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

2: 

3: \newcommand\iso[2]{$^{\rm #1}$#2}

4: 

5: \shorttitle{$\omega$ Centauri Abundances}

6: \shortauthors{Johnson et al.}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \title{Fe and Al Abundances for 180 Red Giants in the Globular Cluster Omega

11: Centauri (NGC 5139)}

12: 

13: \author{Christian I. Johnson\altaffilmark{1}, 

14: Catherine A. Pilachowski\altaffilmark{1}, Jennifer Simmerer\altaffilmark{2},

15: and Dustin Schwenk\altaffilmark{3}

16: }

17: 

18: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Indiana University,

19: Swain West 319, 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405--7105, USA;

20: cijohnson@astro.indiana.edu; catyp@astro.indiana.edu}

21: 

22: \altaffiltext{2}{Lund Observatory, Box 43, SE 221-00 Lund, Sweden; 

23: jennifer@astro.lu.se}

24: 

25: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of Illinois at 

26: Urbana--Champaign, 2910 Artesia Crossing, Urbana, IL 61802, USA; 

27: schwenk@uiuc.edu}

28: 

29: \begin{abstract}

30: 

31: We present radial velocities, Fe, and Al abundances for 180 red giant branch

32: (RGB) stars in the Galactic globular cluster Omega Centauri ($\omega$ Cen).

33: The majority of our data lie in the range 11.0$<$V$<$13.5, which covers the RGB

34: from about 1 mag. above the horizontal branch to the RGB tip.  The selection

35: procedures are biased towards preferentially observing the more metal--poor

36: and luminous stars of $\omega$ Cen.  Abundances 

37: were determined using equivalent width measurements and spectrum synthesis

38: analyses of moderate resolution spectra (R$\approx$13,000) obtained with the

39: Blanco 4m telescope and Hydra multifiber spectrograph.  Our results are in

40: agreement with previous studies as we find at least four different metallicity

41: populations with [Fe/H]=--1.75, --1.45, --1.05, and --0.75, with a full range

42: of --2.20$\la$[Fe/H]$\la$--0.70.  [Al/Fe] ratios exhibit large star--to--star

43: scatter for all populations, with the more than 1.0 dex range of [Al/Fe] 

44: decreasing for stars more metal--rich than [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4.  The minimum 

45: [Al/Fe] abundance observed for all metallicity populations is 

46: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15.  The maximum abundance of log $\epsilon$(Al) is reached 

47: for stars with [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4 and does not increase further with stellar 

48: metallicity.  We interpret these results as evidence for type II SNe 

49: providing the minimum [Al/Fe] ratio and a mass spectrum of intermediate mass 

50: asymptotic giant branch stars causing the majority of the [Al/Fe] scatter.

51: These results seem to fit in the adopted scheme that star formation occurred 

52: in $\omega$ Cen over $>$1 Gyr.

53: 

54: \end{abstract}

55: 

56: \keywords{stars: abundances, globular clusters: general, globular clusters:

57: individual ($\omega$ Centauri, NGC 5139). stars: Population II}

58: 

59: \section{INTRODUCTION}

60: 

61: The Galactic globular cluster Omega Centauri ($\omega$ Cen) presents a unique

62: opportunity to study the chemical evolution of both a small stellar system

63: and stars with common formation histories covering a metallicity range of more 

64: than a factor of 10, a defining characteristic of $\omega$ Cen that has been

65: known since the initial discovery of its unusually broad red giant branch (RGB) 

66: by Woolley (1966).  Although $\omega$ Cen is the most massive Galactic globular

67: cluster, with an estimated mass of $\sim$2--7$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ 

68: M$_{\sun}$ (Richer et al. 1991; Meylan et al. 1995; van de Ven et al. 2006),

69: it does not appear to have an exceptionally deep gravitational potential

70: well (Gnedin et al. 2002).  This seems to negate a simple explanation that

71: $\omega$ Cen evolved as a typical globular cluster that was more easily able 

72: to retain supernova (SN) and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) ejecta for 

73: self--enrichment.  This fact coupled with the cluster's retrograde 

74: orbit and disk crossing time of $\sim$1--2$\times$10$^{\rm 8}$ years (e.g., 

75: Dinescu et al. 1999), which could severely inhibit star formation, are some of 

76: the strongest arguments against $\omega$ Cen having a Galactic origin.  

77: Instead, it has been proposed (e.g., Dinescu et al. 1999; Smith et al. 2000; 

78: Gnedin et al. 2002; Bekki \& Norris 2006) that $\omega$ Cen may be the 

79: remaining nucleus of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy that evolved in isolation and 

80: was later accreted by the Milky Way, suggesting the progenitor system was 

81: perhaps a factor of 100--1000 times more massive than what is presently 

82: observed.

83: 

84: Recent spectroscopic and photometric studies (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Norris 

85: et al. 1996; Suntzeff \& Kraft 1996; Lee et al. 1999; Hilker \& Richtler 2000; 

86: Hughes \& Wallerstein 2000; Pancino et al. 2000; Smith et al. 2000; van 

87: Leeuwen et al. 2000; Rey et al. 2004; Stanford et al. 2004; 

88: Piotto et al. 2005; Sollima et al. 2005a; Sollima et al. 2005b; Kayser et al. 

89: 2006; Sollima et al. 2006; Stanford et al. 2006; Stanford et al. 2007; van Loon

90: et al. 2007; Villanova et al. 2007) have confirmed the existence of up to five 

91: separate stellar populations ranging in metallicity from [Fe/H]$\sim$--2.2 to 

92: --0.5, with a peak in the metallicity distribution near [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.7 and 

93: a long tail extending to higher metallicities.  In addition to the metal--poor 

94: and intermediate metallicity populations initially seen in the Woolley 

95: (1966) photometric study, Lee et al. (1999) and Pancino et al. (2000) 

96: discovered the existence of the most metal--rich RGB at [Fe/H]$\sim$--0.5,

97: commonly referred to as the anomalous RGB (RGB--a).  The RGB--a is primarily 

98: observed in the central region of the cluster and contains approximately 5$\%$ 

99: of the total stellar population (Pancino et al. 2000), in contrast to the 

100: dominant metal--poor population that contains roughly 75$\%$ of cluster stars.

101: Additionally, there is some evidence (Norris et al. 1997) that the metal--rich

102: population exhibits smaller radial velocity dispersion and rotation than the 

103: metal--poor population.  Sollima et al. (2005b) confirmed the Norris et al. 

104: (1997) results but also showed that the most metal--rich stars ([Fe/H]$>$--1)

105: exhibit an increasing velocity dispersion as a function of increasing 

106: metallicity, which could be evidence for accretion events occurring within

107: $\omega$ Cen's progenitor system (Ferraro et al. 2002; Pancino et al. 2003);

108: however, this result is not yet confirmed (Platais et al. 2003, but see also

109: Hughes et al. 2004).  It should be noted that Pancino et al. (2007), using

110: radial velocity measurements of 650 members with measurement uncertainties of 

111: order 0.5 km s$^{\rm -1}$, have found no evidence for rotational differences

112: among the different metallicity groups.

113:  

114: The distribution of main--sequence turnoff (MSTO) and subgiant branch (SGB) 

115: stars matches that observed on the RGB, such that one can trace the 

116: evolutionary sequence of each population from at least the MSTO to the RGB 

117: using high precision photometry (e.g., Villanova et al. 2007).  The

118: main--sequence (MS) has proved equally as complex as the SGB and RGB, with the 

119: discovery by Anderson (1997) of a red and blue MS (BMS).  Interestingly, 

120: Piotto et al. (2005) discovered that the BMS was more metal--rich than the 

121: red MS, suggesting the BMS could be explained assuming a higher He content, 

122: perhaps as high as Y$\sim$0.38 (Bedin et al. 2004; Norris 2004; Lee et al. 

123: 2005; Piotto et al. 2005).

124: 

125: While it is clear that multiple populations are present in this 

126: cluster, there has been some debate regarding the age of each population.  

127: There is general agreement that the age range is between about 0 and 6 Gyrs 

128: (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Hilker \& Richtler 2000; Hughes \& Wallerstein 2000; 

129: Pancino et al. 2002; Origlia et al. 2003; Ferraro et al. 2004; Hilker et al. 

130: 2004; Rey et al. 2004; Sollima et al. 2005a; Sollima et al. 2005b; Villanova 

131: et al. 2007), though the recent work by Stanford et al. (2006) suggests the 

132: most likely age range is $\sim$2--4 Gyrs, with the metal--rich stars being 

133: younger.  For the case of monotonic chemical enrichment in a single system, 

134: one would expect the more metal--rich stars to be younger than the more 

135: metal--poor; however, this assumption has been questioned by Villanova et al. 

136: (2007) who suggested the metal--rich stars and 33$\%$ of the metal--poor stars 

137: are the oldest with the remaining 2/3 of the metal--poor population being 3--4 

138: Gyrs younger.  The picture of $\omega$ Cen's formation is further compounded 

139: by observations of RR Lyrae horizontal branch (HB) stars that reveal 

140: a bimodal metallicity distribution \emph{without} a trend in He enhancement as 

141: a function of [Fe/H] (Sollima et al. 2006).  The important point here is that a 

142: group of RR Lyrae stars exists with the same metallicity as the BMS but 

143: without the presumed He enhancement.  A He--rich secondary population would 

144: not produce a significant RR Lyrae population unless a $\ga$4 Gyr age 

145: difference was present with respect to the dominant metal--poor population 

146: (Sollima et al. 2006).  The required age difference is therefore inconsistent 

147: with most age spread estimates that put $\Delta$$\tau$$\la$4 Gyrs.

148: 

149: $\omega$ Cen's chemical evolution history has so far proved difficult to

150: interpret from measured abundances of light (Z$\la$27), $\alpha$, Fe--peak, 

151: s--process, and r--process elements.  In ``normal" Galactic globular clusters,

152: C, N, O, F, Na, Mg (sometimes), and Al often exhibit large star--to--star 

153: variations, in some cases exceeding more than a factor of 10 (e.g., see recent 

154: review by Gratton et al. 2004).  In contrast, the heavier $\alpha$--elements 

155: (e.g., Ca and Ti) show little to no variation and are enhanced relative to Fe

156: at [$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim$+0.30, with a decreasing ratio for clusters with

157: [Fe/H]$>$--1.  Likewise, Fe and all other Fe--peak, s--process, and r--process

158: elements show star--to--star variations of $\sim$0.10--0.30 dex.  

159: Additionally, nearly all globular clusters are enriched in r--process 

160: relative to s--process elements by about 0.20 dex.  In $\omega$ Cen, [Fe/H]

161: covers a range of more than 1.5 dex and, as previously stated, it has a 

162: potential well comparable to that of other globular clusters, suggesting it 

163: had to be different in the past to undergo self--enrichment.  The scenario of 

164: two or more globular clusters merging seems unlikely now given the results of 

165: Pancino et al. (2007) and the typically large orbital velocities coupled with 

166: the small velocity dispersions of clusters (Ikuta \& Arimoto 2000).  While 

167: $\omega$ Cen exhibits large abundance variations for several of the light

168: elements at various metallicities (e.g., Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al.

169: 2000), the mean heavy $\alpha$--element enhancement is surprisingly uniform at 

170: [$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim$+0.30 to +0.50 (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000;

171: Villanova et al. 2007), with perhaps a trend of decreasing [$\alpha$/Fe] at 

172: [Fe/H]$>$--1 (Pancino et al. 2002).  The s--process elements show a 

173: clear increase in abundance relative to Fe with a plateau occurring at 

174: [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.40 to --1.20 (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000).  

175: However, unlike in globular clusters, s--process elements are overabundant

176: with respect to r--process elements, where [Ba/Eu] typically reaches between

177: 0.5 and 1.0 (Smith et al. 2000), indicating a strong presence of AGB ejecta.

178: 

179: Many globular cluster giants show clear C--N, O--Na, O--Al, Mg--Al, and in the 

180: case of M4 (Smith et al. 2005), F--Na anticorrelations alongside a Na--Al 

181: correlation (e.g., Gratton et al. 2004).  In addition to these anomalies being

182: present in the atmospheres of RGB stars, similar relations have been observed

183: in some globular cluster MS and MSTO stars (e.g., Cannon et al. 1998; 

184: Gratton et al. 2001; Cohen et al. 2002; Briley et al. 2004a; 2004b; Boesgaard 

185: et al. 2005).  According to standard evolutionary theory, first dredgeup 

186: brings the products of MS core hydrogen burning to the surface and homogenizes 

187: approximately 70--80$\%$ of the star, resulting in C depletion, N enhancement, 

188: and a lowering of the \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C} ratio from about 90 to 25 (e.g., 

189: Salaris et al. 2002).  The decline in [C/Fe] and \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C} has 

190: been verified via observations in both globular cluster (Bell et al. 1979; 

191: Carbon et al. 1982; Langer et al. 1986; Bellman et al. 2001) and field stars 

192: (Charbonnel \& do Nascimento 1998; Gratton et al. 2000; Keller et al. 2001) as 

193: strong evidence for in situ mixing occurring along the RGB.  However, as the 

194: advancing hydrogen--burning shell (HBS) crosses the molecular weight 

195: discontinuity left by the convective envelope's deepest point of penetration, 

196: extra mixing not predicted by canonical theory occurs in both

197: field and cluster stars, driving down [C/Fe] further and allowing 

198: \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C} to reach the CN--cycle equilibrium value of $\sim$4.

199: The mechanism responsible for this extra mixing is not known, though 

200: thermohaline mixing (Charbonnel \& Zahn 2007) may ameliorate the problem.

201: While halo field and cluster giants share these same trends, differences arise

202: when considering O, Na, and Al abundances.  Field stars do not exhibit most of 

203: the familiar correlations/anticorrelations and large star--to--star variations 

204: seen in globular cluster stars and instead remain mostly constant from the MS 

205: to the RGB tip (e.g., Ryan et al. 1996; Fulbright 2000; Gratton et al. 2000).

206: 

207: The reason for the observed differences between cluster and field giants is 

208: not known, but obviously the higher density cluster environment is a key 

209: factor.  Coupled O depletions and Na/Al enhancements are clear signs of

210: high temperature (T$\ga$40$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ K) H--burning via the ON, NeNa, 

211: and MgAl proton--capture cycles, but this does not necessarily mean those cycles

212: are operating in the RGB stars we presently observe and instead may be from the

213: ejecta of intermediate mass (IM) AGB stars ($\sim$3--8 M$_{\sun}$) that 

214: underwent hot bottom burning (HBB) and polluted the gas from which the current

215: stars formed.  One of the strongest arguments against in 

216: situ mixing is the observed abundance relations on the MS and MSTO matching 

217: those on the RGB because these stars are both too cool for the ON, NeNa, and 

218: MgAl cycles to operate and their shallow envelope convection zones do not 

219: reach deep enough to bring up even CN--cycled material.  Additionally, 

220: Shetrone (1996) showed that at least in M13 giants, \iso{24}{Mg} is 

221: anticorrelated with Al instead of \iso{25}{Mg} and/or \iso{26}{Mg}, which 

222: means temperatures not achievable in low mass RGB stars (at least 

223: 70$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ K) are needed to activate the full MgAl chain (Langer 

224: et al. 1997); however, these temperatures are reached in HBB conditions.  

225: Current models of low mass RGB stars (e.g., Denissenkov \& Weiss 2001) 

226: indicate \iso{27}{Al} is only produced deep in the stellar interior by 

227: burning \iso{25}{Mg} and convective mixing reaching these depths would cause 

228: a second increase in the surface abundance of both \iso{23}{Na} and 

229: \iso{4}{He}.  It should be noted that if it is instead \iso{26}{Al} 

230: ($\tau$$_{\rm 1/2}$$\sim$1$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ yrs) causing the abundance 

231: anomalies on the upper RGB, then the O--Na and Na--Al relations can be 

232: explained in a self--consistent manner via in situ mixing (Denissenkov \& 

233: Weiss 2001).  Also, there is some evidence that O depletions and Na/Al 

234: enhancements become stronger in the upper $\sim$0.7 mag before the RGB tip in 

235: M13 (e.g., Sneden et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2005), indicating the possible 

236: operation of additional deep mixing episodes in some stars.  Although it is 

237: more difficult to believe in situ mixing is responsible for the 

238: \iso{24}{Mg}--\iso{27}{Al} anticorrelation, the same may not be true for O and 

239: Na.  In or just above the HBS of a metal--poor low mass RGB star, the O--Na 

240: anticorrelation can be naturally explained because the ON and NeNa cycles can 

241: operate at T$\sim$40$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ K (Denisenkov \& Denisenkova 1990; 

242: Langer et al. 1993).  Of course, this cannot be the case for any O--Na 

243: anticorrelation observed in MSTO and SGB stars and does require convective

244: mixing in RGB stars to penetrate past the radiative zone separating the bottom 

245: of the convective envelope and the top of the HBS.

246: 

247: While pollution from a previous generation of more massive AGB stars seems an 

248: attractive explanation, there are a few important issues.  Predicted IM--AGB 

249: stellar yields are sensitive to the adopted treatment of convection because it 

250: affects other important parameters such as luminosity, number of thermal 

251: pulses, third dredgeup efficiency, envelope temperature structure, and mass

252: loss (Ventura \& D'Antona 2005a).  The two most common methods employed are

253: mixing length theory (MLT) (e.g., Fenner et al. 2004) and the full spectrum of 

254: turbulence (FST) model (e.g., Ventura \& D'Antona 2005b), with the latter 

255: providing more efficient convection.  In $\omega$ Cen and all other globular 

256: clusters observed, the [C+N+O/Fe] sum is constant (Pilachowski et al. 1988; 

257: Dickens et al. 1991; Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 1996; Ivans et al. 

258: 1999), but models based on MLT indicate stars forming from different 

259: generations of AGB ejecta should show a large increase in the CNO sum (e.g., 

260: Lattanzio et al. 2004).  In contrast, FST models keep [C+N+O/Fe] constant to 

261: within about a factor of 2 due to enhanced mass loss and fewer third dredgeup

262: episodes (Ventura \& D'Antona 2005b).  Although Na and Al production could be 

263: due to HBB, it is difficult to produce the observed O depletion of 1.0 to 1.5 

264: dex along with the required Na enhancement (e.g., Denissenkov \& Herwig 2003; 

265: but see also Ventura \& D'Antona 2005b).  Self--consistent models

266: of globular cluster enrichment from AGB ejecta fail to reproduce the MgAl

267: anticorrelation seen in several globular clusters, including $\omega$ Cen, where

268: Mg increases relative to Al instead of decreases (Fenner et al. 2004).

269: Without an evolutionary scenario, O deficient, Na/Al enhanced stars 

270: must have preferentially formed out of enriched gas relative to ``O--normal"

271: stars (i.e., [O/Fe]$\sim$+0.30) and Yong et al. (2003) point out that 

272: even with no O present in the enriched gas, these stars would require

273: a composition of 90$\%$ enriched, 10$\%$ ``normal" material to obtain the

274: observed O deficiency.  Lastly, AGB stellar envelopes contain roughly 36$\%$

275: He by mass (Lattanzio et al. 2004), but O--poor, Na/Al--rich stars do not

276: appear to be particularly He--rich; however, this does not rule out AGB stars

277: as the source of the He--rich BMS observed in $\omega$ Cen.  Given the 

278: evidence for and against evolutionary and primordial processes, a hybrid 

279: scenario probably needs to be invoked to explain all abundance anomalies.

280: 

281: Given the inherently large spread in metallicity of stars in $\omega$ Cen and 

282: that Al is the heaviest element sensitive to proton--capture 

283: nucleosynthesis at temperatures achieved in the interiors of low mass 

284: metal--poor RGB stars, we present radial velocities, Fe, and Al abundances for 

285: 180 RGB stars covering --2.20$<$[Fe/H]$<$--0.70.  With additional data from

286: the literature covering from the MS to the RGB tip, we address the issues of 

287: star formation and possible pollution sources driving the chemical evolution

288: of $\omega$ Cen as a function of metallicity.

289:  

290: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTIONS}

291: 

292: The observations of all 180 giants in $\omega$ Cen were obtained with the Blanco

293: 4m telescope using the Hydra multifiber positioner and bench spectrograph at 

294: the Cerro Tololo Inter--American Observatory.  All observations were obtained 

295: using the ``large" 300$\micron$ (2$\arcsec$) fibers.  The full spectral 

296: coverage ranged from $\sim$6450--6750~\AA, centered on $\sim$6600~\AA;

297: however, wavelengths blueward of $\sim$6500~\AA\ lie on the shoulder of the 

298: filter response curve, making continuum placement difficult.  Therefore, we 

299: truncated the spectra to include only the region from 6500--6750~\AA.  The 

300: 316 line mm$^{\rm -1}$ echelle grating and Blue Air Schmidt Camera provided

301: a resolving power of R($\lambda$/$\Delta$$\lambda$)$\approx$13,000 (0.5~\AA\ 

302: FWHM) at 6600~\AA.  A list of our observation dates and exposure times is 

303: provided in Table 1.

304: 

305: Target stars, coordinates, photometry, and membership probability were taken 

306: from the proper motion study by van Leeuwen et al. (2000).  Stars were given 

307: priority in the Hydra assignment program based on V magnitude, with a focus 

308: on stars in the range 11.0$<$V$<$14.0, which includes all giants in the cluster 

309: brighter than the HB up to the RGB tip.  Only stars with membership 

310: probabilities $\ga$80$\%$ were included for possible study.  All observations

311: took place between 2003 July 17 and 2003 July 19.  Three different Hydra setups

312: were used with exposure times ranging from 1800 to 3600 seconds.  Each setup 

313: allowed approximately 100 fibers to be placed on targets, yielding a total 

314: initial sample size of nearly 300 stars.  At V$\sim$13.5, reaching a 

315: signal--to--noise (S/N) ratio of 100 requires 3 hours of total integration 

316: time.  Unfortunately, weather and time constraints led to one of the setups 

317: receiving less than 2 hours of integration time with an average S/N of less 

318: than 50.  Many of these stars had to be excluded from analysis due to poor 

319: S/N; however, the final sample size still includes nearly 200 

320: stars.  These are shown in Figure \ref{f1} along with the complete sample 

321: given in van Leeuwen et al. (2000) for 11.0$<$V$<$14.0.

322: 

323: Due to $\omega$ Cen's broad RGB, selection effects must be taken into

324: account when interpreting abundance results.  Figure \ref{f2} shows our 

325: observed completion fraction of RGB stars both as a function of V magnitude

326: and B--V color compared to the deeper photometric study by Rey et al. 

327: (2004).  Since our observing program is biased towards 

328: selecting brighter stars, our sample includes more metal--poor than 

329: metal--rich stars because metal--rich stars have lower V magnitudes due to 

330: H$^{\rm -}$ opacity increasing with increasing metallicity.  While we observed 

331: 75$\%$ of all RGB tip stars available, the fraction of stars observed 

332: decreases to $\sim$15--50$\%$ in the range 11.5$<$V$<$13.0.  Likewise, 

333: in considering completeness in B--V color, our sample includes stars of

334: higher luminosity for a given B--V, biasing our results towards the more 

335: metal--poor regime.

336: 

337: Figure \ref{f3} shows the location of our observed stars in right ascension and 

338: declination relative to the cluster center, defined by van Leeuwen et al. (2000)

339: as 13$^{\rm h}$26$^{\rm m}$45.9$^{\rm s}$, --47$\degr$28$\arcmin$37.0$\arcsec$

340: (J2000) and marked with a cross in the figure.  Since some evidence exists for 

341: a correlation between metallicity and distance from the cluster center 

342: (Norris et al. 1996; Suntzeff \& Kraft 1996; Norris et al. 1997; 

343: Hilker \& Richtler 2000; Pancino et al. 2000; Rey et al. 2004), we have 

344: observed stars as uniformly as possible at radii extending out to 

345: $\sim$20$\arcmin$.  Near the cluster center, crowding and the physical size of

346: the fibers limited the number of observations inside about 2 core radii,

347: where the core radius is approximately 1.40$\arcmin$ (Harris 1996; rev. 2003 

348: February).  We illustrate this effect with the ellipses in Figure \ref{f3} 

349: that correspond to 1, 5, and 10 core radii.

350: 

351: Basic data reductions were accomplished using the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is 

352: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are 

353: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., 

354: under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.} package 

355: \emph{ccdproc} to trim the bias overscan region and apply bias level 

356: corrections.  The IRAF task \emph{dohydra} was employed to correct for 

357: scattered light, extract the one--dimensional spectra, remove cosmic rays, 

358: apply a flat--field correction, linearize the wavelength scale, and subtract 

359: the sky spectrum.  Wavelength calibrations were carried out using a high S/N 

360: solar sky spectrum because the ThAr lamp was unavailable.  Standard IRAF tasks 

361: were used to co--add and normalize the spectra.  Typical S/N ratios for 

362: individual exposures ranged from $\sim$25--50, with co--added spectra having 

363: S/N between 75 and 150.

364: 

365: \section{RADIAL VELOCITY DETERMINATIONS}

366: 

367: $\omega$ Cen's location in the thick disk (Dinescu et al. 1999) makes field 

368: star contamination a more serious problem than for typical halo globular 

369: clusters.  While we initially only chose targets with high membership 

370: probabilities from van Leeuwen et al. (2000), direct measurements of target 

371: radial velocities assist with membership confirmation.  Radial velocities 

372: were determined using the IRAF tasks \emph{rvcor}, to correct for heliocentric 

373: motion, and \emph{fxcor}, to determine the heliocentric radial velocity.  For 

374: the comparison spectrum, we used the same high S/N daylight sky spectrum that 

375: was used for wavelength calibration.  A summary of our determined radial 

376: velocities along with membership probabilities from van Leeuwen et al. (2000)

377: are given in Table 2.

378: 

379: The largest radial velocity study of $\omega$ Cen stars to date is by Reijns

380: et al. (2006), who determined radial velocities for $\sim$2,000 RGB stars.

381: Their study finds a strongly peaked distribution near 232 km s$^{\rm -1}$, with

382: a median uncertainty of less than 2 km s$^{\rm -1}$ and a velocity dispersion

383: of $\sim$6 km s$^{\rm -1}$ for the inner 25$\arcmin$ of the cluster.  Similarly,

384: Mayor et al. (1997) find $\langle$V$_{\rm R}$$\rangle$=232.8 $\pm$ 0.7 km

385: s$^{\rm -1}$ ($\sigma$$\sim$17.5 km s$^{\rm -1}$) for 471 stars and 

386: Suntzeff \& Kraft (1996) find $\langle$V$_{\rm R}$$\rangle$=234.7 $\pm$ 1.3 

387: km s$^{\rm -1}$ ($\sigma$=11.3 km s$^{\rm -1}$) for their ``bright" sample of 

388: 199 stars.  Recently, Pancino et al. (2007) determined radial velocities for

389: 650 RGB stars and found $\langle$V$_{\rm R}$$\rangle$=233.4 $\pm$ 0.5 km

390: s$^{\rm -1}$ ($\sigma$=13.2 km s$^{\rm -1}$).  We find in agreement with 

391: these studies: $\langle$V$_{\rm R}$$\rangle$=231.8 km s$^{\rm -1}$ $\pm$ 1.6 

392: km s$^{\rm -1}$ ($\sigma$=11.6 km s$^{\rm -1}$).  Our observations do not 

393: provide an absolute velocity calibration, but comparison with the other 

394: observations of the average velocity of cluster stars suggests that the 

395: systematic error of our radial velocities is less than about 2 km s$^{\rm -1}$.

396: Since all of our stars listed in Table 2 are less than 3$\sigma$ away from the 

397: cluster averaged velocity and $\omega$ Cen's velocity is high relative to the 

398: general field population, it is unlikely any of our targets are field stars.

399: 

400: \section{Analysis}

401: 

402: We have derived Fe and Al abundances using lines available in the spectral 

403: range 6500--6750~\AA\ with either equivalent width or synthetic spectrum

404: analyses.  Spectrum synthesis was used to determine Al abundances in 

405: metal--rich and/or CN--strong stars.  When multiple lines were available, the

406: stated abundances represent the average of the individual lines.  Effective 

407: temperatures (\emph{T$_{\rm eff}$}) and gravities (\emph{log g}) were 

408: estimated using published (V--K)$_{\rm 0}$ photometry.  \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} 

409: and microturbulence (\emph{V$_{\rm t}$}) were further refined via 

410: spectroscopic analyses.  The analysis follows the methods described in Johnson 

411: et al. (2005) and Johnson \& Pilachowski (2006).

412: 

413: \subsection{Model Stellar Atmospheres}

414: 

415: Using V photometry from van Leeuwen et al. (2000) and K$_{\rm s}$ photometry 

416: from 2MASS, we estimated \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} with the color--temperature 

417: relation described in Alonso et al. (1999; 2001), which is based on the 

418: infrared flux method (Blackwell \& Shallis 1977).  However, the Alonso et al. 

419: (1999) method requires the photometry to be on the Carlos S\'{a}nchez 

420: Telescope (TCS) photometric system.  We transformed the V and K$_{\rm s}$ 

421: magnitudes onto the TCS system using the transformations provided in Alonso et 

422: al. (1994; 1998) and Carpenter (2001), as summarized in Johnson et al. (2005).

423: To correct for interstellar reddening and extinction, we applied the 

424: correction recommended by Harris (1996; rev. 2003 February) of E(B--V)=0.12 

425: and used E(V--K)/E(B--V)=2.7 (Johnson 1965).  While Calamida et al. (2005) claim

426: differential reddening, perhaps differing by as much as a factor of two near 

427: the core, could be a problem, the well defined evolutionary sequences seen in 

428: Villanova et al. (2007) seem to indicate it is not too severe.  Van Loon et al.

429: (2007) find some evidence for interstellar absorption by gas in the cluster, but

430: this is concentrated near the core where our observations are sparse.  

431: Therefore, we have only applied a uniform reddening correction.  Bolometric 

432: corrections were applied using the empirical relations given in Alonso et al. 

433: (1999) assuming a distance modulus of (m--M)$_{\rm V}$=13.7 (van de Ven et al. 

434: 2006).

435: 

436: Applying the proper color--temperature relation requires knowledge of a star's 

437: metallicity.  Therefore, we took the empirical relation given in van Leeuwen 

438: et al. (2000; their eq. 15), which gives [Ca/H] as a function of V and B--V, 

439: and assumed [Ca/Fe]$\sim$+0.30 for [Fe/H]$\la$--1.0 (e.g., Norris \& Da Costa 

440: 1995), with a linear decrease towards [Ca/Fe]=0.0 at [Fe/H]=0.0.  This gave a 

441: rough estimate of [Fe/H] for each star and allowed us to choose the proper 

442: equation in Alonso et al. (1999).  

443: 

444: Since only one Fe II line was available for analysis (6516~\AA), we determined

445: surface gravity using the standard relation,

446: \begin{equation}

447: log(g)=0.40(M_{bol.}-M_{bol.\sun})+log(g_{\sun})+4(log(T/T_{\sun}))+

448: log(M/M_{\sun}),

449: \end{equation}

450: instead of the ionization equilibrium of Fe.  We assumed M=0.80 M$_{\sun}$ for

451: all stars, regardless of metallicity.  Though there may be an intrinsic age 

452: spread of a few Gyr on the RGB (see $\S$5 for further discussion on this 

453: issue), this will lead to a mass difference only of order 

454: $\sim$0.05 M$_{\sun}$, which is negligible for surface gravity determinations.

455: 

456: In addition to \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$}, \emph{log g}, and [Fe/H] estimates, we 

457: also needed a starting point with \emph{V$_{\rm t}$}.  Initial estimates were 

458: based on the empirical relation derived in Pilachowski et al. (1996), which 

459: gives \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} as a function of \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} for metal--poor 

460: field giants and subgiants.  Typical \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} values ranged from 

461: about 1.3--2.3 km s$^{\rm -1}$ in the temperature range 5000--3800 K, 

462: respectively.

463: 

464: We generated the model stellar atmospheres by interpolating in the 

465: ATLAS9\footnote{The model atmosphere grids can be downloaded from 

466: http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu/grids.html.} (Castelli et al. 1997) grid of 

467: models without convective overshoot.  Initial models were created using the 

468: \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$}, \emph{log g}, [Fe/H], and \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} estimates 

469: as described above.  \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} was further refined by removing 

470: trends in Fe abundance as a function of excitation potential.  Likewise, 

471: \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} was improved by removing trends in Fe abundance as a 

472: function of reduced width (log(EW/$\lambda$)).  A comparison between 

473: photometric and spectroscopically determined temperatures is given in the top 

474: panel of Figure \ref{f4}.  Typical photometric and spectroscopic temperature 

475: estimates agree to within approximately $\pm$100 K.  The bottom panel of 

476: Figure \ref{f4} shows our spectroscopically determined \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} as a 

477: function of \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} for different metallicity bins with a linear 

478: least squares fit given by,

479: \begin{equation}

480: V_{\rm t}=-0.0011(T_{\rm eff})+6.66,

481: \end{equation}

482: which is independent of metallicity.  This fit agrees to within 

483: $\sim$0.10--0.15 km s$^{\rm -1}$ to that given in Pilachowski et al. (1996).  

484: Figure \ref{f5} shows our derived [Fe II/H] given as a function of [Fe/H].

485: As stated above, we only had one Fe II line available for analysis, but

486: the fact that both Fe estimates agree to within 0.16 dex on average 

487: ($\sigma$=0.12 dex) leads us to believe our surface gravity estimates are not in

488: serious error.  A complete list of our adopted model atmosphere parameters is

489: provided in Table 3.

490: 

491: \subsection{Derivation of Abundances}

492: 

493: Abundances were determined using equivalent width analyses for all Fe lines 

494: and most Al lines, with the exception of cases where evidence for considerable

495: CN contamination near the 6696, 6698~\AA\ Al doublet (i.e., metal--rich and/or

496: CN--strong stars) existed and spectrum synthesis was used instead.  We 

497: measured equivalent widths using a FORTRAN program developed for this project 

498: that interactively fits a Gaussian curve to each absorption line by 

499: implementing a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (Press et al. 1992) to find the 

500: least--squares fit given a continuum level and limits of integration.  A 

501: high resolution, high S/N Arcturus spectrum\footnote{The Arcturus Atlas can be

502: downloaded from the NOAO Digital Library at 

503: http://www.noao.edu/dpp/library.html.} was simultaneously overplotted for each 

504: spectrum to aide in continuum placement and line identification.  The program 

505: also has the ability to fit up to five Gaussians simultaneously for deblending 

506: purposes; however, all equivalent widths were verified independently using 

507: IRAF's \emph{splot} package.  

508: 

509: \subsubsection{Equivalent Width Analysis}

510: 

511: Final abundances were calculated using the abfind driver in the 2002 version 

512: of the local thermodynamic equilibrium line analysis code MOOG (Sneden 

513: 1973).  Adopted log gf values are the same as those employed in Johnson et al. 

514: (2006), which were adapted from line lists provided in Th{\'e}venin (1990), 

515: Sneden et al. (2004; modified from Ivans et al. 2001), and Cohen \& 

516: Mel{\'e}ndez (2005).  A summary of our line list is given in Table 4 and the 

517: measured equivalent widths are provided in Table 5.

518: 

519: While we had identified 20 Fe I lines for analysis, in most cases only 10--15

520: lines could be used due to severe line blending, bad ccd pixels, or line 

521: strength.  In this sense, only lines lying on the linear part of the curve

522: of growth were used, which meant neglecting almost all lines with a reduced 

523: width larger than about --4.5 (roughly 200 m\AA\ at 6600~\AA).  This

524: unfortunately meant that many lines in metal--rich stars are too strong to give 

525: accurate abundances using our techniques.  For the cases where Al abundances 

526: were determined using equivalent width measurements, weak line blends were 

527: taken into account using deblending methods.  As stated above, stars with 

528: strong line blending or molecular line blanketing in the region near the Al 

529: doublet were analyzed with spectrum synthesis.

530: 

531: Typical uncertainties are quite small for [Fe/H] determinations with internal 

532: line--to--line spreads of $\sim$0.10--0.15 dex and $\sigma$/$\sqrt{N}$ $<$ 0.05

533: dex on average.  Sample spectra for stars of approximately the same 

534: \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} but different metallicities are shown in Figure \ref{f6}.

535: Here we illustrate that our [Fe/H] determinations are at the very least 

536: consistent in a relative sense as one notices the increasing Fe line strengths 

537: and CN--band strengths with increasing metallicity.  The uncertainty in Al 

538: abundances is larger given that only two lines are available, but the two 

539: lines give a remarkably consistent abundance, with an average 

540: $\sigma$/$\sqrt{N}$=0.08 dex.  It should be noted that in several of our 

541: spectra only one Al line could be confidently measured due mostly to bad 

542: pixels.  In Figure \ref{f6}, the reader can see the stark contrast in line 

543: strength between a star such as 51021, which has [Al/Fe]=+0.15 at 

544: [Fe/H]=--1.44, and star 61085, which has [Al/Fe]=+0.97 at [Fe/H]=--1.15.  A 

545: summary of all derived abundances and associated $\sigma$/$\sqrt{N}$ values is 

546: given in Table 6.

547: 

548: \subsubsection{Spectrum Synthesis Analysis}

549: 

550: As mentioned above, we determined Al abundances for metal--rich and/or 

551: CN--strong stars using the synth driver in MOOG.  Candidates for spectrum

552: synthesis were chosen based on visual inspection of the 6680--6700~\AA\

553: region, where the majority of lines surrounding the Al doublet are CN lines.

554: Stars where CN contamination was seen between the Al lines were designated

555: for synthetic spectrum analysis (e.g., see Figure 6, lower two spectra).

556: 

557: The atomic line list (with the exception of the two Al lines) was taken from the

558: Kurucz atomic line database\footnote{The Kurucz line list database can be 

559: accessed via http://kurucz.harvard.edu/linelists.html.}.  We adjusted the 

560: oscillator strengths from this line list so the line strengths matched those 

561: in the solar spectrum.  For the CN molecular line list, we used a combination 

562: of one available from Kurucz and one provided by Bertrand Plez (2007, private 

563: communication; for a description on how the line list was prepared, see Hill

564: et al. 2002).  

565: 

566: Since most of the program stars do not have known C, N, or 

567: \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C} abundances, we started with [C/Fe]=--0.5, [N/Fe]=+1.5,

568: and \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C}=5, values roughly consistent with previous work

569: (e.g., Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2002).  We then treated the 

570: nitrogen abundance as a free parameter and adjusted it until a satisfactory 

571: fit was achieved.  Typical best fit [N/Fe] values were $\sim$+1.0 to +1.5.  

572: To test the effect of different \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C} ratios, we generated 

573: two sets of spectra with \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C}=5 and 

574: \iso{12}{C}/\iso{13}{C}=1000.  The fits to the CN lines were indistinguishable 

575: between the two cases, meaning \iso{12}{C} is the dominant isotope in this 

576: spectral region and thus synthesized CN lines are insensitive to the 

577: \iso{13}{C} abundance.

578: 

579: With the CN lines fit, we were then able to adjust the Al abundance until 

580: the synthetic spectrum matched the observed.  Sample synthesis fits are given

581: in Figure \ref{f7} for a metal--poor and metal--rich case.  Aside from the CN

582: lines, the Fe I line near the 6696~\AA\ feature is the only other contaminating

583: line in the region, but this line has an excitation potential of nearly

584: 5 eV, making its contribution mostly negligible in these cool stars.  

585: Generally, the abundances given by the 6696 and 6698~\AA\ lines agreed to 

586: within about $\pm$0.10 dex.  Since a significant percentage of our Al 

587: abundances were determined using synthesis analyses, we tested for systematic

588: offsets between synthesis and equivalent width methods.  For sample stars that

589: were both metal--poor and did not show signs of CN contamination, the 

590: difference in [Al/Fe] determined via both methods was less than 0.05 dex.  

591: However, for higher metallicity stars and those with possible CN contamination,

592: the difference was 0.10--0.20 dex, with equivalent width analyses always 

593: overestimating the abundance.  The quoted values for Al abundances derived via 

594: spectrum synthesis are given as the average from those two lines.  A summary of 

595: our derived abundances is given in Table 6.  Stars with Al determinations 

596: via synthesis are designated by ``Syn" in the 6696 and 6698 \AA\ columns of

597: Table 5.

598: 

599: \subsubsection{Abundance Sensitivity to Model Atmosphere Parameters}

600: 

601: We tested the effects on derived abundances from changes in model atmosphere

602: parameters by altering \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} $\pm$ 100 K, \emph{log g} $\pm$ 

603: 0.25 cm s$^{\rm -2}$, and \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} $\pm$ 0.25 km s$^{\rm -1}$ for 

604: models of [Fe/H]=--2.0, --1.5, and --1.0.  As can be seen in Table 7, 

605: \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} uncertainties are the primary source of error for Fe I 

606: and Al I, and surface gravity is the primary source for Fe II abundances.  

607: This seems logical given that Fe I and Al I reside in a subordinate ionization 

608: state, and Fe II exists in the primary ionization state.  

609: 

610: Following Table 7, an uncertainty of order 100 K in \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} leads 

611: to an error of $\sim$0.10--0.20 dex in Fe I, though the effect is somewhat 

612: reduced at higher metallicity.  The opposite is true for Fe estimates based

613: solely on the Fe II line, where the error range is $\sim$0.05--0.10 dex and 

614: the uncertainty becomes larger with increasing metallicity.  Though the 

615: variation in Al I abundance as a function of \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} uncertainty 

616: is smaller than for Fe I, it is still of order 0.10 dex with a weak dependence

617: on metallicity.

618: 

619: The effects of surface gravity uncertainty are of order 0.10 dex for the Fe II 

620: line, but are negligible for the neutral Fe and Al lines.  For this reason,

621: enforcing ionization equilibrium between different species is often used for

622: constraining surface gravity estimates.  As mentioned in $\S$4.2.1, having only

623: one Fe II line means the Fe abundance derived from Fe II is probably no more

624: accurate than the typical line--to--line scatter present in Fe I 

625: ($\sigma$$\sim$0.10--0.15 dex).  Combined with the sensitivity of Fe II to 

626: surface gravity estimates of order $\pm$0.25 cm s$^{\rm -2}$, the fact that 

627: agreement between Fe I and Fe II is better than about 0.10 dex (see 

628: Figure \ref{f5}) suggests estimates based on evolutionary arguments provide a 

629: decent approximation to the surface gravity; however, Table 7 shows this has 

630: little effect on our derived Fe I and Al I abundances.  From this, we can 

631: safely assume that contamination from AGB stars, which have M$\sim$0.60 

632: M$_{\sun}$ and thus a lower surface gravity, will not significantly alter our 

633: results.

634: 

635: The ad hoc microturbulence parameter, adjusted to remove abundance trends as 

636: a function of reduced width, has the strongest effect for lines lying on the

637: flat part of the curve of growth.  As is seen in Table 7, the effect on the Fe I

638: abundance due to uncertainty in \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} increases with increasing 

639: metallicity because the lines become progressively stronger.  However, Fe II 

640: and Al I are mostly unaffected due to their relatively small equivalent widths 

641: and the effect on Fe I is still $<$0.10 dex even at [Fe/H]=--1.0.

642: 

643: In addition to variations in model stellar atmosphere parameters we tested the 

644: sensitivity of Al abundance to CN strength via spectrum synthesis by varying 

645: [N/Fe]$\pm$0.30 dex.  Changing the nitrogen abundance by this amount worsens 

646: the fit to the CN lines in the spectrum, but alters the derived [Al/Fe] 

647: abundance less than 0.10 dex at all metallicities.  Note that since [O/Fe] is 

648: unknown for most of our program stars and [O/Fe] can have values ranging from 

649: about +0.30 to less than --0.50, it is not possible to constrain the molecular

650: equilibrium equations to derive true [C/Fe] and [N/Fe].  We present the 

651: [Al/Fe] results for each metallicity bin in Table 7.

652: 

653: \subsection{Comparison with the Literature}

654: 

655: While $\omega$ Cen has been the subject of multiple abundance studies 

656: (see $\S$ 1 for a brief review), most of these are low resolution studies that 

657: do not involve elements other than Fe and/or Ca.  Therefore, we are only 

658: comparing results in the literature for which moderate to high resolution 

659: Al data are available and with which we have three or more stars in common.

660: This limits the comparison to Brown \& Wallerstein (1993; 3 stars), Norris \& 

661: Da Costa (1995; 24 stars), Zucker et al. (1996; 4 stars), and Smith et al.

662: (2000; 3 stars).

663: 

664: In Figure \ref{f8}, we present the values of \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$}, 

665: \emph{log g}, [Fe/H], and \emph{V$_{\rm t}$} given in the literature versus 

666: those obtained in this study.  As can be seen from the figure, agreement is 

667: quite good for the temperature and surface gravity estimates, with the scatter 

668: increasing slightly for the metallicity and microturbulence estimates.  For 

669: \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$}, the average offset between our study and the literature 

670: is --7 K ($\sigma$$\sim$50 K), and the average difference for \emph{log g} 

671: is --0.02 cm s$^{\rm -2}$ ($\sigma$$\sim$0.10 cm s$^{\rm -2}$).  This 

672: indicates that any disagreement between literature Fe and Al abundances and 

673: ours is not due to choices of \emph{T$_{\rm eff}$} and \emph{log g}.  

674: Similarly, [Fe/H] measurements agree to within 0.02 dex on average 

675: ($\sigma$$\sim$0.20 dex).  The reason for the larger dispersion in 

676: microturbulence estimates is not entirely clear, but it could be due to factors

677: such as the number of lines available, data quality, continuum placement, and 

678: type of lines used (i.e., high and/or low excitation potential).  However,

679: on average the agreement is within 0.10 km s$^{\rm -1}$ ($\sigma$$\sim$0.25 km

680: s$^{\rm -1}$).

681: 

682: Comparison between our derived [Al/Fe] abundances versus those in the 

683: literature are provided in Figure \ref{f9}.  Given the various data qualities,

684: choices of model atmospheres and parameters, and adopted atomic line data, 

685: agreement is again quite good.  The average offset between our derived 

686: abundances and those available in the literature is 0.06 dex 

687: ($\sigma$$\sim$0.30 dex).  Given that typical uncertainties in [Al/Fe] are of 

688: order 0.10--0.20 dex, agreement is comparable to that range. 

689: 

690: \section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}

691: 

692: \subsection{Fe Abundances}

693: 

694: As discussed in $\S$1, it has been known for many years and shown by several 

695: authors that $\omega$ Cen has a considerable spread in metallicity that ranges

696: from slightly less than [Fe/H]=--2.0 to more than [Fe/H]=--0.7.  While several

697: lower resolution spectroscopic (Norris et al. 1996; Suntzeff \& Kraft 1996; 

698: Sollima et al. 2005b; Kayser et al. 2006; Stanford et al. 2006; Stanford et al.

699: 2007; van Loon et al. 2007\footnote{The referee noted discrepancies between 

700: the [Fe/H] values derived by Norris \& Da Costa (1995) and van Loon et al. 

701: (2007).  We note that our results agree with Norris \& Da Costa and a detailed 

702: resolution of this problem is beyond the scope of this paper.}; Villanova et 

703: al. 2007) and photometric (Lee et al. 1999; Hilker \& Richtler 2000; Hughes \& 

704: Wallerstein 2000; Pancino et al. 2000; van Leeuwen et al. 2000; Rey et al. 

705: 2004; Stanford et al. 2004; Sollima et al. 2005a; Stanford et al. 2006) 

706: studies have obtained metallicity estimates for a large number of stars 

707: (N$\ga$500 in some cases), there have only been a few high resolution 

708: spectroscopic studies with a significant number (N$\ga$10) of stars observed 

709: (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000; Piotto et al. 2005; Sollima et 

710: al. 2006).  However, aside from the present study, Norris \& Da Costa (1995) 

711: still represents the largest (N=40) single high resolution analysis of 

712: $\omega$ Cen RGB stars.  The general results from the metallicity studies can 

713: be summarized as: (1) few stars exist at [Fe/H]$<$--2.0, (2) a primary peak in 

714: the metallicity distribution is observed at [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.8 to --1.6, (3) 

715: there is a long tail of increasing metallicity up to [Fe/H]$\sim$--0.5, and 

716: (4) there appear to be multiple peaks in the distribution at various [Fe/H] 

717: values.

718: 

719: In Figure \ref{f10}, we present a histogram of our derived metallicity 

720: distribution function for all 180 stars.  We find in agreement with previous 

721: studies that there are at least four distinct populations with the most 

722: metal--poor having [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.75, the two intermediate metallicity

723: populations have [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.45 and --1.05, and the most metal--rich 

724: population has [Fe/H]$\sim$--0.75.  While our observations are skewed towards

725: observing more metal--poor stars (see Figure \ref{f2}), there are

726: intrinsically more metal--poor than metal--rich stars, as can be seen in 

727: Figure \ref{f1}.  This means our derived metallicity distribution is affected 

728: by \emph{both} the actual distribution \emph{and} observational selection

729: effects.  Given that we only observed one star on the most metal--rich branch, 

730: it is possible that stars with metallicities higher than [Fe/H]=--0.75 exist. 

731: However, since our observed completion fraction is significantly higher for

732: the most metal--poor stars, it is likely that our observed distribution

733: function is accurate in a relative sense such that the cluster was rapidly 

734: enriched from the primordial metallicity of [Fe/H]$\sim$--2.15 to the first

735: major epoch of star formation at [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.75.  The absence of stars more 

736: metal--poor than [Fe/H]$\sim$--2.2 means the proto--$\omega$ Cen environment 

737: was already pre--enriched, perhaps from processes such as cloud--cloud 

738: collisions (Tsujimoto et al. 2003), when the primary metal--poor population 

739: formed.  In contrast, field stars in the Galactic halo exhibit a wide range of 

740: metallicities from [Fe/H]$>$0.0 to [Fe/H]$<$--4.0 (e.g., Gratton et al. 2004),

741: indicating that the two do not share a common chemical enrichment history.

742: 

743: The distribution shown in Figure \ref{f10} suggests that if $\omega$ Cen 

744: evolved as a single entity (i.e., without significant contributions from 

745: mergers), then there were four to five significant star formation episodes

746: that occurred.  This seems to fit the high resolution photometric data from 

747: Sollima et al. (2005a) and Villanova et al. (2007) that show the multiple 

748: giant branches appear in discrete groups instead of as a continuous 

749: distribution.  This trend is similarly reproduced in Figure \ref{f11}, where 

750: our derived metallicities are superimposed on the photometric data from van 

751: Leeuwen et al. (2000).  Here, even when binning by the approximate 3$\sigma$

752: value of each peak in the distribution from Figure \ref{f10} (0.3 dex), the 

753: different metallicity groups can be separated.  The metallicity distribution 

754: from Figure \ref{f10} is very well produced in the hydrodynamical chemical 

755: enrichment simulations of Marcolini et al. (2007), where they assumed $\omega$ 

756: Cen is the core remnant of a dwarf spheroidal galaxy that was captured and 

757: tidally stripped $\sim$10 Gyr ago with star formation occurring over roughly 

758: 1.5 Gyr.  The simulated metallicity peaks from Marcolini et al. (2007) lie at 

759: [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.6, --1.35, --1.0, and --0.70, which are very similar to ours

760: at [Fe/H]=--1.75, --1.45, --1.05, and --0.75.  

761: 

762: There is some evidence that different metallicity populations may be spatially

763: and kinematically unique (Norris et al. 1996; 1997; Suntzeff \& Kraft 1996; 

764: Hilker \& Richtler 2000; Pancino et al. 2000; 2003).  In Figure \ref{f12}, we 

765: present Fe and Al abundances as a function of distance from the cluster 

766: center.  Keeping in mind our observational bias, we find a marginal tendency 

767: for the more metal--rich stars to be located in the inner regions of the 

768: cluster while the more metal--poor stars are rather evenly distributed at all 

769: radii sampled here.  However, given our small sample size in the metal--rich

770: regime, we are unable to make any definitive arguments for or against a 

771: metallicity--radius relationship.  It should be noted though that Ikuta \& 

772: Arimoto (2000) and Rey et al. (2004) do not find any strong evidence for the 

773: metal--poor and metal--rich populations having a spatially different structure.

774: Even though the relaxation time for $\omega$ Cen is thought to exceed 5 Gyr

775: (Djorgovski 1993; Merritt et al. 1997), any correlation between projected 

776: spatial position and metallicity is apparently subtle.  However, it has been

777: pointed out in deep photometric surveys (e.g., Rey et al. 2004) that the most

778: metal--rich RGB--a is predominately seen in CMDs of the inner region of the 

779: cluster.  

780: 

781: The main result indicating that at least the most metal--rich

782: population may have a different formation history is that those stars appear 

783: to have a lower velocity dispersion (i.e. are kinematically cooler) than the 

784: other populations and do not show signs of rotation (Norris et al. 1997).

785: In Figure \ref{f13} we show our derived radial velocities plotted both as a 

786: function of log $\epsilon$(Fe)\footnote{log 

787: $\epsilon$(X)=log(N$_{\rm X}$/N$_{\rm H}$)+12} and log $\epsilon$(Al), where 

788: the error bars indicate the velocity dispersion in the data.  To within one 

789: standard deviation, we do not find significant evidence for any of the stellar 

790: populations having a different bulk radial velocity or velocity dispersion.

791: It seems unlikely that a larger sample size would provide significantly

792: different results because Reijns et al. (2006) determined radial velocities

793: for nearly 2000 $\omega$ Cen members and concluded the RGB--a stars had radial

794: velocity and dispersion values consistent with the entire cluster.  Pancino

795: et al. (2007) have shown the rotational velocities for all populations are 

796: comparable to one another, but interestingly they find an underlying sinusoidal

797: pattern in their measured velocities as a function of position angle.  However,

798: the metal--poor, intermediate metallicity, and anomalous giant branches all

799: show the same sinusoidal pattern.  Whether any true kinematic anomaly exists 

800: for this cluster or not remains to be seen.  

801: 

802: \subsection{Al Abundances}

803: 

804: The bulk of aluminum production in galaxies and globular clusters is thought

805: to arise from quiescent carbon and neon burning in massive stars 

806: (M$\ga$8 M$_{\sun}$) and HBB occurring in the envelopes of IM--AGB stars via 

807: the MgAl cycle (e.g., Arnett \& Truran 1969; Arnett 1971).  In most Galactic 

808: globular clusters, there is a very small ($<$0.10 dex) spread in the abundance 

809: of heavy $\alpha$ and Fe--peak elements, with a somewhat larger spread 

810: ($\sim$0.3--0.6 dex) in s-- and r--process elements (e.g., Sneden et al. 

811: 2000).  However, the lighter elements carbon through aluminum are typically 

812: not uniform and in some cases show star--to--star variations of more than a 

813: factor of 10.  While $\omega$ Cen does not share all of the same chemical 

814: characteristics as globular clusters, the primary production locations of each 

815: element should be similar to globular clusters and/or the Galactic halo.  The 

816: lesson learned from the monometallicity of ``normal" globular clusters is that 

817: however Al manifests itself onto the surface of stars, the process must not 

818: alter Fe--peak, s--process, or r--process abundance ratios.   This means that 

819: the often large star--to--star variation of [Al/Fe] seen in globular clusters 

820: (but not in halo field stars) are not due to supernova yields or the 

821: s--process, leaving either in situ deep mixing or HBB as the possible sites 

822: for [Al/Fe] variation.  With these two scenarios in mind, we explore Al 

823: abundances with the goal of helping to constrain the source of Al variation 

824: and chemical evolution in $\omega$ Cen.

825: 

826: While the literature on Fe abundances for both evolved and main sequence stars

827: is quite extensive, the spectroscopic surveys by Norris \& Da Costa (1995) and 

828: Smith et al. (2000) represent the only studies to consider light element 

829: abundances that include Al for a large (N$\ge$10) number of RGB stars in 

830: $\omega$ Cen.  The results of those two studies indicate that the full range 

831: of [Al/Fe] is larger than 1.0 dex, Al and Na are correlated, Al and O are 

832: anticorrelated, and there is a hint of a decrease in [Al/Fe] with increasing 

833: [Fe/H].  We present the results of our larger sample plotting [Al/Fe] as a 

834: function of [Fe/H] in Figure \ref{f14}.  Even for the lowest metallicity 

835: stars, a large range in [Al/Fe] of $\sim$0.70 dex is already present.  Near 

836: the first metallicity peak at [Fe/H]=--1.75, where it is assumed the first 

837: episode of star formation after the initial enrichment period occurred, the 

838: full range in [Al/Fe] reaches a maximum value of $\sim$1.3 dex.  This 

839: star--to--star variation remains mostly constant until about [Fe/H]=--1.4, 

840: where the variation begins to decrease smoothly with increasing [Fe/H].  

841: Interestingly, the ``floor" Al abundance remains mostly constant at 

842: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15, regardless of the star's metallicity; a characteristic 

843: shared with many globular clusters of various metallicity and in agreement 

844: with [Al/Fe] values typical of Galactic halo stars in $\omega$ Cen's 

845: metallicity regime.

846: 

847: In Figure \ref{f15}, we overlay a boxplot on top of the underlying 

848: distribution from Figure \ref{f14}.  The median [Al/Fe] ratio

849: typically resides between about 0.45 and 0.80 dex for all well--sampled 

850: metallicities, with a relatively constant interquartile range.  This implies

851: that the average amount of Al in the cluster must increase with increasing Fe 

852: abundance, at least up to [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4.  This result is confirmed in

853: Figure \ref{f16}, where log $\epsilon$(Al) is plotted against log 

854: $\epsilon$(Fe).  It appears that for metallicities higher than about log 

855: $\epsilon$(Fe)=6.0 ([Fe/H]$\approx$--1.50), log $\epsilon$(Al) no longer 

856: increases beyond log $\epsilon$(Al)$\approx$6.40 and the star--to--star scatter

857: decreases.  This result is likely robust against our observational bias 

858: because all stars observed in the metal--rich regime are located at or near 

859: the RGB tip (see Figure \ref{f1}), where it is believed any Al enhancements 

860: due to deep mixing should be the most apparent.  However, no obvious trend is 

861: seen between Al abundance and evolutionary state.

862: 

863: As discussed previously, there is some evidence for a correlation between

864: Fe abundance and distance from the cluster center and we show the results

865: from this study in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{f12}.  In the top panel of

866: Figure \ref{f12}, we present the same data but for Al instead of Fe.  While

867: there may be a tendency for the most metal--rich stars to be located

868: inwards of about 10--15$\arcmin$, there is no evidence of a trend for Al.

869: Instead, stars of varying Al abundance are uniformly spread throughout the 

870: entire region sampled, at least out to $\sim$20$\arcmin$.  Likewise, the top 

871: panel of Figure \ref{f13} shows average radial velocities for Al abundances in 

872: 0.10 dex bins.  To within uncertainties, there appears to be no trend in 

873: either radial velocity or velocity dispersion with log $\epsilon$(Al).  The 

874: fact that we do not find any preference of Al abundance or star--to--star 

875: dispersion with distance from the cluster center or radial velocity suggests 

876: star formation occurred on timescales shorter than those required to uniformly 

877: mix the gas.

878: 

879: \subsection{Possible Implications on Chemical Evolution}

880: 

881: From our available spectroscopic data for 180 RGB stars, we have 

882: confirmed the existence of at least four stellar populations ranging in 

883: metallicity from --2.2$<$[Fe/H]$<$--0.70, in agreement with previous

884: photometric, low resolution spectroscopic, and smaller sample high resolution

885: spectroscopic studies.  Additionally, we have determined [Al/Fe] abundances

886: for about 165 giants, most of which for the first time, with a sample larger

887: by more than a factor of four than what was previously available in the 

888: literature.  We find a constant Al abundance floor of [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15 

889: present at all metallicities, but with a largely varying and metallicity 

890: dependent spread above the floor.  The star--to--star variation reaches a

891: maximum extent in the intermediate metallicity regime, which is consistent with 

892: the second peak in the metallicity distribution, and begins to decline at 

893: higher metallicities.  The floor itself is consistent with observations of 

894: field stars and is predicted by Galactic chemical evolution models, but the 

895: large [Al/Fe] variations are not predicted.  Observations of some Galactic 

896: globular cluster stars, especially more metal--poor than [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.5,

897: show similar large star--to--star variations in [Al/Fe].  Combining our 

898: determined Fe and Al abundances with those available in the literature for 

899: these and other elements now allows us to examine each metallicity regime

900: in turn.

901: 

902: \subsubsection{The Metal--Poor Population}

903: 

904: A prominent feature of the metal--poor stars ([Fe/H]$\la$--1.6) in $\omega$ 

905: Cen is the rapidly increasing abundances of Na, Al, and light and heavy 

906: s--process elements relative to Fe as the metallicity increases from 

907: [Fe/H]=--2.2 to the first metallicity peak at [Fe/H]=--1.75 (e.g., Norris \& 

908: Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000).  These increases are accompanied by nearly

909: constant heavy [$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim$+0.30, low Cu abundances 

910: ([Cu/Fe]$\sim$--0.60), and low r--process abundances ([Eu/Fe]$\sim$--0.50).  

911: These results seem to indicate that massive stars exploding as type II SNe are 

912: the primary contributors for Fe--peak and heavy $\alpha$--element enhancement 

913: in the cluster, but the low Eu abundances, which should be synthesized in the 

914: same stars, are puzzling.  Additionally, the growing s--process component 

915: appears to be best fit by models of 1.5--3 M$_{\sun}$ AGB ejecta (Smith et al. 

916: 2000).  The lack of clear evidence for type Ia SNe having contributed to the 

917: chemical composition of metal--poor stars in $\omega$ Cen (e.g., Smith et al. 

918: 2000; Cunha et al. 2002; Pancino et al. 2002; Platais et al. 2003) is 

919: consistent with the $\ga$1 Gyr timescales needed for type Ia SNe to evolve and 

920: the fact that they might not efficiently form in metal--poor environments 

921: (Kobayashi et al. 1998).

922: 

923: As mentioned above, the majority of Al present in the atmospheres of 

924: these RGB stars was likely produced in type II SNe explosions that polluted the

925: pristine gas from which these stars formed.  While the heavy element data 

926: do not support high mass ($\ga$8M$_{\sun}$) stars being the source for the 

927: more than 1.0 dex [Al/Fe] variations, that may be explained from HBB occurring 

928: in IM--AGB stars, in situ deep mixing, or a hybrid scenario.  In Figures 

929: \ref{f14}--\ref{f16}, we have shown that [Al/Fe]$\ge$0 for \emph{all} 

930: metal--poor stars sampled, but a constant Al abundance floor is setup at 

931: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15 with a rapidly increasing star--to--star dispersion that 

932: reaches about 1.3 dex in extent by [Fe/H]=--1.75.  For the neutron capture 

933: elements, which are the only other group exhibiting a variations with 

934: metallicity, Smith et al. (2000) showed stars with [Fe/H]$\sim$--2 are 

935: dominated by an r--process component with a shift to a primarily s--process 

936: component by [Fe/H]$\ga$--1.8.  

937: 

938: In the pure pollution scenario, which does not invoke deep mixing affecting 

939: elements heavier than N, type II SNe, low and IM--AGB stars, and perhaps winds 

940: from less evolved very massive stars (e.g., Maeder \& Meynet 2006) are 

941: responsible for all abundance anomalies.  Adding our large Al data set to the 

942: sample of stars previously observed may help constrain enrichment timescales 

943: and polluting AGB masses.  Conventional theory suggests light and s--process 

944: elements do not share the same origin and $\omega$ Cen's s--process component 

945: is best fit with lower mass AGB stars, but masses lower than $\sim$3--4 

946: M$_{\sun}$ undergo third dredgeup without significant HBB (e.g., Karakas \& 

947: Lattanzio 2007) and thus should not appreciably alter their envelope Al 

948: abundances.  Additionally, Ventura \& D'Antona (2007) suggest globular cluster 

949: light element anomalies can only be explained with ejecta from AGB stars in 

950: the mass range of $\sim$5--6.5 M$_{\sun}$.  While our sample only includes two 

951: stars with [Fe/H]$<$--2 (36036 \& 51091), the elevated [Al/Fe] ratios of +0.40 

952: and +1.13 suggest IM--AGB stars, with lifetimes of about 

953: 50--150$\times$10$^{\rm 6}$ yrs (Schaller et al. 1992), have already polluted 

954: the $\omega$ Cen system.  In this case, the low metallicity environment would 

955: favor high [Al/Fe] yields from HBB processes occurring in IM--AGB stars.  The 

956: rapidly rising average value of log $\epsilon$(Al) shown in Figure \ref{f16} 

957: in the metallicity regime --2.0$\la$[Fe/H]$\la$--1.6 implies a continued 

958: contribution from IM--AGB stars, presumably forming from the same star 

959: formation event that creates the first peak in the metallicity distribution.  

960: The top two panels of Figure \ref{f17} show binned [Al/Fe] for this 

961: metallicity regime and we note approximately four sub--populations with 

962: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15, +0.45, +0.85, and $>$+1.05.  Predicted yields from type II 

963: SNe (e.g., Woosley \& Weaver 1995) and measurements of field stars (e.g., 

964: Fulbright 2000) suggest type II SNe should enrich the ISM with 

965: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.10 to +0.30 while $\sim$5--6.5 M$_{\sun}$ AGB stars should 

966: produce [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.50 to +1.10 (e.g., D'Antona \& Ventura 2007), which 

967: could explain our observed distribution.  Given the rather short lifetimes of 

968: stars believed to produce Al and the fact that evidence for 1.5--3.0 M$_{\sun}$

969: pollution does not appear until [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.8, it would seem that 

970: $\omega$ Cen was probably enriched from [Fe/H]=--2.2 to --1.75 in 

971: $\sim$0.5--1.0 Gyr.

972: 

973: \subsubsection{The Intermediate Metallicity Populations}

974: 

975: For the two intermediate metallicity populations ([Fe/H]=--1.45 and

976: [Fe/H]=--1.05), the heavy [$\alpha$/Fe] ratio remains constant and the 

977: s--process abundances level off with very little star--to--star dispersion

978: (Norris \& Da Costa 1995; Smith et al. 2000).  As in the most metal--poor 

979: stars, r--process and Cu ratios relative to Fe remain low and mostly 

980: unchanged.  However, the star--to--star scatter in O, Na, and Al is still 

981: quite large.  It is interesting to point out that log $\epsilon$(Al) reaches

982: its maximum value at about the same metallicity at which the s--process 

983: elements reach a constant ratio relative to Fe.  The 

984: [Al/Fe] abundance floor is constant throughout this metallicity regime at 

985: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15, which means the scatter, still considerably larger than for 

986: [Ba/Fe], decreases as a function of increasing metallicity.  This trend should 

987: presumably be present for Na and in the opposite sense for O assuming the 

988: Na--Al correlation and O--Al anticorrelation exist at all metallicities.

989: 

990: Had the scatter in Al abundances been comparable to that of other heavier

991: elements in this metallicity range ($\sim$0.10--0.30 dex) with a nearly 

992: constant [Al/Fe] ratio, as is seen in field stars, we might be inclined to 

993: believe Al enhancement in the cluster was due solely to production in massive 

994: stars and that typical type II SNe ejecta have [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15.  It is 

995: interesting to note that the [Al/Fe] floor tracks closely (with a slight 

996: offset of $\sim$0.2-0.3 dex) to the Galactic chemical evolution model 

997: presented in Timmes et al. (1995; their Figure 19), assuming the amount of Fe 

998: ejected is decreased by a factor of two, and Samland (1998; their Figure 10), 

999: with an increase in secondary (i.e., metal--dependent) Al production by a 

1000: factor of five.  If the well--known light element correlations/anticorrelations 

1001: seen in previously observed $\omega$ Cen stars (e.g., Norris \& Da Costa 1995) 

1002: holds at all metallicities and for all stars, those with [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15 

1003: should also have [O/Fe]$\sim$+0.30, heavy [$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim$+0.30, and 

1004: [Na/Fe]$\sim$--0.20, which are consistent with predicted yields from type II 

1005: SNe (e.g., Woosley \& Weaver 1995).  It could be that these stars formed 

1006: preferentially out of SNe ejecta without significant IM--AGB contamination.

1007: 

1008: While the maximum observed log $\epsilon$(Al) increases with metallicity for

1009: the most metal--poor $\omega$ Cen giants, this trend halts at 

1010: [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4, which coincides with the second peak in the metallicity 

1011: distribution (i.e., the next round of star formation).  We know the heavy

1012: [$\alpha$/Fe], [Ba/Fe], and floor [Al/Fe] ratios remain constant at higher 

1013: metallicities, indicating an increase in log $\epsilon$(Ba), log 

1014: $\epsilon$($\alpha$), and the minimum log $\epsilon$(Al) that track with Fe.  

1015: The question now posed by the Al data is why does the process producing the 

1016: high Al values shut off or become less efficient at [Fe/H]$\ga$--1.45?  

1017: Increases in metallicity lead to lower temperatures at the bottom of the 

1018: convective envelope and require higher masses for HBB to occur.  It may be 

1019: that we are observing the result of lower convective efficiency at higher 

1020: metallicity and/or that fewer IM stars form in higher metallicity environment.

1021: IM--AGB models in the metallicity range of --1.5$\la$[Fe/H]$\la$--0.7 (e.g., 

1022: Fenner et al. 2004; Ventura \& D'Antona 2007; 2008) predict [Al/Fe] yields of 

1023: $\sim$+0.5 to +1.0, with lower [Al/Fe] yields at higher [Fe/H].  This may 

1024: explain the bimodal distribution in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{f17}, 

1025: with the abundances in between possibly being due to varying degrees of ejecta 

1026: dilution.  The fact that the metallicity at which the heavy elements cease to 

1027: increase in abundance more quickly than Fe and the metallicity where the 

1028: maximum [Al/Fe] begins to decrease coincide suggests an important parameter 

1029: changed in $\omega$ Cen at this point in its evolution.  It may even be the 

1030: case that this is when the progenitor dwarf galaxy began to change 

1031: structurally via encounters with the Galactic disk.  It appears that at 

1032: metallicities higher than [Fe/H]=--1.45, the cluster slowly approaches a 

1033: constant [Al/Fe], which is consistent with values observed in the halo.

1034: 

1035: While type Ia ejecta have been mostly ruled out by previous studies as 

1036: contributors to the most metal--poor population, the metallicity at which they

1037: become important contributors is unclear.  Marcolini et al. (2007) claim that 

1038: their intermediate metallicity peak at [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4 is due primarily to 

1039: inhomogeneous pollution by type Ia SNe.  It is interesting to note that in this

1040: same metallicity bin we find a median [Al/Fe] value about 0.40 dex lower than

1041: the two surrounding bins as well as the only star with [Al/Fe]$\la$+0.15.  It is

1042: uncertain whether this is a real effect or simply due to an anomalous selection

1043: of stars.  Inhomogeneous pollution by type Ia SNe may also explain the bimodal

1044: distribution seen in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{f17} where stars

1045: polluted by both type Ia ejecta and IM--AGB stars exhibit lower [Al/Fe] ratios

1046: and ``normal" stars polluted by type II SNe and IM--AGB stars have higher 

1047: [Al/Fe] values.  While the same trend is not particularly apparent for

1048: s--process elements (e.g., Smith et al. 2000), this may be due to a smaller 

1049: sample size, especially if inhomogeneous pollution only affected a small 

1050: percentage of intermediate metallicity stars; however, this could explain the

1051: few observations in the literature of stars with [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.4 and 

1052: [Ba/Fe]$\sim$0 (e.g., Smith et al. 1995).

1053: 

1054: \subsubsection{The Metal--Rich Population}

1055: 

1056: For stars more metal--rich than [Fe/H]$\sim$--1, there is some evidence of

1057: a decrease in [$\alpha$/Fe] and an increase in [Cu/Fe] (Pancino et al. 2002;

1058: but see also Cunha et al. 2002), which, if true, likely indicates an increased

1059: contribution from type Ia SNe.  Similarly, there appears to be a decrease in

1060: [Eu/Fe] with perhaps a similar decrease in the abundance of s--process elements

1061: relative to Fe (Norris \& Da Costa; Smith et al. 2000).  Although the Al data 

1062: are rather incomplete in this metallicity regime, the general trends seen in 

1063: slightly more metal--poor stars appear to continue.

1064: 

1065: While the scope of an age spread amongst the various metallicity populations

1066: is still unknown, the Al data presented here seem to indicate that the age

1067: difference between the intermediate and metal--rich populations is not

1068: especially large.  In particular, stars with the largest values of log

1069: $\epsilon$(Al) appear with [Fe/H] ranging from --1.5 to --0.7, perhaps 

1070: indicating that they formed from gas polluted by the same generation of 

1071: IM--AGB ejecta.  In this scenario, the lower [Al/Fe] ratios at high metallicity

1072: might be due to those stars forming in regions where [Fe/H] increased due to

1073: inhomogeneous pollution by type Ia SNe, as mentioned in Marcolini et al. 

1074: (2007).  In their scenario, this effect should be more important for the inner

1075: regions of the cluster.  This may be corroborated by our finding that there

1076: is no apparent relationship between log $\epsilon$(Al) and distance from the

1077: cluster center, but a trend might be present for Fe such that stars with 

1078: [Fe/H]$>$--1 are preferentially located closer to the cluster center.  In any

1079: case, additional data are required in this metallicity regime to determine 

1080: whether the decreasing [Al/Fe] ratios are a real effect or the result of 

1081: incomplete statistics.  It will be interesting to see if O and Na display 

1082: similar behavior to Al as a function of [Fe/H].

1083: 

1084: \section{SUMMARY}

1085: 

1086: We have determined radial velocities, Fe, and Al abundances for 180 RGB stars 

1087: in the Galactic globular cluster $\omega$ Cen using moderate resolution

1088: (R$\approx$13,000) spectroscopy.  The bulk of our sample includes stars with 

1089: V$<$14.0, but an observational bias is present such that we preferentially

1090: observed more luminous and more metal--poor stars.  The spectra ranged from

1091: 6500--6750 \AA\ and Fe abundances were based on an average of approximately

1092: 10--20 Fe I lines.  Al abundances were determined using either spectrum 

1093: synthesis or equivalent width analyses of the 6696, 6698 \AA\ Al I doublet,

1094: with synthesis being reserved for CN--strong and/or metal--rich stars.

1095: 

1096: With respect to our determined Fe abundances, we find in agreement with 

1097: previous studies that at least four or more different metallicity populations 

1098: are present in the cluster.  Peaks in the metallicity distribution function 

1099: appear at [Fe/H]=--1.75, --1.45, --1.05, and --0.75, indicating the presence of

1100: multiple star formation episodes.  We do not find evidence suggesting any of 

1101: the different metallicity populations are kinematically or spatially unique,

1102: but it should be noted that our observed completion fraction is low for stars

1103: more metal--rich than [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.0 and we only observed stars between about

1104: 2$\arcmin$ and 20$\arcmin$ from the cluster center.

1105: 

1106: Our Al data corroborate the Fe results such that there does not appear to be 

1107: any correlation between Al abundance and distance from the cluster center or

1108: radial velocity.  This suggests that the cluster gas was not significantly 

1109: mixed while star formation was still occurring.  In a plot of [Al/Fe] versus 

1110: [Fe/H], the data reveal a star--to--star variation of nearly 1.3 dex that 

1111: stays mostly constant until [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.45, in which case the spread in 

1112: [Al/Fe] declines monotonically with increasing [Fe/H].  Additionally, the 

1113: [Al/Fe] floor remains nearly constant across all metallicities sampled here at 

1114: [Al/Fe]$\sim$+0.15.  This result is similar to what is predicted based on type 

1115: II SNe yields and closely mimics the trend seen in Galactic halo field stars. 

1116: The anomalously low median [Al/Fe] ratio at [Fe/H]=--1.45 may be evidence 

1117: for inhomogeneous pollution from type Ia SNe and could explain the bimodal

1118: [Al/Fe] distribution seen in intermediate metallicity stars, but more 

1119: observations are required to confirm whether this is real or the result of 

1120: an incomplete sample.

1121: 

1122: The source of the [Al/Fe] spread that has also been observed in other light 

1123: elements remains an open problem, but the results obtained here pose some 

1124: interesting questions.  A plot of log $\epsilon$(Al) versus log $\epsilon$(Fe) 

1125: shows that log $\epsilon$(Al) no longer increases beyond about 6.40 at 

1126: metallicities higher than [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.45, which is coincident with the 

1127: second peak in the metallicity distribution function.  Apparently, whatever 

1128: process is responsible for manifesting very high Al abundances shuts down or 

1129: becomes less efficient at intermediate and high metallicities.  In ``normal" 

1130: metal--poor globular clusters, the large star--to--star variations seen in the

1131: light elements are not shared by Fe--peak and neutron capture elements, and

1132: it has been suggested that HBB occurring in IM--AGB stars or in situ deep 

1133: mixing are responsible for the light element abundance anomalies.  Without

1134: a comparable sample of O and Na data to supplement the Al abundances here,

1135: it is difficult to determine the role either source plays.  However, AGB yields

1136: of stars undergoing HBB indicate stars forming from material polluted by

1137: AGB ejecta can only reach [Al/Fe] ratios between about +0.5 and +1.0, with

1138: perhaps slightly lower and higher values being reached in higher and lower

1139: metallicity environments, respectively.

1140: 

1141: It may be possible to explain the Al data such that core--collapse SNe drive 

1142: the [Al/Fe] floor and an AGB mass spectrum with varying HBB efficiencies and 

1143: mixing depths are responsible for much of the additional scatter present.  The 

1144: decrease in the maximum [Al/Fe] with increasing [Fe/H] might then be 

1145: attributed to requiring higher mass stars for HBB to occur at temperatures 

1146: adequate to activate the full \iso{24}{Mg} to \iso{27}{Al} cycle, which means 

1147: the burning material is exposed for a shorter amount of time and thus leads to 

1148: less [Al/Fe] enhancement.  Whether this can be made to work quantitatively in 

1149: light of the problems associated with AGB pollution scenarios (see $\S$1) 

1150: remains to be seen.

1151: 

1152: \acknowledgments

1153: 

1154: We would like to thank the anonymous referee for a detailed and helpful report

1155: which improved the manuscript and for pointing out the possible significance 

1156: of type Ia SN pollution at intermediate metallicities.  We would also like to 

1157: thank Bob Kraft and Chris Sneden for helpful discussions regarding this paper 

1158: and Bertrand Plez for providing an electronic copy of his CN linelist.  This 

1159: publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, 

1160: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared 

1161: Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by 

1162: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science 

1163: Foundation. This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System 

1164: Bibliographic Services.  This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, 

1165: operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.  Support for DS was provided by grant 

1166: AST-0139617 from the NSF for a summer REU program.  Support of the College of 

1167: Arts and Sciences and the Daniel Kirkwood fund at Indiana University 

1168: Bloomington for CIJ is gratefully acknowledged.

1169: 

1170: {\it Facilities:} \facility{CTIO}

1171: 

1172: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(1994)]{1994A&A...282..684A} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., 

1175: \& Martinez-Roger, C.\ 1994, \aap, 282, 684

1176: 

1177: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(1998)]{1998A&AS..131..209A} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., 

1178: \& Martinez-Roger, C.\ 1998, \aaps, 131, 209

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(1999)]{1999A&AS..140..261A} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., 

1181: \& Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Roger, C.\ 1999, \aaps, 140, 261

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...376.1039A} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., 

1184: \& Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Roger, C.\ 2001, \aap, 376, 1039

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{1989GeCoA..53..197A} Anders, E., \& 

1187: Grevesse, N.\ 1989, \gca, 53, 197

1188: 

1189: \bibitem[Anderson(1997)]{1135} Anderson, J. 1997, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California

1190: at Berkeley

1191: 

1192: \bibitem[Arnett(1971)]{1971ApJ...166..153A} Arnett, W.~D.\ 1971, \apj, 166, 

1193: 153

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[Arnett \& Truran(1969)]{1969ApJ...157..339A} Arnett, W.~D., \& 

1196: Truran, J.~W.\ 1969, \apj, 157, 339 

1197: 

1198: \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...605L.125B} Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G., 

1199: Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I.~R., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G.\ 2004, 

1200: \apjl, 605, L125

1201: 

1202: \bibitem[Bekki \& Norris(2006)]{2006ApJ...637L.109B} Bekki, K., \& Norris,

1203: J.~E.\ 2006, \apjl, 637, L109

1204: 

1205: \bibitem[Bell et al.(1979)]{1979ApJ...229..604B} Bell, R.~A., Dickens, 

1206: R.~J., \& Gustafsson, B.\ 1979, \apj, 229, 604

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[Bellman et al.(2001)]{2001PASP..113..326B} Bellman, S., Briley, 

1209: M.~M., Smith, G.~H., \& Claver, C.~F.\ 2001, \pasp, 113, 326

1210: 

1211: \bibitem[Blackwell \& Shallis(1977)]{1977MNRAS.180..177B} Blackwell, D.~E., 

1212: \& Shallis, M.~J.\ 1977, \mnras, 180, 177

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[Boesgaard et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629..832B} Boesgaard, A.~M., 

1215: King, J.~R., Cody, A.~M., Stephens, A., \& Deliyannis, C.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 

1216: 832

1217: 

1218: \bibitem[Briley et al.(2004a)]{2004AJ....127.1579B} Briley, M.~M., Cohen, 

1219: J.~G., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2004a, \aj, 127, 1579

1220: 

1221: \bibitem[Briley et al.(2004b)]{2004AJ....127.1588B} Briley, M.~M., Harbeck, 

1222: D., Smith, G.~H., \& Grebel, E.~K.\ 2004b, \aj, 127, 1588

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[Brown \& Wallerstein(1993)]{1993AJ....106..133B} Brown, J.~A., \& 

1225: Wallerstein, G.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 133

1226: 

1227: \bibitem[Calamida et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...634L..69C} Calamida, A., et al.\ 

1228: 2005, \apjl, 634, L69

1229: 

1230: \bibitem[Cannon et al.(1998)]{1998MNRAS.298..601C} Cannon, R.~D., Croke, 

1231: B.~F.~W., Bell, R.~A., Hesser, J.~E., \& Stathakis, R.~A.\ 1998, \mnras, 

1232: 298, 601

1233: 

1234: \bibitem[Carbon et al.(1982)]{1982ApJS...49..207C} Carbon, D.~F., 

1235: Romanishin, W., Langer, G.~E., Butler, D., Kemper, E., Trefzger, C.~F., 

1236: Kraft, R.~P., \& Suntzeff, N.~B.\ 1982, \apjs, 49, 207

1237: 

1238: \bibitem[Carpenter(2001)]{2001AJ....121.2851C} Carpenter, J.~M.\ 2001, \aj, 

1239: 121, 2851

1240: 

1241: \bibitem[Castelli et al.(1997)]{1997A&A...318..841C} Castelli, F., Gratton, 

1242: R.~G., \& Kurucz, R.~L.\ 1997, \aap, 318, 841

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[Charbonnel \& Do Nascimento(1998)]{1998A&A...336..915C} 

1245: Charbonnel, C., \& Do Nascimento, J.~D., Jr.\ 1998, \aap, 336, 915

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[Charbonnel \& Zahn(2007)]{2007A&A...467L..15C} Charbonnel, C., \& 

1248: Zahn, J.-P.\ 2007, \aap, 467, L15

1249: 

1250: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....123.2525C} Cohen, J.~G., Briley, 

1251: M.~M., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 2525

1252: 

1253: \bibitem[Cohen \& Mel{\'e}ndez(2005)]{2005AJ....129..303C} Cohen, J.~G., \& 

1254: Mel{\'e}ndez, J.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 303

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[Cunha et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124..379C} Cunha, K., Smith, V.~V., 

1257: Suntzeff, N.~B., Norris, J.~E., Da Costa, G.~S., \& Plez, B.\ 2002, \aj, 

1258: 124, 379

1259: 

1260: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Ventura(2007)]{2007MNRAS.379.1431D} D'Antona, F., \& 

1261: Ventura, P.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 1431

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[Denisenkov \& Denisenkova(1990)]{1990SvAL...16..275D} Denisenkov, 

1264: P.~A., \& Denisenkova, S.~N.\ 1990, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 16, 275

1265: 

1266: \bibitem[Denissenkov \& Weiss(2001)]{2001ApJ...559L.115D} Denissenkov, 

1267: P.~A., \& Weiss, A.\ 2001, \apjl, 559, L115

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[Denissenkov \& Herwig(2003)]{2003ApJ...590L..99D} Denissenkov, 

1270: P.~A., \& Herwig, F.\ 2003, \apjl, 590, L99

1271: 

1272: \bibitem[Dickens et al.(1991)]{1991Natur.351..212D} Dickens, R.~J., Croke, 

1273: B.~F.~W., Cannon, R.~D., \& Bell, R.~A.\ 1991, \nat, 351, 212

1274: 

1275: \bibitem[Dinescu et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....117.1792D} Dinescu, D.~I., Girard, 

1276: T.~M., \& van Altena, W.~F.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 1792

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al. (1997)]{1224} Djorgovski S., 1993, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 

1279: 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters. Astron. Soc. Pac., San 

1280: Francisco, p. 373

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[Fenner et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.353..789F} Fenner, Y., Campbell, 

1283: S., Karakas, A.~I., Lattanzio, J.~C., \& Gibson, B.~K.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 

1284: 789

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...603L..81F} Ferraro, F.~R., 

1287: Sollima, A., Pancino, E., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., Origlia, L., \& 

1288: Cool, A.~M.\ 2004, \apjl, 603, L81

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[Fulbright(2002)]{2002AJ....123..404F} Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2002, \aj,

1291: 123, 404

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[Gnedin et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568L..23G} Gnedin, O.~Y., Zhao, H., 

1294: Pringle, J.~E., Fall, S.~M., Livio, M., \& Meylan, G.\ 2002, \apjl, 568, 

1295: L23

1296: 

1297: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...354..169G} Gratton, R.~G., Sneden, 

1298: C., Carretta, E., \& Bragaglia, A.\ 2000, \aap, 354, 169

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...369...87G} Gratton, R.~G., et al.\ 

1301: 2001, \aap, 369, 87

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2004)]{2004ARA&A..42..385G} Gratton, R., Sneden, 

1304: C., \& Carretta, E.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 385

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{1996AJ....112.1487H} Harris, W.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 

1307: 1487

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[Hilker \& Richtler(2000)]{2000A&A...362..895H} Hilker, M., \& 

1310: Richtler, T.\ 2000, \aap, 362, 895

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[Hilker et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...422L...9H} Hilker, M., Kayser, A., 

1313: Richtler, T., \& Willemsen, P.\ 2004, \aap, 422, L9

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[Hill et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...387..560H} Hill, V., et al.\ 2002, \aap, 

1316: 387, 560

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[Hughes \& Wallerstein(2000)]{2000AJ....119.1225H} Hughes, J., \& 

1319: Wallerstein, G.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 1225

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[Hughes et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127..980H} Hughes, J., Wallerstein, 

1322: G., van Leeuwen, F., \& Hilker, M.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 980

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[Ikuta \& Arimoto(2000)]{2000A&A...358..535I} Ikuta, C., \& 

1325: Arimoto, N.\ 2000, \aap, 358, 535 

1326: 

1327: \bibitem[Ivans et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....118.1273I} Ivans, I.~I., Sneden, C., 

1328: Kraft, R.~P., Suntzeff, N.~B., Smith, V.~V., Langer, G.~E., \& Fulbright, 

1329: J.~P.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1273

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[Ivans et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.1438I} Ivans, I.~I., Kraft, 

1332: R.~P., Sneden, C., Smith, G.~H., Rich, R.~M., \& Shetrone, M.\ 2001, \aj, 

1333: 122, 1438

1334: 

1335: \bibitem[Johnson(1965)]{1965ApJ...141..923J} Johnson, H.~L.\ 1965, \apj, 

1336: 141, 923

1337: 

1338: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2005)]{2005PASP..117.1308J} Johnson, C.~I., Kraft, 

1339: R.~P., Pilachowski, C.~A., Sneden, C., Ivans, I.~I., \& Benman, G.\ 2005, 

1340: \pasp, 117, 1308

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Johnson \& Pilachowski(2006)]{2006AJ....132.2346J} Johnson, C.~I., 

1343: \& Pilachowski, C.~A.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2346

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[Karakas \& Lattanzio(2007)]{2007PASA...24..103K} Karakas, A., \& 

1346: Lattanzio, J.~C.\ 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of 

1347: Australia, 24, 103

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[Kayser et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...458..777K} Kayser, A., Hilker, M., 

1350: Richtler, T., \& Willemsen, P.~G.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 777

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[Keller et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.2554K} Keller, L.~D., 

1353: Pilachowski, C.~A., \& Sneden, C.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2554

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[Kobayashi et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...503L.155K} Kobayashi, C., 

1356: Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hachisu, I., \& Kato, M.\ 1998, \apjl, 503, L155

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[Langer et al.(1986)]{1986PASP...98..473L} Langer, G.~E., Kraft, 

1359: R.~P., Carbon, D.~F., Friel, E., \& Oke, J.~B.\ 1986, \pasp, 98, 473

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[Langer et al.(1997)]{1997PASP..109..244L} Langer, G.~E., Hoffman, 

1362: R.~E., \& Zaidins, C.~S.\ 1997, \pasp, 109, 244

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[Lattanzio et al.(2004)]{2004MmSAI..75..322L} Lattanzio, J., 

1365: Karakas, A., Campbell, S., Elliott, L., \& Chieffi, A.\ 2004, Memorie della 

1366: Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 322

1367: 

1368: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999)]{1999Natur.402...55L} Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., 

1369: Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., \& Walker, A.~R.\ 1999, \nat, 402, 55

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...621L..57L} Lee, Y.-W., et al.\ 2005, 

1372: \apjl, 621, L57

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[Maeder \& Meynet(2006)]{2006A&A...448L..37M} Maeder, A., \& 

1375: Meynet, G.\ 2006, \aap, 448, L37

1376: 

1377: \bibitem[Marcolini et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.382..443M} Marcolini, A., 

1378: Sollima, A., D'Ercole, A., Gibson, B.~K., \& Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2007, \mnras, 

1379: 382, 443

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[Mayor et al.(1997)]{1997AJ....114.1087M} Mayor, M., et al.\ 1997, 

1382: \aj, 114, 1087

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[Merritt et al.(1997)]{1997AJ....114.1074M} Merritt, D., Meylan, 

1385: G., \& Mayor, M.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1074

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[Meylan et al.(1995)]{1995A&A...303..761M} Meylan, G., Mayor, M., 

1388: Duquennoy, A., \& Dubath, P.\ 1995, \aap, 303, 761

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[Norris \& Da Costa(1995)]{1995ApJ...447..680N} Norris, J.~E., \& 

1391: Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 680

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[Norris et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...462..241N} Norris, J.~E., Freeman, 

1394: K.~C., \& Mighell, K.~J.\ 1996, \apj, 462, 241

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[Norris et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...487L.187N} Norris, J.~E., Freeman, 

1397: K.~C., Mayor, M., \& Seitzer, P.\ 1997, \apjl, 487, L187

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[Norris(2004)]{2004ApJ...612L..25N} Norris, J.~E.\ 2004, \apjl, 

1400: 612, L25

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[Origlia et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...591..916O} Origlia, L., Ferraro, 

1403: F.~R., Bellazzini, M., \& Pancino, E.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 916

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...534L..83P} Pancino, E., Ferraro, 

1406: F.~R., Bellazzini, M., Piotto, G., \& Zoccali, M.\ 2000, \apjl, 534, L83

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568L.101P} Pancino, E., Pasquini, 

1409: L., Hill, V., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2002, \apjl, 568, L101

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.345..683P} Pancino, E., Seleznev, 

1412: A., Ferraro, F.~R., Bellazzini, M., \& Piotto, G.\ 2003, \mnras, 345, 683

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L.155P} Pancino, E., Galfo, A., 

1415: Ferraro, F.~R., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L155

1416: 

1417: \bibitem[Pilachowski(1988)]{1988ApJ...326L..57P} Pilachowski, C.~A.\ 1988, 

1418: \apjl, 326, L57

1419: 

1420: \bibitem[Pilachowski et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....111.1689P} Pilachowski, C.~A., 

1421: Sneden, C., \& Kraft, R.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1689

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...621..777P} Piotto, G., et al.\ 

1424: 2005, \apj, 621, 777

1425: 

1426: \bibitem[Platais et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...591L.127P} Platais, I., Wyse, 

1427: R.~F.~G., Hebb, L., Lee, Y.-W., \& Rey, S.-C.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L127

1428: 

1429: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{1375} Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S.~A., Vetterling,

1430: W.~T., \& Flannery, B.~R. 1992, Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of 

1431: Scientific Computing (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[Reijns et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...445..503R} Reijns, R.~A., Seitzer, 

1434: P., Arnold, R., Freeman, K.~C., Ingerson, T., van den Bosch, R.~C.~E., van 

1435: de Ven, G., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 503

1436: 

1437: \bibitem[Rey et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127..958R} Rey, S.-C., Lee, Y.-W., 

1438: Ree, C.~H., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., \& Walker, A.~R.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 958

1439: 

1440: \bibitem[Richer et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...381..147R} Richer, H.~B., Fahlman, 

1441: G.~G., Buonanno, R., Fusi Pecci, F., Searle, L., \& Thompson, I.~B.\ 1991, 

1442: \apj, 381, 147

1443: 

1444: \bibitem[Ryan et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...471..254R} Ryan, S.~G., Norris,

1445: J.~E., \& Beers, T.~C.\ 1996, \apj, 471, 254

1446: 

1447: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(2002)]{2002PASP..114..375S} Salaris, M., Cassisi, 

1448: S., \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 375

1449: 

1450: \bibitem[Samland(1998)]{1998ApJ...496..155S} Samland, M.\ 1998, \apj, 496, 

1451: 155

1452: 

1453: \bibitem[Schaller et al.(1992)]{1992A&AS...96..269S} Schaller, G., 

1454: Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A.\ 1992, \aaps, 96, 269

1455: 

1456: \bibitem[Shetrone(1996)]{1996AJ....112.2639S} Shetrone, M.~D.\ 1996, \aj, 

1457: 112, 2639

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1995)]{1995AJ....110.2827S} Smith, V.~V., Cunha, K., 

1460: \& Lambert, D.~L.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 2827 

1461: 

1462: \bibitem[Smith et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112.1511S} Smith, G.~H., Shetrone, 

1463: M.~D., Bell, R.~A., Churchill, C.~W., \& Briley, M.~M.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 

1464: 1511

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....119.1239S} Smith, V.~V., Suntzeff, 

1467: N.~B., Cunha, K., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Lambert, D.~L., \& Straniero, O.\ 

1468: 2000, \aj, 119, 1239

1469: 

1470: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...579..832S} Smith, V.~V., Terndrup, 

1471: D.~M., \& Suntzeff, N.~B.\ 2002, \apj, 579, 832

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..392S} Smith, V.~V., Cunha, K., 

1474: Ivans, I.~I., Lattanzio, J.~C., Campbell, S., \& Hinkle, K.~H.\ 2005, \apj, 

1475: 633, 392

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[Smith(2006)]{2006PASP..118.1225S} Smith, G.~H.\ 2006, \pasp, 118, 

1478: 1225

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[Sneden(1973)]{1973ApJ...184..839S} Sneden, C.\ 1973, \apj, 184, 

1481: 839

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(1991)]{1991AJ....102.2001S} Sneden, C., Kraft, 

1484: R.~P., Prosser, C.~F., \& Langer, G.~E.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 2001

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....120.1351S} Sneden, C., Pilachowski, 

1487: C.~A., \& Kraft, R.~P.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1351

1488: 

1489: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.2162S} Sneden, C., Kraft, 

1490: R.~P., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.~C., \& Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 

1491: 127, 2162

1492: 

1493: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2005a)]{2005MNRAS.357..265S} Sollima, A., Ferraro, 

1494: F.~R., Pancino, E., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2005a, \mnras, 357, 265

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2005b)]{2005ApJ...634..332S} Sollima, A., Pancino, 

1497: E., Ferraro, F.~R., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., \& Pasquini, L.\ 2005b, 

1498: \apj, 634, 332

1499: 

1500: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...640L..43S} Sollima, A., Borissova, 

1501: J., Catelan, M., Smith, H.~A., Minniti, D., Cacciari, C., \& Ferraro, 

1502: F.~R.\ 2006, \apjl, 640, L43

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[Stanford et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...647.1075S} Stanford, L.~M., Da 

1505: Costa, G.~S., Norris, J.~E., \& Cannon, R.~D.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 1075

1506: 

1507: \bibitem[Stanford et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667..911S} Stanford, L.~M., Da 

1508: Costa, G.~S., Norris, J.~E., \& Cannon, R.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 911

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[Suntzeff \& Kraft(1996)]{1996AJ....111.1913S} Suntzeff, N.~B., \& 

1511: Kraft, R.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1913

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[Thevenin(1990)]{1990A&AS...82..179T} Th{\'e}venin, F.\ 1990, \aaps, 

1514: 82, 179

1515: 

1516: \bibitem[Timmes et al.(1995)]{1995ApJS...98..617T} Timmes, F.~X., Woosley, 

1517: S.~E., \& Weaver, T.~A.\ 1995, \apjs, 98, 617

1518: 

1519: \bibitem[Tsujimoto \& Shigeyama(2003)]{2003ApJ...590..803T} Tsujimoto, T., 

1520: \& Shigeyama, T.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 803

1521: 

1522: \bibitem[van de Ven et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...445..513V} van de Ven, G., van 

1523: den Bosch, R.~C.~E., Verolme, E.~K., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 

1524: 513

1525: 

1526: \bibitem[van Leeuwen et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...360..472V} van Leeuwen, F., Le 

1527: Poole, R.~S., Reijns, R.~A., Freeman, K.~C., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2000, 

1528: \aap, 360, 472

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[van Loon et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.382.1353V} van Loon, J.~T., van 

1531: Leeuwen, F., Smalley, B., Smith, A.~W., Lyons, N.~A., McDonald, I., 

1532: \& Boyer, M.~L.\ 2007, \mnras, 382, 1353

1533: 

1534: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2005a)]{2005A&A...431..279V} Ventura, P., \& 

1535: D'Antona, F.\ 2005a, \aap, 431, 279

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2005b)]{2005ApJ...635L.149V} Ventura, P., \& 

1538: D'Antona, F.\ 2005b, \apjl, 635, L149

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2008)]{2008A&A...479..805V} Ventura, P., \& 

1541: D'Antona, F.\ 2008, \aap, 479, 805 

1542: 

1543: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2008)]{2008MNRAS.tmp..255V} Ventura, P., \& 

1544: D'Antona, F.\ 2008, \mnras, 255 

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[Villanova et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...663..296V} Villanova, S., et 

1547: al.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 296

1548: 

1549: \bibitem[Woolley(1966)]{1966ROAn....2....1W} Woolley, R.~R.\ 1966, Royal 

1550: Observatory Annals, 2, 1

1551: 

1552: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{1995ApJS..101..181W} Woosley, S.~E., \& 

1553: Weaver, T.~A.\ 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[Yong et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...402..985Y} Yong, D., Grundahl, F., 

1556: Lambert, D.~L., Nissen, P.~E., \& Shetrone, M.~D.\ 2003, \aap, 402, 985

1557: 

1558: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(1996)]{1996PASP..108..911Z} Zucker, D., Wallerstein, 

1559: G., \& Brown, J.~A.\ 1996, \pasp, 108, 911

1560: 

1561: \end{thebibliography}

1562: 

1563: 

1564: \clearpage

1565: \input{tab1.tex}

1566: \clearpage

1567: \input{tab2.tex}

1568: \clearpage

1569: \input{tab3.tex}

1570: \clearpage

1571: \input{tab4.tex}

1572: \clearpage

1573: \pagestyle{empty}

1574: \setlength{\voffset}{25mm}

1575: \input{tab5.tex}

1576: \clearpage

1577: \pagestyle{plaintop}

1578: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}

1579: \input{tab6.tex}

1580: \clearpage

1581: \input{tab7.tex}

1582: 

1583: \clearpage

1584: 

1585: \begin{figure}

1586: \epsscale{0.90}

1587: \plotone{f1.eps}

1588: \caption{A color--magnitude diagram of the upper RGB for $\omega$ Cen.  The 

1589: large filled circles indicate program stars and the small filled circles

1590: are those available from the van Leeuwen et al. (2000) proper motion study.}

1591: \label{f1}

1592: \end{figure}

1593: 

1594: \clearpage

1595: 

1596: \begin{figure}

1597: \epsscale{0.90}

1598: \plotone{f2.eps}

1599: \caption{Histogram showing the observed completion fraction of this study.  The

1600: data are compared to the deeper photometric study of Rey et al. (2004).  The 

1601: top panel shows the completion fraction binned by apparent V magnitude with

1602: bin sizes of 0.5 mag. and the bottom panel shows the completion fraction binned

1603: by B--V color in 0.1 mag. intervals.}

1604: \label{f2}

1605: \end{figure}

1606: 

1607: \clearpage

1608: 

1609: \begin{figure}

1610: \epsscale{0.90}

1611: \plotone{f3.eps}

1612: \caption{Program stars are shown in terms of position in the field.  The cross 

1613: indicates the field center at 201.691$\degr$, --47.4769$\degr$ (J2000)

1614: (13$^{\rm h}$26$^{\rm m}$45.9$^{\rm s}$, --47$\degr$28$\arcmin$37.0$\arcsec$).

1615: The ellipses indicate 1, 5, and 10 times the core radius of 1.40$\arcmin$.}

1616: \label{f3}

1617: \end{figure}

1618: 

1619: \clearpage

1620: 

1621: \begin{figure}

1622: \epsscale{0.90}

1623: \plotone{f4.eps}

1624: \caption{The top panel shows the relation between the effective temperature 

1625: estimated via V--K photometry versus the spectroscopically determined 

1626: temperature.  The straight line indicates perfect agreement.  The bottom panel

1627: illustrates microturbulent velocity versus effective temperature.  Different

1628: symbols indicate stars in different metallicity bins as indicated above.  A 

1629: linear least--squares fit is provided along with the equation relating 

1630: microturbulence to effective temperature.}

1631: \label{f4}

1632: \end{figure}

1633: 

1634: \clearpage

1635: 

1636: \begin{figure}

1637: \epsscale{0.90}

1638: \plotone{f5.eps}

1639: \caption{Derived [Fe II/H] abundances are plotted versus [Fe I/H].  The line 

1640: indicates perfect agreement.}

1641: \label{f5}

1642: \end{figure}

1643: 

1644: \clearpage

1645: 

1646: \begin{figure}

1647: \epsscale{0.90}

1648: \plotone{f6.eps}

1649: \caption{Several sample spectra are shown for various [Fe/H].  The spectra have

1650: been offset for display purposes.  For reference the vertical dashed lines 

1651: indicate the location of the Al I lines and two additional Fe I lines.  From

1652: top to bottom, the [Al/Fe] values for the stars shown are +0.40, +0.45, +0.15,

1653: +0.97, and +0.57, respectively.}

1654: \label{f6}

1655: \end{figure}

1656: 

1657: \clearpage

1658: 

1659: \begin{figure}

1660: \epsscale{0.90}

1661: \plotone{f7.eps}

1662: \caption{Sample spectrum syntheses of the Al region are shown.  The dashed 

1663: line indicates log $\epsilon$(Al)=--5.0, the solid line shows the best--fit Al

1664: abundance, and the dotted lines indicate abundance $\pm$0.30 dex from the 

1665: best--fit Al value.}

1666: \label{f7}

1667: \end{figure}

1668: 

1669: \clearpage

1670: 

1671: \begin{figure}

1672: \epsscale{1.00}

1673: \plotone{f8.eps}

1674: \caption{The four panels show our adopted model atmosphere parameters versus 

1675: those available in the literature.  A straight line indicates perfect agreement

1676: in all panels.}

1677: \label{f8}

1678: \end{figure}

1679: 

1680: \clearpage

1681: 

1682: \begin{figure}

1683: \epsscale{1.00}

1684: \plotone{f9.eps}

1685: \caption{Al abundances available in the literature are plotted versus those 

1686: derived here.  The straight line indicates perfect agreement.  The error bars

1687: are those given from each study and this one.  If no error is provided, a base

1688: value of $\pm$0.10 dex is assumed.}

1689: \label{f9}

1690: \end{figure}

1691: 

1692: \clearpage

1693: 

1694: \begin{figure}

1695: \epsscale{1.00}

1696: \plotone{f10.eps}

1697: \caption{A histogram of derived [Fe/H] values with bin sizes of 0.10 dex.}

1698: \label{f10}

1699: \end{figure}

1700: 

1701: \clearpage

1702: 

1703: \begin{figure}

1704: \epsscale{1.00}

1705: \plotone{f11.eps}

1706: \caption{Color--magnitude diagram of program stars displayed in various 

1707: metallicity bins as shown above.}

1708: \label{f11}

1709: \end{figure}

1710: 

1711: \clearpage

1712: 

1713: \begin{figure}

1714: \epsscale{1.00}

1715: \plotone{f12.eps}

1716: \caption{Al and Fe are plotted as a function of radial distance from the

1717: cluster center.}

1718: \label{f12}

1719: \end{figure}

1720: 

1721: \clearpage

1722: 

1723: \begin{figure}

1724: \epsscale{1.00}

1725: \plotone{f13.eps}

1726: \caption{The top panel shows average radial velocity versus log $\epsilon$(Al)

1727: and the bottom panel is for log $\epsilon$(Fe).  The filled circles represent

1728: average radial velocities in each abundance bin and the vertical bars indicate

1729: the velocity dispersion in each bin.  Both panels have a bin size of 0.10 dex

1730: in abundance.}

1731: \label{f13}

1732: \end{figure}

1733: 

1734: \clearpage

1735: 

1736: \begin{figure}

1737: \epsscale{1.00}

1738: \plotone{f14.eps}

1739: \caption{[Al/Fe] plotted as a function of [Fe/H].}

1740: \label{f14}

1741: \end{figure}

1742: 

1743: \clearpage

1744: 

1745: \begin{figure}

1746: \epsscale{1.00}

1747: \plotone{f15.eps}

1748: \caption{A box plot is shown on top of the [Al/Fe] versus [Fe/H] plot given in

1749: Figure \ref{f14}.  The data are binned into 0.10 dex intervals with the boxes

1750: centered on each bin.  The middle line of each box indicates the median value,

1751: the lower and upper bounds of the box are the first and third quartile, the

1752: vertical lines are the full data range neglecting outliers, and the open 

1753: circles indicate data lying 1.5--3.0 times the interquartile range away from

1754: either boundary.}

1755: \label{f15}

1756: \end{figure}

1757: 

1758: \clearpage

1759: 

1760: \begin{figure}

1761: \epsscale{1.00}

1762: \plotone{f16.eps}

1763: \caption{Log $\epsilon$(Al) is plotted as a function of log $\epsilon$(Fe).}

1764: \label{f16}

1765: \end{figure}

1766: 

1767: \clearpage

1768: 

1769: \begin{figure}

1770: \epsscale{1.00}

1771: \plotone{f17.eps}

1772: \caption{Histograms of [Al/Fe] using a bin size of 0.10 dex for multiple

1773: metallicity bins.}

1774: \label{f17}

1775: \end{figure}

1776: 

1777: \end{document}

1778: