: 

1122: \bibitem[{{Allan} {et~al.}(1988){Allan}, {Clegg}, {Dickinson}, \&

1123:   {Flower}}]{allan88}

1124: {Allan}, R.~J., {Clegg}, R.~E.~S., {Dickinson}, A.~S., \& {Flower}, D.~R. 1988,

1125:   \mnras, 235, 1245

1126: 

1127: \bibitem[{{Asplund} {et~al.}(2005){Asplund}, {Grevesse}, \&

1128:   {Sauval}}]{asplund05}

1129: {Asplund}, M., {Grevesse}, N., \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 336:

1130:   Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis in

1131:   honor of David L. Lambert, ed. T.~G. {Barnes} \& F.~N. {Bash} (San Francisco:

1132:   ASP), 25

1133: 

1134: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Wolf}(1968)}]{bahcall68}

1135: {Bahcall}, J.~N., \& {Wolf}, R.~A. 1968, \apj, 152, 701

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[{{Bannister} {et~al.}(2003){Bannister}, {Barstow}, {Holberg}, \&

1138:   {Bruhweiler}}]{bannister03}

1139: {Bannister}, N.~P., {Barstow}, M.~A., {Holberg}, J.~B., \& {Bruhweiler}, F.~C.

1140:   2003, \mnras, 341, 477

1141: 

1142: \bibitem[{{Barstow} {et~al.}(1997){Barstow}, {Dobbie}, {Holberg}, {Hubeny}, \&

1143:   {Lanz}}]{barstow97}

1144: {Barstow}, M.~A., {Dobbie}, P.~D., {Holberg}, J.~B., {Hubeny}, I., \& {Lanz},

1145:   T. 1997, \mnras, 286, 58

1146: 

1147: \bibitem[{{Belle} {et~al.}(2004){Belle}, {Sanghi}, {Howell}, {Holberg}, \&

1148:   {Williams}}]{belle04}

1149: {Belle}, K.~E., {Sanghi}, N., {Howell}, S.~B., {Holberg}, J.~B., \& {Williams},

1150:   P.~T. 2004, \aj, 128, 448

1151: 

1152: \bibitem[{{Breitschwerdt} \& {de Avillez}(2006)}]{breitschwerdt06}

1153: {Breitschwerdt}, D., \& {de Avillez}, M.~A. 2006, \aap, 452, L1

1154: 

1155: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1996){Cardelli}, {Meyer}, {Jura}, \&

1156:   {Savage}}]{cardelli96}

1157: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Meyer}, D.~M., {Jura}, M., \& {Savage}, B.~D. 1996, \apj,

1158:   467, 334

1159: 

1160: \bibitem[{{Dixon} {et~al.}(2006){Dixon}, {Sankrit}, \& {Otte}}]{dixon06}

1161: {Dixon}, W.~V.~D., {Sankrit}, R., \& {Otte}, B. 2006, \apj, 647, 328

1162: 

1163: \bibitem[{{Dupree} \& {Raymond}(1982)}]{dupree82}

1164: {Dupree}, A.~K., \& {Raymond}, J.~C. 1982, \apjl, 263, L63

1165: 

1166: \bibitem[{{Dupuis} {et~al.}(1995){Dupuis}, {Vennes}, {Bowyer}, {Pradhan}, \&

1167:   {Thejll}}]{dupuis95}

1168: {Dupuis}, J., {Vennes}, S., {Bowyer}, S., {Pradhan}, A.~K., \& {Thejll}, P.

1169:   1995, \apj, 455, 574

1170: 

1171: \bibitem[{{Frisch}(1994)}]{frisch94}

1172: {Frisch}, P.~C. 1994, Science, 265, 1423

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[{{Frisch} {et~al.}(2006){Frisch}, {Jenkins}, {Aufdenberg}, {Sofia},

1175:   {York}, {Slavin}, \& {Johns-Krull}}]{frisch06aas}

1176: {Frisch}, P.~C., {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Aufdenberg}, J., {Sofia}, U.~J., {York},

1177:   D.~G., {Slavin}, J.~D., \& {Johns-Krull}, C.~M. 2006, in Bulletin of the

1178:   American Astronomical Society, Vol.~38, 922

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[{{Frisch} {et~al.}(1990){Frisch}, {Welty}, {York}, \&

1181:   {Fowler}}]{frisch90}

1182: {Frisch}, P.~C., {Welty}, D.~E., {York}, D.~G., \& {Fowler}, J.~R. 1990, \apj,

1183:   357, 514

1184: 

1185: \bibitem[{{Gilliland}(1994)}]{gilliland94}

1186: {Gilliland}, R.~L. 1994, {GHRS Instrum. Sci. Rep. 063 (Baltimore:STScI)}

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[{{Gloeckler} {et~al.}(2004)}]{gloeckler04}

1189: {Gloeckler}, G., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 426, 845

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[{{Gry} \& {Jenkins}(2001)}]{gry01}

1192: {Gry}, C., \& {Jenkins}, E.~B. 2001, \aap, 367, 617

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[{{Hayes} \& {Nussbaumer}(1984)}]{hayes84}

1195: {Hayes}, M.~A., \& {Nussbaumer}, H. 1984, \aap, 134, 193

1196: 

1197: \bibitem[{{Holberg} {et~al.}(1998){Holberg}, {Barstow}, \& {Sion}}]{holberg98}

1198: {Holberg}, J.~B., {Barstow}, M.~A., \& {Sion}, E.~M. 1998, \apjs, 119, 207

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[{{Holberg} \& {Bergeron}(2006)}]{holberg06}

1201: {Holberg}, J.~B., \& {Bergeron}, P. 2006, \aj, 132, 1221

1202: 

1203: \bibitem[{{Holberg} {et~al.}(1999){Holberg}, {Bruhweiler}, {Barstow}, \&

1204:   {Dobbie}}]{holberg99}

1205: {Holberg}, J.~B., {Bruhweiler}, F.~C., {Barstow}, M.~A., \& {Dobbie}, P.~D.

1206:   1999, \apj, 517, 841

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[{{Hurwitz} {et~al.}(2005){Hurwitz}, {Sasseen}, \& {Sirk}}]{hurwitz05}

1209: {Hurwitz}, M., {Sasseen}, T.~P., \& {Sirk}, M.~M. 2005, \apj, 623, 911

1210: 

1211: \bibitem[{{Jenkins}(2002)}]{jenkins02}

1212: {Jenkins}, E.~B. 2002, \apj, 580, 938

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[{{Jenkins}(2004)}]{jenkins04}

1215: {Jenkins}, E.~B. 2004, in Carnegie Obs. Astro. Ser., Vol. 4, Origin and

1216:   Evolution of the Elements, ed. A.~{McWilliam} \& M.~{Rauch} (Cambridge:

1217:   Cambridge Univ. Press), 336

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{{Jenkins} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}}){Jenkins}, {Gry}, \&

1220:   {Dupin}}]{jenkins00bcma}

1221: {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Gry}, C., \& {Dupin}, O. 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 354, 253

1222: 

1223: \bibitem[{{Jenkins} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}})}]{jenkins00}

1224: {Jenkins}, E.~B., {et~al.} 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 538, L81

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[{{Lajoie} \& {Bergeron}(2007)}]{lajoie07}

1227: {Lajoie}, C.-P., \& {Bergeron}, P. 2007, \apj, 667, 1126

1228: 

1229: \bibitem[{{Lallement}(2004)}]{lallement04}

1230: {Lallement}, R. 2004, \aap, 418, 143

1231: 

1232: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(1994){Lallement}, {Bertin}, {Ferlet},

1233:   {Vidal-Madjar}, \& {Bertaux}}]{lallement94}

1234: {Lallement}, R., {Bertin}, P., {Ferlet}, R., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., \& {Bertaux},

1235:   J.~L. 1994, \aap, 286, 898

1236: 

1237: \bibitem[{{Lallement} \& {Ferlet}(1997)}]{lallement97}

1238: {Lallement}, R., \& {Ferlet}, R. 1997, \aap, 324, 1105

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(1995){Lallement}, {Ferlet}, {Lagrange},

1241:   {Lemoine}, \& {Vidal-Madjar}}]{lallement95}

1242: {Lallement}, R., {Ferlet}, R., {Lagrange}, A.~M., {Lemoine}, M., \&

1243:   {Vidal-Madjar}, A. 1995, \aap, 304, 461

1244: 

1245: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(2003){Lallement}, {Welsh}, {Vergely}, {Crifo},

1246:   \& {Sfeir}}]{lallement03}

1247: {Lallement}, R., {Welsh}, B.~Y., {Vergely}, J.~L., {Crifo}, F., \& {Sfeir}, D.

1248:   2003, \aap, 411, 447

1249: 

1250: \bibitem[{{Lehner} {et~al.}(2003){Lehner}, {Jenkins}, {Gry}, {Moos}, {Chayer},

1251:   \& {Lacour}}]{lehner03}

1252: {Lehner}, N., {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Gry}, C., {Moos}, H.~W., {Chayer}, P., \&

1253:   {Lacour}, S. 2003, \apj, 595, 858

1254: 

1255: \bibitem[{{Lemoine} {et~al.}(1996){Lemoine}, {Vidal-Madjar}, {Bertin},

1256:   {Ferlet}, {Gry}, \& {Lallement}}]{lemoine96}

1257: {Lemoine}, M., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Bertin}, P., {Ferlet}, R., {Gry}, C., \&

1258:   {Lallement}, R. 1996, \aap, 308, 601

1259: 

1260: \bibitem[{{Lindler}(1999)}]{lindler99}

1261: {Lindler}, D. 1999, {CALSTIS Reference Guide (Greenbelt: NASA/LASP)}

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[{{Linnell} {et~al.}(2007){Linnell}, {Godon}, {Hubeny}, {Sion}, \&

1264:   {Szkody}}]{linnell07}

1265: {Linnell}, A.~P., {Godon}, P., {Hubeny}, I., {Sion}, E.~M., \& {Szkody}, P.

1266:   2007, \apj, 662, 1204

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(1993){Linsky}, {Brown}, {Gayley}, {Diplas},

1269:   {Savage}, {Ayres}, {Landsman}, {Shore}, \& {Heap}}]{linsky93}

1270: {Linsky}, J.~L., {Brown}, A., {Gayley}, K., {Diplas}, A., {Savage}, B.~D.,

1271:   {Ayres}, T.~R., {Landsman}, W., {Shore}, S.~N., \& {Heap}, S.~R. 1993, \apj,

1272:   402, 694

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(1995){Linsky}, {Diplas}, {Wood}, {Brown}, {Ayres},

1275:   \& {Savage}}]{linsky95}

1276: {Linsky}, J.~L., {Diplas}, A., {Wood}, B.~E., {Brown}, A., {Ayres}, T.~R., \&

1277:   {Savage}, B.~D. 1995, \apj, 451, 335

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(2000){Linsky}, {Redfield}, {Wood}, \&

1280:   {Piskunov}}]{linsky00}

1281: {Linsky}, J.~L., {Redfield}, S., {Wood}, B.~E., \& {Piskunov}, N. 2000, \apj,

1282:   528, 756

1283: 

1284: \bibitem[{{Mazzotta} {et~al.}(1998){Mazzotta}, {Mazzitelli}, {Colafrancesco},

1285:   \& {Vittorio}}]{mazzotta98}

1286: {Mazzotta}, P., {Mazzitelli}, G., {Colafrancesco}, S., \& {Vittorio}, N. 1998,

1287:   \aaps, 133, 403

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[{{McCook} \& {Sion}(1999)}]{mccook99}

1290: {McCook}, G.~P., \& {Sion}, E.~M. 1999, \apjs, 121, 1

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[{{Morton}(2003)}]{morton03}

1293: {Morton}, D.~C. 2003, \apjs, 149, 205

1294: 

1295: \bibitem[{{M{\"u}ller} {et~al.}(2006){M{\"u}ller}, {Frisch}, {Florinski}, \&

1296:   {Zank}}]{muller06}

1297: {M{\"u}ller}, H.-R., {Frisch}, P.~C., {Florinski}, V., \& {Zank}, G.~P. 2006,

1298:   \apj, 647, 1491

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[{{Nussbaumer} \& {Storey}(1981)}]{nussbaumer81}

1301: {Nussbaumer}, H., \& {Storey}, P.~J. 1981, \aap, 96, 91

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[{{Nussbaumer} \& {Storey}(1986)}]{nussbaumer86}

1304: {Nussbaumer}, H., \& {Storey}, P.~J. 1986, \aaps, 64, 545

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[{{Oliveira} {et~al.}(2005){Oliveira}, {Dupuis}, {Chayer}, \&

1307:   {Moos}}]{oliveira05}

1308: {Oliveira}, C.~M., {Dupuis}, J., {Chayer}, P., \& {Moos}, H.~W. 2005, \apj,

1309:   625, 232

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[{{Oliveira} {et~al.}(2003){Oliveira}, {H{\'e}brard}, {Howk}, {Kruk},

1312:   {Chayer}, \& {Moos}}]{oliveira03}

1313: {Oliveira}, C.~M., {H{\'e}brard}, G., {Howk}, J.~C., {Kruk}, J.~W., {Chayer},

1314:   P., \& {Moos}, H.~W. 2003, \apj, 587, 235

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[{{Perryman} {et~al.}(1997)}]{perryman97}

1317: {Perryman}, M.~A.~C., {et~al.} 1997, \aap, 323, L49

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[{{Redfield}(2006)}]{redfield06}

1320: {Redfield}, S. 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser. 352, New Horizons in Astronomy, Frank N.

1321:   Bash Symposium 2005, ed. S.~J. {Kannappan}, S.~{Redfield}, J.~E.

1322:   {Kessler-Silacci}, M.~{Landriau}, \& N.~{Drory} (San Francisco: ASP), 79

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2000)}]{redfield00}

1325: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2000, \apj, 534, 825

1326: 

1327: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2001)}]{redfield01}

1328: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2001, \apj, 551, 413

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2002)}]{redfield02}

1331: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2002, \apjs, 139, 439

1332: 

1333: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{redfield04sw}

1334: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 602, 776

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{redfield04tt}

1337: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 613, 1004

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2008)}]{redfield07lism4}

1340: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2008, \apj, 673, 283

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[{{Robinson} {et~al.}(1992){Robinson}, {Blackwell}, {Feggans},

1343:   {Lindler}, {Norman}, \& {Shore}}]{robinson92}

1344: {Robinson}, R.~D., {Blackwell}, J., {Feggans}, K., {Lindler}, D., {Norman}, D.,

1345:   \& {Shore}, S.~N. 1992, {A User's Guide to the GHRS Software, Version 2.0

1346:   (Greenbelt: Goddard Space Flight Center)}

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[{{Sahu} {et~al.}(1999)}]{sahu99}

1349: {Sahu}, K.~C., {et~al.} 1999, {STIS Instrument Handbook (Baltimore: STScI)}

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[{{Slavin} \& {Frisch}(2002)}]{slavin02}

1352: {Slavin}, J.~D., \& {Frisch}, P.~C. 2002, \apj, 565, 364

1353: 

1354: \bibitem[{{Snowden} {et~al.}(1990){Snowden}, {Cox}, {McCammon}, \&

1355:   {Sanders}}]{snowden90}

1356: {Snowden}, S.~L., {Cox}, D.~P., {McCammon}, D., \& {Sanders}, W.~T. 1990, \apj,

1357:   354, 211

1358: 

1359: \bibitem[{{Sofia} \& {Jenkins}(1998)}]{sofia98}

1360: {Sofia}, U.~J., \& {Jenkins}, E.~B. 1998, \apj, 499, 951

1361: 

1362: \bibitem[{{Spitzer} \& {Fitzpatrick}(1993)}]{spitzer93}

1363: {Spitzer}, L.~J., \& {Fitzpatrick}, E.~L. 1993, \apj, 409, 299

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[{{Tody}(1993)}]{tody93}

1366: {Tody}, D. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 52: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and

1367:   Systems II, ed. R.~J. {Hanisch}, R.~J.~V. {Brissenden}, \& J.~{Barnes} (San

1368:   Francisco: ASP), 173

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[{{Vallerga}(1998)}]{vallerga98}

1371: {Vallerga}, J. 1998, \apj, 497, 921

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[{{Vennes} {et~al.}(2000){Vennes}, {Polomski}, {Lanz}, {Thorstensen},

1374:   {Chayer}, \& {Gull}}]{vennes00}

1375: {Vennes}, S., {Polomski}, E.~F., {Lanz}, T., {Thorstensen}, J.~R., {Chayer},

1376:   P., \& {Gull}, T.~R. 2000, \apj, 544, 423

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[{{Vennes} {et~al.}(1997){Vennes}, {Thejll}, {Galvan}, \&

1379:   {Dupuis}}]{vennes97}

1380: {Vennes}, S., {Thejll}, P.~A., {Galvan}, R.~G., \& {Dupuis}, J. 1997, \apj,

1381:   480, 714

1382: 

1383: \bibitem[{{Vennes} \& {Thorstensen}(1994)}]{vennes94}

1384: {Vennes}, S., \& {Thorstensen}, J.~R. 1994, \aj, 108, 1881

1385: 

1386: \bibitem[{{Welsh} \& {Lallement}(2005)}]{welsh05}

1387: {Welsh}, B.~Y., \& {Lallement}, R. 2005, \aap, 436, 615

1388: 

1389: \bibitem[{{Welty} {et~al.}(1999){Welty}, {Hobbs}, {Lauroesch}, {Morton},

1390:   {Spitzer}, \& {York}}]{welty99}

1391: {Welty}, D.~E., {Hobbs}, L.~M., {Lauroesch}, J.~T., {Morton}, D.~C., {Spitzer},

1392:   L., \& {York}, D.~G. 1999, \apjs, 124, 465

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[{{Wolff} {et~al.}(1999){Wolff}, {Koester}, \& {Lallement}}]{wolff99}

1395: {Wolff}, B., {Koester}, D., \& {Lallement}, R. 1999, \aap, 346, 969

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[{{Wood} \& {Linsky}(1997)}]{wood97}

1398: {Wood}, B.~E., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 1997, \apjl, 474, L39

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{York} \& {Kinahan}(1979)}]{york79}

1401: {York}, D.~G., \& {Kinahan}, B.~F. 1979, \apj, 228, 127

1402: 

1403: \end{thebibliography}

1404: 

1405: 

1406: 

1407: 

1408: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccrrc}

1409: \tablewidth{0pt}

1410: \tablecaption{Stellar Parameters\label{starpar}}

1411: \tablehead{

1412: \colhead{HD} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Spectral} &

1413: \colhead{$l$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{Distance\tablenotemark{a}}

1414: \\

1415: \colhead{\#} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Type} &

1416: \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(pc)}

1417: }

1418: \startdata

1419: 34029 & $\alpha$ Aur & Capella & G0III+G8III &   162.58 &  $+$4.566 &

1420: 12.94 $\pm$

1421: 0.15

1422: \\

1423: 120315 & $\eta$ UMa & Alcaid & B3V &   100.69 &  $+$65.32 & 30.87 $\pm$

1424: 0.71

1425: \\

1426: 209952 & $\alpha$ Gru & Alnair & B7IV & 349.99 & $-$52.47 & 31.10 $\pm$

1427: 0.79

1428: \\

1429: \nodata & WD 0050--332 & GD 659 & DA1\tablenotemark{b} & 299.14 & $-$84.11

1430: &

1431: $\sim$58

1432: \\

1433: \nodata &  EX Hya & \nodata & M5/M6+DA & 303.18 & $+$33.62 & 64.5 $\pm$

1434: 1.2

1435: \\

1436: 6457 & 74 Psc B & \nodata & A0V & 127.34 & $-$41.28 & 68.2 $\pm$ 8.0

1437: \\

1438: \nodata & WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & DA1\tablenotemark{b} & 155.95 &

1439: $+$7.099 & 69

1440: $\pm$15

1441: \\

1442: 6456 & 74 Psc A & \nodata & A1V & 127.34 & $-$41.27 & 73.2 $\pm$ 7.9

1443: \\

1444: \nodata & WD 0232+035 & Feige 24 & DAZQO1\tablenotemark{b} & 165.96 &

1445: $-$50.26 & 74

1446: $\pm$ 20

1447: \\

1448: \nodata & WD 2309+105 & GD 246 & DA1\tablenotemark{b} & 87.262 & $-$45.11

1449: &

1450: $\sim$79

1451: \\

1452: \nodata & WD 1210+533 & \nodata & DAO\tablenotemark{b} & 135.61 & $+$63.11

1453: &

1454: $\sim$87

1455: \\

1456: 128345 & $\rho$ Lup & \nodata & B5V & 320.13 & $+$9.857 & 95.1 $\pm$ 6.4

1457: \\

1458: \nodata & IX Vel & \nodata & B8V+DA & 264.92 & $-$7.890 & 96.3 $\pm$ 9.1

1459: \enddata

1460: \tablecomments{All values from SIMBAD unless otherwise noted.}

1461: \tablenotetext{a}{All distances are {\it Hipparcos} distances

1462: \citep{perryman97} except for WD~0050-332 and WD~2309+105 whose distances

1463: are from \citet{vennes97} and WD~1210+533 whose distance is from

1464: \citet{holberg98}.}

1465: \tablenotetext{b}{White dwarf spectral types taken from \citet{mccook99}.}

1466: \end{deluxetable}

1467: 

1468: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}

1469: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1470: \tablewidth{0pt}

1471: \tablecaption{Observational Parameters\label{obspar}}

1472: \tablehead{

1473: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Spectral} &

1474: \colhead{} & \colhead{Exposure} & \colhead{}

1475: \\

1476: \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &

1477: \colhead{Range}

1478: & \colhead{Resolution} & \colhead{Time\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{}

1479: \\

1480: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Instrument} &

1481: \colhead{Grating} & \colhead{(\AA)} & \colhead{($\lambda/\Delta\lambda$)}

1482: & \colhead{($s$)} & \colhead{Dataset}

1483: }

1484: \startdata

1485: $\alpha$ Aur & Capella & GHRS & ECH-A & 1331$-$1338 & 100000 & 761.6 &

1486: Z2UW030BT

1487: \\

1488: $\eta$ UMa & Alcaid & GHRS & ECH-A & 1332$-$1339 & 100000 & 1171.4 &

1489: Z3CL020ET

1490: \\

1491:  & & GHRS & ECH-B & 2790$-$2805 & 100000 & 108.8 & Z3CL030HT

1492: \\

1493:  & & GHRS & ECH-B & 2845$-$2859 & 100000 & 652.8 & Z3CL0308T

1494: \\

1495:  & & & & & & & Z3CL0307T

1496: \\

1497: $\alpha$ Gru & Alnair & GHRS & G160M & 1309$-$1345 & 20000 & 230.4 &

1498: Z1720109T

1499: \\

1500:  & & GHRS & ECH-B & 2791$-$2806 & 100000 & 108.8 & Z1720209T

1501: \\

1502:  & & GHRS & ECH-B & 2847$-$2861 & 100000 & 217.6 & Z172020AT

1503: \\

1504: WD 0050-332 & GD 659 & STIS & E140H & 1170$-$1372 & 114000 & 4134 &

1505: O4G101010

1506: \\

1507:  & & & & & & & O4G101020

1508: \\

1509: EX Hya & \nodata & STIS & E140M & 1140$-$1735 & 45800 & 15200 & O68301010

1510: \\

1511:  & & & & & & & O68301020

1512: \\

1513:  & & & & & & & O68301030

1514: \\

1515:  & & & & & & & O68302010

1516: \\

1517:  & & & & & & & O68302020

1518: \\

1519:  & & & & & & & O68302030

1520: \\

1521: 74 Psc B & HR 311 & STIS & E140H & 1170$-$1372 & 114000 & 2768 & O56L02010

1522: \\

1523:  & & & & & & & O56L02020

1524: \\

1525:  & & & & & & & O56L02030

1526: \\

1527: WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & STIS & E140H & 1170$-$1517\tablenotemark{b} &

1528: 114000 & 5623 & O57U01020

1529: \\

1530:  & & & & & & & O6HB10040

1531: \\

1532:  & & & & & & & O6HB10050

1533: \\

1534:  & & & & & & & O6HB10060

1535: \\

1536:  & & & & & & & O6HB10070

1537: \\

1538:  & & & & & & & O6HB10080

1539: \\

1540:  & & & & & & & O6HB10090

1541: \\

1542:  & & STIS & E230H & 2624$-$3095\tablenotemark{b} & 114000 & 6013 &

1543: O6HB30080

1544: \\

1545:  & & & & & & & O6HB30090

1546: \\

1547:  & & & & & & & O6HB300B0

1548: \\

1549:  & & & & & & & O6HB300C0

1550: \\

1551:  & & & & & & & O6HB300D0

1552: \\

1553:  & & & & & & & O6HB300E0

1554: \\

1555: 74 Psc A & HR 310 & STIS & E140H & 1170$-$1372 & 114000 & 4128 & O56L01010

1556: \\

1557:  & & & & & & & O56L01020

1558: \\

1559:  & & & & & & & O56L01030

1560: \\

1561:  & & & & & & & O56L51020

1562: \\

1563: WD 0232+035 & Feige 24 & STIS & E140M & 1150$-$1735 & 45800 & 4176 &

1564: O4G701010

1565: \\

1566:  & & & & & & & O4G702010

1567: \\

1568: WD 2309+105 & GD 246 & STIS & E140H & 1170$-$1372 & 114000 & 2420 &

1569: O4G102020

1570: \\

1571: WD 1210+533 & \nodata & STIS & E140M & 1140$-$1735 & 45800 & 8371 &

1572: O5F203010

1573: \\

1574:  & & & & & & & O5F203020

1575: \\

1576:  & & & & & & & O5F204010

1577: \\

1578: $\rho$ Lup & HR 5453 & STIS & E140M & 1150$-$1735 & 45800 & 1900 &

1579: O8S602010

1580: \\

1581: IX Vel & \nodata & STIS & E140M & 1140$-$1735 & 45800 & 5250 & O5BI01010

1582: \\

1583:  & & & & & & & O5BI02010

1584: \\

1585:  & & & & & & & O5BI03010

1586: \enddata

1587: \tablenotetext{a}{For targets with multiple datasets, the exposure time

1588: listed is the sum of the exposure times for each dataset.}

1589: \tablenotetext{b}{Spectral range encompassed by multiple datasets.}

1590: \end{deluxetable}

1591: 

1592: \begin{deluxetable}{cccrcccc}

1593: \tablewidth{0pt}

1594: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1595: \tablecaption{Fit Parameters for \ion{C}{2} ISM Velocity

1596: Components\label{fitpar}}

1597: \tablehead{

1598: \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Comp.} & \colhead{$v$} &

1599: \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{log$N$(C\,{\tiny II})\tablenotemark{a}} &

1600: \colhead{log$N$(C\,{\tiny II}$_{{\rm SII}}$)} &

1601: \colhead{log$N$(C\,{\tiny II}$^{\ast}$)\tablenotemark{b}}

1602: \\

1603: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\#$} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)}

1604: &

1605: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)} &

1606: \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)}

1607: }

1608: \startdata

1609: $\alpha$ Aur & Capella & 1 & 20.78 $\pm$ 0.28 &

1610: 3.48$^{+0.15}_{-0.19}$\tablenotemark{c} & 14.67$_{-0.22}^{+0.14}$ &

1611: \nodata & 12.62$_{-0.07}^{+0.07}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1612: \\

1613: $\eta$ UMa & Alcaid & 1 & $-$2.09 $\pm$ 0.24 &

1614: 3.76$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$\tablenotemark{c} & 14.43$_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$ &

1615: \nodata & 12.39$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1616: \\

1617:  & & 2 & 9.72 $\pm$ 0.95 & 5.60$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$\tablenotemark{c} &

1618: 13.12$_{-0.07}^{+0.06}$ & \nodata & 11.60$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1619: \\

1620: $\alpha$ Gru & Alnair & 1 & $-$22.50 $\pm$ 0.60\tablenotemark{d} & 3.35

1621: $\pm$ 0.73 & 14.98$_{-0.19}^{+0.19}$ & \nodata & 12.69$_{-0.17}^{+0.14}$

1622: \vspace{.5mm}

1623: \\

1624:  & & 2 & $-$12.63 $\pm$ 0.60\tablenotemark{d} & 3.49 $\pm$ 0.51 &

1625: 14.52$_{-0.23}^{+0.18}$ & \nodata & 12.73$_{-0.17}^{+0.17}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1626: \\

1627:  & & 3 & $-$8.32 $\pm$ 0.60\tablenotemark{d} & 3.9 $\pm$ 2.2 &

1628: 13.63$_{-0.23}^{+0.23}$ & \nodata & 12.17$_{-0.48}^{+0.48}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1629: \\

1630: WD 0050-332 & GD 659 & 1 & 6.17 $\pm$ 0.38 & 4.31 $\pm$ 0.77 &

1631: 15.12$_{-0.32}^{+0.32}$ & 14.808$_{-0.065\;-0.216}^{+0.065\;+0.216}$ &

1632: 12.71$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1633: \\

1634:  & & 2 & 12.3 $\pm$ 1.0 & 4.67 $\pm$ 0.67 & 15.12$_{-0.29}^{+0.29}$ &

1635: 14.062$_{-0.350\;-0.406}^{+0.240\;+0.317}$ & $<$11.9

1636: \\

1637: EX Hya & \nodata & 1 & $-$15.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 5.03 $\pm$ 0.72 &

1638: 16.64$_{-0.27}^{+0.27}$ & 15.232$_{-0.120\;-0.239}^{+0.120\;+0.239}$ &

1639: 13.01$_{-0.10}^{+0.10}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1640: \\

1641:  & & 2 & $-$6.2 $\pm$ 2.3 & 6.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 14.75$_{-0.53}^{+0.53}$ &

1642: 14.792$_{-0.290\;-0.356}^{+0.290\;+0.356}$ & 12.78$_{-0.17}^{+0.17}$

1643: \vspace{.5mm}

1644: \\

1645: 74 Psc B & HR 311 & 1 & $-$5.75 $\pm$ 0.50 & 4.00 $\pm$ 0.93 &

1646: 16.03$_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$ & 15.444$_{-0.017\;-0.207}^{+0.017\;+0.207}$ &

1647: 13.07$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1648: \\

1649:  & & 2 & 10.47 $\pm$ 0.70 & 4.26 $\pm$ 0.44 & 15.46$_{-0.25}^{+0.25}$ &

1650: 14.744$_{-0.052\;-0.213}^{+0.052\;+0.213}$ & 12.82$_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$

1651: \vspace{.5mm}

1652: \\

1653: WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & 1 & 5.98 $\pm$ 0.17 &

1654: 4.10$^{+0.29}_{-0.31}$\tablenotemark{c} & 14.8$_{-1.2}^{+0.3}$ &

1655: 14.345$_{-0.087\;-0.224}^{+0.087\;+0.224}$ & 13.14$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$

1656: \vspace{.5mm}

1657: \\

1658:  & & 2 & 16.98 $\pm$ 0.60 & 3.43$^{+0.21}_{-0.26}$\tablenotemark{c} &

1659: 15.42$_{-0.17}^{+0.17}$ & 14.550$_{-0.052\;-0.213}^{+0.052\;+0.213}$ &

1660: 12.28$_{-0.09}^{+0.09}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1661: \\

1662: 74 Psc A & HR 310 & 1 & $-$5.97 $\pm$ 0.52 & 3.82 $\pm$ 0.59 &

1663: 16.42$_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$ & 15.399$_{-0.041\;-0.211}^{+0.038\;+0.210}$ &

1664: 13.07$_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1665: \\

1666:  & & 2 & 10.29 $\pm$ 0.76 & 4.75 $\pm$ 0.73 & 15.04$_{-0.25}^{+0.25}$ &

1667: 14.762$_{-0.110\;-0.234}^{+0.110\;+0.234}$ & 12.96$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$

1668: \vspace{.5mm}

1669: \\

1670: WD 0232+035 & Feige 24 & 1 & 3.81 $\pm$ 0.47 & 4.36 $\pm$ 0.53 &

1671: 15.18$_{-0.42}^{+0.42}$ & 14.877$_{-0.087\;-0.224}^{+0.072\;+0.219}$ &

1672: 13.00$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1673: \\

1674:  & & 2 & 17.4 $\pm$ 4.6 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 15.96$_{-0.55}^{+0.45}$ &

1675: 13.812$_{-0.380\;-0.432}^{+0.380\;+0.432}$ & $<$11.8

1676: \\

1677: WD 2309+105 & GD 246 & 1 & $-$9.7 $\pm$ 2.5\tablenotemark{e} & 4.20 $\pm$

1678: 0.34 & 15.16$_{-0.30}^{+0.30}$ &

1679: 15.321$_{-0.035\;-0.209}^{+0.035\;+0.209}$ & 13.05$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$

1680: \vspace{.5mm}

1681: \\

1682:  & & 2 & 0.3 $\pm$ 2.5\tablenotemark{e} & 5.10 $\pm$ 0.74 &

1683: 14.18$_{-0.26}^{+0.53}$ & 14.716$_{-0.099\;-0.229}^{+0.090\;+0.225}$ &

1684: $<$12.3

1685: \\

1686: WD 1210+533 & \nodata & 1 & $-$23.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 3.6 $\pm$ 1.1 &

1687: 13.40$_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ & $<$14.3 & $<$12.0

1688: \\

1689:  & & 2 & $-$9.0 $\pm$ 1.3 & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.1 & 15.50$_{-0.46}^{+0.46}$ &

1690: 14.632$_{-0.250\;-0.324}^{+0.340\;+0.398}$ & 13.00$_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$

1691: \vspace{.5mm}

1692: \\

1693:  & & 3 & $-$2.3 $\pm$ 2.0 & 4.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 15.44$_{-0.69}^{+0.69}$ &

1694: 15.272$_{-0.120\;-0.239}^{+0.120\;+0.239}$ & 13.06$_{-0.30}^{+0.30}$

1695: \vspace{.5mm}

1696: \\

1697: $\rho$ Lup & HR 5453 & 1 & $-$16.11\tablenotemark{f} & 5.17 $\pm$ 0.74 &

1698: 15.80$_{-0.43}^{+0.43}$ & 15.642$_{-0.100\;-0.229}^{+0.100\;+0.229}$ &

1699: 13.27$_{-0.17}^{+0.17}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1700: \\

1701:  & & 2 & $-$9.1\tablenotemark{f} & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.1 & 15.14$_{-0.61}^{+0.61}$

1702: & 15.012$_{-0.310\;-0.372}^{+0.310\;+0.372}$ & 13.08$_{-0.31}^{+0.31}$

1703: \vspace{.5mm}

1704: \\

1705: IX Vel & \nodata & 1 & 4.9 $\pm$ 1.2 & 5.73 $\pm$ 0.61 &

1706: 14.39$_{-0.24}^{+0.24}$ & 14.700$_{-0.140\;-0.249}^{+0.140\;+0.249}$ &

1707: 12.64$_{-0.06}^{+0.06}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1708: \\

1709:  & & 2 & 19.08 $\pm$ 0.24 & 4.17 $\pm$ 0.38 & 16.39$_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$ &

1710: 15.402$_{-0.023\;-0.208}^{+0.024\;+0.208}$ &

1711: 13.43$_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1712: \enddata

1713: \tablenotetext{a}{ Resonance line parameters derived from simultaneous

1714: fits.}

1715: \tablenotetext{b}{ Excited line parameters are weighted means of

1716: simultaneous and excited-only fits.}

1717: \tablenotetext{c}{ Fixed $b$ values based on independent temperature and

1718: turbulent velocity measurements \citep{redfield04tt}.}

1719: \tablenotetext{d}{ Fixed velocity difference between components based

1720: on measurements of interstellar Fe\,{\tiny II} and Mg\,{\tiny II}

1721: \citep{redfield02}.}

1722: \tablenotetext{e}{ Fixed velocity difference between components based on

1723: measurements of interstellar S\,{\tiny II}.}

1724: \tablenotetext{f}{ Fixed velocities based on measurements of interstellar

1725: S\,{\tiny II}.}

1726: \end{deluxetable}

1727: 

1728: \begin{deluxetable}{cccrcc}

1729: \tablewidth{0pt}

1730: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1731: \tablecaption{Fit Parameters for \ion{S}{2} ISM Velocity Components\label{tab:s2fitpar}}

1732: \tablehead{

1733: \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Resonance Line\tablenotemark{a}} 

1734: \\

1735: \cline{4-6} \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Comp.} & \colhead{$v$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{log$N$} 

1736: \\

1737: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\#$} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)} 

1738: }

1739: \startdata

1740: WD 0050-332 & GD 659 & 1 & 7.00 $\pm$ 0.90 & 3.07 $\pm$ 0.67 & 13.726 $\pm$ 0.065

1741: \\

1742:  & & 2 & 15.0 $\pm$ 2.9 & 2.8 $\pm$ 2.5 & 12.98$_{-0.35}^{+0.24}$ 

1743: \\

1744: EX Hya & \nodata & 1 & $-$12.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 7.4 $\pm$ 2.9 & 14.15 $\pm$ 0.12

1745: \\

1746:                 & & 2 & $-$4.1 $\pm$ 4.0  & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.9 & 13.71 $\pm$ 0.29

1747: \\

1748: 74 Psc B & HR 311 & 1 & $-$5.59 $\pm$ 0.93 & 3.48 $\pm$ 0.18 & 14.362 $\pm$ 0.017

1749: \\

1750:               & & 2 & 11.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 3.91 $\pm$ 0.65 & 13.662 $\pm$ 0.052

1751: \\

1752: WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & 1 & 8.4  $\pm$ 1.2 & 2.21 $\pm$ 0.71 & 13.263 $\pm$ 0.087

1753: \\

1754:                  & & 2 & 20.0 $\pm$ 1.6 & 4.46 $\pm$ 0.92 & 13.468 $\pm$ 0.052

1755: \\

1756: 74 Psc A & HR 310 & 1 & $-$6.21 $\pm$ 0.92 & 4.19 $\pm$ 0.31 & 14.317$_{-0.041}^{+0.038}$ 

1757: \\

1758:               & & 2 & 12.3 $\pm$ 2.5 & 4.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 13.68 $\pm$ 0.11

1759: \\

1760: WD 0232+035 & Feige 24 & 1 & 4.11 $\pm$ 0.64 & 4.18 $\pm$ 0.95 & 13.795$_{-0.087}^{+0.072}$ 

1761: \\

1762:                     & & 2 & 16.8 $\pm$ 3.8 & 2.6 $\pm$ 2.3 & 12.73 $\pm$ 0.38

1763: \\

1764: WD 2309+105 & GD 246 & 1 & $-$8.3 $\pm$ 1.0 & 2.42 $\pm$ 0.21 & 14.239 $\pm$ 0.035 

1765: \\

1766:  & & 2 & 1.6 $\pm$ 1.5 & 4.9 $\pm$ 2.2 & 13.634$_{-0.099}^{+0.090}$ 

1767: \\

1768: WD 1210+533 & \nodata & 1 & \nodata           &  \nodata      & $<$13.2

1769: \\

1770:         &             & 2 & $-$12.0 $\pm$ 3.6 & 5.0 $\pm$ 2.6 & 13.55$_{-0.25}^{+0.34}$

1771: \\

1772:  & &                    3 & $-$3.10 $\pm$ 0.94 & 3.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & 14.19 $\pm$ 0.12

1773: \\

1774: $\rho$ Lup & HR 5453 & 1 & $-$16.11 $\pm$ 0.79 & 5.22 $\pm$ 0.66 & 14.56 $\pm$ 0.10

1775: \\

1776:                   & & 2 & $-$9.1 $\pm$ 2.4 & 4.5 $\pm$ 2.0 & 13.93 $\pm$ 0.31

1777: \\

1778: IX Vel & \nodata & 1 & 5.3 $\pm$ 1.2 & 3.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 13.618 $\pm$ 0.14

1779: \\

1780:                & & 2 & 20.37 $\pm$ 0.53 & 4.64 $\pm$ 0.41 & 14.320$_{-0.023}^{+0.024}$ 

1781: \enddata

1782: \tablenotetext{a}{ Resonance line parameters derived from simultaneous fits.}

1783: \end{deluxetable}

1784: 

1785: \begin{deluxetable}{cccrcccrcc}

1786: \tablewidth{0pt}

1787: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1788: \tablecaption{Fit Parameters for \ion{Mg}{2} and \ion{Mg}{1} ISM Velocity Components\label{tab:mgfitpar}}

1789: \tablehead{

1790: \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Mg II Line\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Mg I Line}

1791: \\

1792: \cline{4-6} \cline{8-10} \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Comp.} & \colhead{$v$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{log$N$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$v$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{log$N$}

1793: \\

1794: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\#$} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{log (cm$^{-2}$)}

1795: }

1796: \startdata

1797: $\eta$ UMa & Alcaid & 1 & $-$2.271 $\pm$ 0.077 & 2.59 $\pm$ 0.18 & 12.653 $\pm$ 0.014 &               & $-$2.36 $\pm$ 0.30   & 2.59 $\pm$ 0.42 & 10.153 $\pm$ 0.04 \vspace{.5mm}

1798: \\

1799:  & & 2  & 3.5 $\pm$ 1.2 & 8.4 $\pm$ 3.5 & 11.27$^{+0.11}_{-0.14}$ &                   & 3.5 $\pm$ 1.8 & 4.8 $\pm$ 1.8 &  9.27$^{+0.13}_{-0.18}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1800: \\

1801: $\alpha$ Gru & Alnair & 1 & $-$24.05 $\pm$ 0.37 & 3.54 $\pm$ 0.31 & 11.659$^{+0.048}_{-0.053}$        & &   \nodata           & \nodata         & $<$9.1 \vspace{.5mm}

1802: \\

1803:  & & 2 & $-$14.98 $\pm$ 0.44 & 3.37 $\pm$ 0.24 & 13.463$^{+0.17}_{-0.27}$ &          & $-$15.09 $\pm$ 0.75 & 3.43 $\pm$ 0.77 & 10.99$^{+0.15}_{-0.24}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1804: \\

1805:  & & 3 & $-$7.59 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.96 $\pm$ 0.37 & 12.83$^{+0.26}_{-0.31}$ &            & $-$7.6 $\pm$ 3.4   & 1.9$^{+2.3}_{-1.9}$ & 10.16$^{+0.27}_{-0.90}$ \vspace{.5mm}

1806: \\

1807: WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & 1 & 8.22 $\pm$ 0.23  & 3.32 $\pm$ 0.34 & 13.56$_{-0.12}^{+0.29}$              & & 7.94 $\pm$ 0.56  & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.40 & 11.193 $\pm$ 0.029\vspace{.5mm}

1808: \\

1809:                  & & 2 & 18.81 $\pm$ 0.24 & 2.65 $\pm$ 0.11 & 12.714$_{-0.052}^{+0.046}$ &           & \nodata          & \nodata         & $<$10.1 \vspace{.5mm}

1810: \\

1811: \enddata

1812: \tablenotetext{a}{ Resonance line parameters derived from simultaneous fits.}

1813: \end{deluxetable}

1814: 

1815: 

1816: \begin{deluxetable}{cccr@{}lr@{}l@{}lr@{}ll}

1817: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1818: \tablewidth{0pt}

1819: \tablecaption{Electron Densities\label{electron}}

1820: \tablehead{

1821: \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Comp.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$n_{e}$} &

1822: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$n_e$(\ion{C}{2}$_{{\rm SII}}$)\tablenotemark{a}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$n_e($\ion{Mg}{2}$/$\ion{Mg}{1}$)$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Cloud\tablenotemark{c}}

1823: \\

1824: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$\#$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(cm$^{-3}$)} &

1825: \multicolumn{3}{c}{(cm$^{-3}$)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(cm$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{}

1826: }

1827: \startdata

1828: $\alpha$ Aur & Capella & 1 & 0.140 & $_{-0.059}^{+0.060}$\tablenotemark{d} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & LIC

1829: \\

1830: $\eta$ UMa & Alcaid & 1 & 0.165 & $_{-0.047}^{+0.051}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & 0.089 & $_{-0.089}^{+0.118}$ & NGP

1831: \\

1832:  & & 2 & 0.154 & $_{-0.027}^{+0.029}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & 0.085 & $_{-0.085}^{+0.217}$ &\nodata

1833: \\

1834: $\alpha$ Gru & Alnair & 1 & 0.081 & $_{-0.038}^{+0.053}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & $<$0.21 & & \nodata

1835: \\

1836:  & & 2 & 0.25 & $_{-0.13}^{+0.18}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & 0.28 & $_{-0.28}^{+0.51}$ & (Mic, Vel)

1837: \\

1838:  & & 3 & 0.5 & $_{-0.4}^{+1.1}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\nodata} & 0.16 & $_{-0.16}^{+0.35}$\tablenotemark{d} & LIC

1839: \\

1840: WD 0050-332 & GD 659 & 1 & 0.060 & $_{-0.033}^{+0.068}$ &

1841: 0.12 & $_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ & $_{-0.05}^{+0.08}$\tablenotemark{d} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & LIC, (Cet)

1842: \\

1843:  & & 2 & $<$0.0094 & & $<$0.11 & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & (Vel)

1844: \\

1845: EX Hya & \nodata & 1 & 0.004 & $_{-0.005}^{+0.003}$ &

1846: 0.094 & $_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ & $_{-0.044}^{+0.074}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & NGP, (Leo, G)

1847: \\

1848:  & & 2 & 0.17 & $_{-0.13}^{+0.40}$ & 0.15 & $_{-0.09}^{+0.16}$ & $_{-0.10}^{+0.21}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} &

1849: Gem, (Leo, Aur)

1850: \\

1851: 74 Psc B & HR 311 & 1 & 0.017 & $_{-0.005}^{+0.008}$ &

1852: 0.067 & $_{-0.004}^{+0.004}$ & $_{-0.026}^{+0.041}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1853: \\

1854:  & & 2 & 0.036 & $_{-0.046}^{+0.028}$ & 0.19 & $_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ & $_{-0.07}^{+0.12}$\tablenotemark{d}

1855: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & LIC, (Hyades, Eri)

1856: \\

1857: WD 0501+527 & G191-B2B & 1 & 0.30 & $_{-0.28}^{+0.28}$ &

1858: 0.80 & $_{-0.15}^{+0.18}$ & $_{-0.33}^{+0.54}$ & 0.48 & $_{-0.48}^{+0.70}$ & Hyades

1859: \\

1860:  & & 2 & 0.011 & $_{-0.004}^{+0.006}$ &

1861: 0.081 & $_{-0.017}^{+0.021}$ & $_{-0.035}^{+0.055}$\tablenotemark{d} & $<$0.39 & & LIC

1862: \\

1863: 74 Psc A & HR 310 & 1 & 0.007 & $_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ &

1864: 0.073 & $_{-0.008}^{+0.009}$ & $_{-0.028}^{+0.046}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1865: \\

1866:  & & 2 & 0.13 & $_{-0.06}^{+0.10}$ & 0.25 & $_{-0.06}^{+0.07}$ & $_{-0.11}^{+0.18}$\tablenotemark{d} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} &

1867: LIC, (Hyades, Eri)

1868: \\

1869: WD 0232+035 & Feige 24 & 1 & 0.10 & $_{-0.06}^{+0.17}$ &

1870: 0.21 & $_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ & $_{-0.08}^{+0.14}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1871: \\

1872:  & & 2 & $<$0.0011 & & $<$0.15 & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & LIC, (G, Blue, Hyades)

1873: \\

1874: WD 2309+105 & GD 246 & 1 & 0.12 & $_{-0.06}^{+0.12}$ &

1875: 0.084 & $_{-0.009}^{+0.010}$ & $_{-0.033}^{+0.052}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1876: \\

1877:  & & 2 & $<$0.21 & & $<$0.060 & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & (LIC, Eri)

1878: \\

1879: WD 1210+533 & \nodata & 1 & $<$0.62 & & $<$0.079 & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1880: \\

1881:  & & 2 & 0.050 & $_{-0.036}^{+0.097}$ & 0.37 & $_{-0.20}^{+0.47}$ & $_{-0.22}^{+0.57}$

1882: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & \nodata

1883: \\

1884:  & & 3 & 0.07 & $_{-0.06}^{+0.26}$ & 0.10 & $_{-0.05}^{+0.10}$ & $_{-0.06}^{+0.12}$\tablenotemark{d} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} &

1885: LIC

1886: \\

1887: $\rho$ Lup & HR 4353 & 1 & 0.046 & $_{-0.033}^{+0.082}$ &

1888: 0.067 & $_{-0.026}^{+0.037}$ & $_{-0.035}^{+0.057}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & (Gem)

1889: \\

1890:  & & 2 & 0.14 & $_{-0.12}^{+0.44}$ & 0.18 & $_{-0.13}^{+0.27}$ & $_{-0.14}^{+0.31}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} &

1891: (Gem)

1892: \\

1893: IX Vel & \nodata & 1 & 0.28 & $_{-0.12}^{+0.21}$ &

1894: 0.14 & $_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ & $_{-0.06}^{+0.11}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & (G, Blue)

1895: \\*

1896:  & & 2 & 0.018 & $_{-0.005}^{+0.007}$ & 0.17 & $_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ & $_{-0.07}^{+0.10}$

1897: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\nodata} & (Vel)

1898: \enddata

1899: \tablenotetext{a}{ Two errors listed: the first are based on the propagation of the column density errors only, while the second include errors in the cosmic abundances and the natural range of depletions of carbon and sulfur in the ISM.}

1900: \tablenotetext{b}{ Assume LISM temperature appropriate for the line of sight based on multi-ion line widths or the LISM average \citep{redfield04tt}.  For the second component toward $\eta$~UMa, which \citet{redfield04tt} estimate a temperature of 0$^{+4400}_{-0}$~K, we use $T = 100$~K.}

1901: \tablenotetext{c}{ In agreement with projected velocity and spatial

1902: distribution \citep{redfield07lism4}.}

1903: \tablenotetext{d}{ Used to calculate the weighted mean value for the LIC, $n_e({\rm LIC}) = 0.12 \pm 0.04$ cm$^{-3}$.}

1904: \end{deluxetable}

1905: 

1906: \begin{figure}

1907: \figurenum{1a}

1908: \epsscale{.7}

1909: \plotone{f1a.eps}

1910: \caption{Fits of the interstellar \ion{C}{2} (1334.5~\AA) and

1911: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ (1335.6627~\AA\ and 1335.7077~\AA) absorption

1912: toward 13 nearby stars.  The ratio of the column densities are used to

1913: estimate the electron density for each component.  The name of the

1914: target star is given above each group of plots, and the wavelength (in

1915: Angstroms) of each line is provided within each plot.  Both the

1916: 1335.6627~\AA\ and 1335.7077~\AA\ \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ lines are shown

1917: in the bottom plot.  Although the 1335.6627~\AA\ line is weak, it is

1918: evident as the blueward component in some spectra (e.g., G191-B2B, 74

1919: Psc A and B, and $\rho$ Lup).  The data are shown in histogram form.

1920: The thin solid lines are our estimates of the intrinsic stellar flux

1921: across the absorption feature.  The dashed lines are the best-fit

1922: individual absorption lines before convolution with the instrumental

1923: profile.  The thick solid line represents the combined absorption fit

1924: after convolution with the instrumental profile.  The spectra are

1925: plotted versus heliocentric velocity.  The parameters for these fits

1926: are listed in Table~\ref{fitpar}.\label{9plot}}

1927: \end{figure}

1928: 

1929: \begin{figure}

1930: \epsscale{.7}

1931: \figurenum{1b}

1932: \plotone{f1b.eps}

1933: \caption{\label{4plot}}

1934: \end{figure}

1935: 

1936: \begin{figure}

1937: \epsscale{.7}

1938: \figurenum{2a}

1939: \plotone{f2a.eps}

1940: \caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{9plot}, but for fits to interstellar

1941: \ion{S}{2} absorption toward 10 of the 13 targets which show

1942: \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption.  The column density of the optically

1943: thin \ion{S}{2} profiles are used to estimate the column density of

1944: \ion{C}{2} along the line of sight.  All three \ion{S}{2} lines are

1945: fit simultaneously.  The parameters for these fits are listed in

1946: Table~\ref{tab:s2fitpar}.

1947: \label{fig:9plots2}}

1948: \end{figure}

1949: 

1950: \begin{figure}

1951: \figurenum{2b}

1952: \epsscale{.7}

1953: \plotone{f2b.eps}

1954: \caption{\label{fig:4plots2}}

1955: \end{figure}

1956: 

1957: \setcounter{figure}{2}

1958: 

1959: \begin{figure}

1960: \epsscale{.7}

1961: \plotone{f3.eps}

1962: \caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{9plot}, but for fits to interstellar

1963: \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2} absorption toward 3 of the 13 targets

1964: which show \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ absorption.  The ratio of ionization

1965: stages are used to estimate the electron density for each

1966: absorption component.  Both \ion{Mg}{2} lines are fit simultaneously.

1967: The parameters for these fits are listed in

1968: Table~\ref{tab:mgfitpar}. \label{fig:mgplot}}

1969: \end{figure}

1970: 

1971: \begin{figure}

1972: \epsscale{1.25}

1973: \plotone{f4.eps}

1974: \caption{Estimated \ion{C}{2} column density using \ion{S}{2} as a

1975: proxy [$N$(\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}$)] versus \ion{C}{2} resonance line

1976: column density derived from the saturated lines directly

1977: [$N$(\ion{C}{2})].  The systematic errors due to the conversion from

1978: $N$(\ion{S}{2}) (solid red lines) extend beyond the random \ion{S}{2}

1979: fitting errors.  Unity (dashed line) bisects the plot

1980: window. \label{fig:cscomp}}

1981: \end{figure}

1982: 

1983: \begin{figure}

1984: \epsscale{.8}

1985: \plotone{f5.eps}

1986: \caption{Excited line column density versus electron density

1987: (top, black) and versus electron density derived from

1988: \ion{C}{2} column density using \ion{S}{2} as a proxy (bottom, blue).

1989: The systematic errors due to the conversion from $N$(\ion{S}{2})

1990: (solid red lines) extend beyond the random \ion{S}{2} fitting errors.

1991: Arrows associated with filled symbols indicate errors than extend

1992: beyond the scope of the plot, whereas arrows associated with open

1993: symbols indicate upper limits.\label{fig:cne}}

1994: \end{figure}

1995: 

1996: \begin{figure}

1997: \epsscale{.8}

1998: \plotone{f6.eps}

1999: \caption{Excited line column density versus resonance line column

2000: density (top, black) and versus \ion{C}{2} column density using

2001: \ion{S}{2} as a proxy (bottom, blue).  The systematic errors due to

2002: the conversion from $N$(\ion{S}{2}) (solid red lines) extend beyond

2003: the random \ion{S}{2} fitting errors.  Arrows associated with open

2004: symbols indicate upper limits.  The dotted black lines indicate lines

2005: of equal electron density, assuming the LISM average temperature of

2006: 6680~K \citep{redfield04tt}.  The unweighted mean electron densities

2007: are $n_e($\ion{C}{2}$) = 0.13^{+0.15}_{-0.07}$ and

2008: $n_e$(\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}$)$=0.11^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ (thick dashed

2009: lines), as calculated from the histograms of $n_e$ and

2010: $n_e$(\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}$) in logarithm (See

2011: Figure~\ref{hist}).\label{den2}}

2012: \end{figure}

2013: 

2014: \begin{figure}

2015: \epsscale{1}

2016: \plotone{f7.eps}

2017: \caption{Histograms of measured electron densities $n_e$ (solid,

2018: black) and electron densities from \ion{C}{2} column densities based

2019: on \ion{S}{2} as a proxy, $n_e$(\ion{C}{2}$_{\rm SII}$) (dashed, red)

2020: in logarithm with Gaussian fits.  The bin size equals 0.333 dex.  The

2021: unweighted centroid of the solid (black) log-normal distribution is

2022: $-0.88~$log~(cm$^{-3}$) with a dispersion of $0.33~$log~(cm$^{-3}$)

2023: and of the dashed (red) distribution, $-0.94~$log~(cm$^{-3}$) with a

2024: dispersion of $0.26~$log~(cm$^{-3}$).  The shaded (blue) histogram

2025: indicates the electron densities of sight lines that are kinematically

2026: and spatially identified with the LIC.  All LIC sight lines show a

2027: consistent value of $n_e$.  The top axis gives the estimated pressure

2028: $P/k = nT$, assuming the LISM average value of temperature and a

2029: simple photoionization relationship between the electron density

2030: ($n_e$) and the neutral hydrogen density ($n_{\rm HI}$).  The axis is

2031: not printed for densities in which we expect these calculations to

2032: fail.  For very low densities, the calculate hydrogen density is lower

2033: than the minimum allowed hydrogen density based on typical observed

2034: hydrogen column densities and distances to the background star.  At

2035: very high densities, given a characteristic size of a LISM cloud, the

2036: resulting high column density ($N_{\rm HI} \geq 10^{19.5}$), will

2037: significantly alter the ionization rate due to shielding and therefore

2038: contradict the assumption of a constant ionization rate.  As shown

2039: here, the distribution in pressure is simply a function of the

2040: distribution of the observed electron density.

2041: \label{hist}}

2042: \end{figure}

2043: 

2044: \begin{figure}

2045: \epsscale{.7}

2046: \plotone{f8.eps}

2047: \caption{Comparison of the temperature dependence in the electron

2048: density calculation using \ion{C}{2}$^{\ast}$ and \ion{C}{2} (blue)

2049: versus \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Mg}{2} (red).  This kind of plot was used

2050: by \citet{gry01} to put limits on the temperature and electron density

2051: of clouds along the line of sight toward $\epsilon$ CMa.  However, an

2052: independent measure of the temperature of LISM clouds is available

2053: from comparisons of the line widths of ions of different atomic mass.

2054: \citet{redfield04tt} derive LISM cloud temperatures using this

2055: technique and the temperature for specific components are shown above

2056: by the solid vertical line.  The gray scale above shows the 1$\sigma$,

2057: 2$\sigma$, and 3$\sigma$ levels of the temperature.  By combining the

2058: information in line widths and ionization abundance ratios, we can

2059: more tightly constrain both the temperature and electron density of

2060: clouds in the LISM. \label{fig:comp}}

2061: \end{figure}

2062: 

2063: 

2064: \begin{figure}

2065: \epsscale{1.15}

2066: \plottwo{f9a.eps}{f9b.eps}

2067: \caption{{\it left:} Measured electron density as a function of the

2068: angle from the strongest EUV radiation source in the local

2069: environment, $\epsilon$ CMa.  No clear correlation is detected, which

2070: indicates that the ionization structure of the LISM is not solely

2071: determined by this dominant source.  Instead, it is likely that

2072: several of the strong radiation sources in the LISM contribute to the

2073: distribution of electron density measurements.  {\it right:} For sight

2074: lines in which multiple electron densities are measured, we compare

2075: the difference in electron density as a function of total \ion{C}{2}

2076: column density.  No correlation is apparent, which argues that little

2077: shielding of ionizing radiation is occuring among the bulk of these

2078: clouds.  However, there are several examples where we can identify

2079: dynamically the relative distances of multiple clouds along the line

2080: of sight, and the more distant cloud (i.e., the cloud closer to the

2081: ionizing source) has a higher electron density and may shield the

2082: nearer cloud, which subsequently has a lower measured electron

2083: density.

2084: \label{fig:shield}}

2085: \end{figure}

2086: 

2087: 

2088: 

2089: \end{document}

2090: