1: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6:
7: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
8: \newcommand{\myemail}{izumiura@oao.nao.ac.jp}
9: %\usepackage[authoryear]{natbib}
10:
11: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
12: %\slugcomment{Ver.0.0, Nov.05, 2002}
13:
14: \shorttitle{Evidence for a companion to BM~Gem}
15: \shortauthors{Izumiura, Noguchi, Aoki et al.}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Evidence for a companion to BM~Gem, a silicate carbon star\footnote{
20: Based on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by
21: the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan}}
22:
23: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format author and affiliation information.
24: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command from AASTeX v4.0. You can use
25: %% \email to mark an email address anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
26: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
27:
28: \author{Hideyuki Izumiura\altaffilmark{2,10},
29: Kunio Noguchi\altaffilmark{3},
30: Wako Aoki\altaffilmark{3},
31: Satoshi Honda\altaffilmark{3},
32: Hiroyasu Ando\altaffilmark{3},
33: Masahide Takada-Hidai\altaffilmark{4},
34: Eiji Kambe\altaffilmark{5},
35: Satoshi Kawanomoto\altaffilmark{6},
36: Kozo Sadakane\altaffilmark{7},
37: Bun'ei Sato\altaffilmark{8,2},
38: %\bot
39: Akito Tajitsu\altaffilmark{9},
40: Wataru Tanaka\altaffilmark{3},
41: Ki'ichi Okita\altaffilmark{2},
42: Etsuji Watanabe\altaffilmark{2},
43: and Michitoshi Yoshida\altaffilmark{2}
44: }
45:
46: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
47: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
48: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
49: %% affiliation.
50:
51: \altaffiltext{2}{Okayama Astrophysical Observatory, National Astronomical Observatory,
52: Kamogata, Asakuchi, Okayama 719-0232, Japan}
53: \altaffiltext{3}{Division of Optical and Infrared Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatory,
54: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
55: \altaffiltext{4}{Liberal Arts Education Center, Tokai University, Hiratsuka,
56: Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
57: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, National Defense Academy,
58: Yokosuka, Kanagawa 239-8686, Japan}
59: \altaffiltext{6}{Astronomical Data Analysis Center,
60: National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
61: \altaffiltext{7}{Astronomical Institute, Osaka Kyoiku University, Kashiwara,
62: Osaka 582-8582, Japan}
63: \altaffiltext{8}{Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kobe University,
64: Kobe, Hyogo 657-8501, Japan}
65: \altaffiltext{9}{Subaru Telescope, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
66: 650 North A'ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA}
67: \altaffiltext{10}{
68: e-mail: izumiura@oao.nao.ac.jp
69: %knoguchi@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp,
70: %waoki@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp,
71: %honda@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp,
72: %hidai@apus.rh.u-tokai.ac.jp,
73: %ando@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp,
74: %kambe@nda.ac.jp,
75: %kawanomo@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp,
76: %okita@oao.nao.ac.jp,
77: %sadakane@cc.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp,
78: %satobn@kobe-u.ac.jp,
79: %tajitsu@subaru.naoj.org,
80: %tanakawt@nifty.com,
81: %EW,
82: %yoshida@oao.nao.ac.jp,
83: }
84:
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87: Balmer and Paschen continuum emission as well as Balmer series lines of
88: P Cygni-type profile from H$_{\gamma}$ through H$_{23}$ are revealed in
89: the violet spectra of BM~Gem, a carbon star associated with an oxygen-rich
90: circumstellar shell (``silicate carbon star'') observed with the high
91: dispersion spectrograph (HDS) on the Subaru telescope.
92: The blue-shifted absorption in the Balmer lines indicates the presence of
93: an outflow, the line of sight velocity of which is at least 400 km~s$^{-1}$,
94: which is the highest outflow velocity observed to date in a carbon star.
95: The Balmer lines showed a significant change in profile over a period of 75 days.
96: Strong \ion{Ca}{2} K emission was also detected, while \ion{Ca}{2} H emission,
97: where H$\varepsilon$ overlapped, was absent on both observation occasions.
98: Violet spectra of the other two silicate carbon stars, V778~Cyg and EU~And,
99: and of the prototypical J-type carbon star, Y~CVn, were also observed,
100: but none of these were detected in either continuum emission below 4000 {\AA}
101: or Balmer lines.
102: We argue that the observed unusual features in BM~Gem are strong evidence
103: for the presence of a companion, which should form an accretion disk that
104: gives rise to both an ionized gas region and a high velocity, variable outflow.
105: The estimated luminosity of $\sim$0.2 (0.03-0.6) $L_{\odot}$
106: for the ionized gas can be maintained by a mass accretion rate to a dwarf
107: companion of $\sim10^{-8}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$,
108: while $\sim10^{-10}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$
109: is sufficient for accretion to a white dwarf companion. These accretion rates are
110: feasible for some detached binary configurations on the basis of
111: the Bond-Hoyle type accretion process.
112: Therefore, we concluded that the carbon star BM~Gem is in a detached binary
113: system with a companion of low mass and low luminosity.
114: However, we are unable to determine whether this companion object is a dwarf or
115: a white dwarf, although the gas outflow velocity of 400~km~s$^{-1}$ as
116: well as the non-detection in the X-ray survey favor its identity as a dwarf star.
117: The upper limits for binary separation are 210~AU and 930~AU for
118: a dwarf and a white dwarf, respectively, in the case of circular orbit.
119: We also note that the observed features of BM~Gem
120: mimic those of Mira ($o$~Cet), which may suggest actual similarities in their
121: binary configurations and circumstellar structures.
122: \end{abstract}
123:
124: \keywords{stars: AGB and post-AGB---stars: carbon---stars: evolution---stars: mass loss
125: ---stars: winds, outflows---accretion---individual (BM~Gem, V778~Cyg,
126: EU~And, Y~CVn, Mira)
127: }
128:
129:
130: \section{INTRODUCTION}
131: When low- and intermediate-mass stars evolve along the asymptotic giant branch
132: where double shell burning of He and H takes place in the interior, the He burning
133: becomes unstable and gives rise to periodic thermonuclear runaway (``thermal
134: pulse'' or ``He shell flash''), which induces mixing of newly synthesized $^{12}$C
135: and other processed materials at the surface (third dredge-up, Iben 1975; Sugimoto \& Nomoto 1975).
136: The mixing gradually enhances the surface abundance of carbon, which will
137: eventually turn a star originally oxygen-rich in the surface chemical
138: composition into a carbon star (cf. Iben \& Renzini 1983).
139:
140: Among cool luminous carbon stars, there are a group of stars that
141: show silicate dust emission features in the mid-infrared at 10 and 18~$\mu$m
142: (Little-Marenin 1986; Willems \& de Jong 1986); these are the so-called
143: ``silicate carbon'' stars. Silicates are the signature
144: of oxygen-rich chemistry in their circumstellar dust shells, while their
145: optical spectra dominated by molecular absorption bands of C$_{2}$ and CN
146: show that their atmospheres are carbon-rich.
147: The oxygen-rich chemistry in their circumstellar envelopes is also
148: confirmed in the gas-phase by the detection of water vapor masers at 22~GHz
149: (Benson \& Little-Marenin 1987; Nakada et al. 1987).
150: Even carbon-rich objects showing crystalline silicate features have been
151: discovered (Waters et al. 1998; Molster et al. 2001).
152:
153: The intriguing co-existence of oxygen-rich and carbon-rich chemistries in a single
154: system prompted two hypothetical explanations. One was the
155: binary system consisting of a carbon star and a dust-enshrouded M-type giant
156: (OH/IR) star (Benson \& Little-Marenin 1987; Little-Marenin, Benson,
157: \& Dickinson 1988). The other was more interesting, i.e., that we are witnessing
158: a brief evolutionary stage where the star is in transition from an oxygen-rich
159: star to a carbon star by the third dredge-up while the remnant oxygen-rich dust
160: shell is still visible (Willems \& de Jong 1986, 1988).
161: These earlier pictures were, however, discarded based on the
162: absence of both spectroscopic signatures of a luminous M-type (OH/IR)
163: companion (Noguchi et al. 1990; Lambert, Hinkle \& Smith 1990)
164: and variability
165: of the color-indices and silicate features (Chan \& Kwok 1988; Lloyd-Evans 1990)
166: as well as a stringent requirement that primary and secondary must have
167: very similar masses (Lambert et al. 1990).
168: Near-infrared speckle interferometry as well as water maser monitoring also
169: ruled out the presence of a luminous M-type companion to the primary
170: carbon star (Engels \& Leinert 1994) among silicate carbon stars.
171:
172: Morris (1987) suggested that a binary system of a mass-losing red giant
173: star and either a main-sequence dwarf or a white dwarf companion can
174: develop an accretion disk around the companion, sometimes a circumbinary disk,
175: and even a circum-primary disk, depending on the system configuration.
176: Lloyd-Evans (1990) was inspired by Morris's picture to
177: propose that in silicate carbon stars the oxygen-rich material
178: accumulated in a disk around a hypothetical companion when the
179: primary was an oxygen-rich mass-losing star, which later turned
180: into a carbon star through the third dredge-up.
181: This picture reconciles the observed red infrared color and
182: the relatively small extinction in the optical. The disk should
183: be somewhat thickened and may extend to the circumbinary region
184: to provide a sufficient mid-infrared flux.
185: Engels \& Leinert (1994) inferred for V778~Cyg and EU~And
186: a minimum radius of the molecular reservoir where water masers reside
187: of 45~sin~$i$~AU, where $i$ denotes the inclination of the reservoir,
188: which is 90$^{\circ}$ when seen edge-on, based on the assumed
189: mass of 1~$M_{\odot}$ for the primary, Keplerian motion for the
190: maser components, and the constancy of radial velocities of the maser lines.
191: Kahane et al. (1998) and Jura \& Kahane (1999)
192: proposed the existence of a circumbinary reservoir in Keplerian motion
193: in silicate carbon stars, BM~Gem and EU~And, on the basis of
194: the detection of CO J=1-0 and J=2-1 emission with very narrow widths
195: at their systemic velocities. They suggested that the silicate
196: grains reside in the reservoir, which was presumably built by the
197: influence of a postulated unseen companion when the primary was
198: an oxygen-rich giant.
199: Waters et al. (1998) noted the similarity to silicate carbon
200: stars of Red Rectangle that possesses a circumbinary disk showing
201: crystalline silicate features, an extended carbon-rich outflow,
202: and narrow CO emission lines.
203: However, Yamamura et al. (2000) suggested a picture similar
204: to that reported by Lloyd-Evans (1990) based on analysis of the ISO spectrum
205: of another silicate carbon star, V778~Cyg.
206: They found that dust grains in the circumbinary region where the
207: grains can be warm enough to emit the silicate features will be blown
208: out in less than one orbital period, and thus unable to form a circumbinary
209: reservoir. They concluded that the source of the silicate features must be
210: the oxygen-rich material continuously blown out from the disk around
211: a companion by the primary's wind and radiation pressure.
212:
213: The above scenarios all postulate a low-mass, low-luminosity companion,
214: although no observational evidence has yet been provided.
215: To gain further understanding of silicate carbon stars, it is essential to
216: determine whether they indeed have a companion star. It would be very difficult,
217: however, to detect a postulated low-luminosity companion in the optical or
218: longer wavelength bands because the primary carbon star must outshine
219: the companion by many orders of magnitude in these wavelength regions.
220: In this respect, it has long been known that cool carbon stars
221: exhibit extreme violet flux deficiency (Shane 1928), the agent of which
222: has not yet been unambiguously identified (``violet opacity problem'').
223: Indeed, cool carbon stars are very dim in the violet region;
224: e.g., $U-V$ of the carbon star Y~CVn is 8.9 (Nicolet 1978), while those of
225: M5 giants and dwarfs are 4.2 and 2.8, respectively (Allen 1976).
226: This phenomenon can be exploited to search for signatures of companions
227: to silicate carbon stars in the violet spectral region.
228: Therefore, we performed high sensitivity spectroscopic observations of
229: the visually brightest silicate-carbon stars BM~Gem, V778~Cyg,
230: and EU~And, in the violet spectral region.
231: While we saw no significant violet emission in V778~Cyg or EU~And,
232: we have detected a featureless continuum below 4000 {\AA} in BM~Gem,
233: where the Balmer continuum is higher than the Paschen continuum at the Balmer limit,
234: which is very unusual for a cool luminous carbon star.
235: In addition, the Balmer series lines were traced from H$_{\gamma}$ up to H$_{23}$
236: and they showed distinct P Cygni-type profiles. The profiles give a gas
237: expansion velocity of at least 400 km~s$^{-1}$. Such a high velocity outflow
238: has never been observed in any type of currently mass-losing carbon star.
239: Additional observations 75 days later further revealed considerable time
240: variability of the Balmer lines.
241: In addition, the BM~Gem system was found to be similar to the Mira ($o$~Cet) system,
242: which is the prototype of a binary system consisting of a luminous
243: AGB star (Mira~A) and a low-mass, low-luminosity companion (Mira~B).
244: In the following sections, we discuss the origin of the continuum emission
245: and the P Cygni-type Balmer lines, and argue for the presence of a companion to BM~Gem.
246:
247:
248: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
249: Observations of BM~Gem, the brightest silicate carbon star in the
250: visual region, were made with the high dispersion spectrograph
251: (HDS; Noguchi et al. 2002) at the Nasmyth focus of the Subaru telescope
252: (Kaifu et al. 2000; Iye et al. 2004) on January 29 and April 14, 2001.
253: We used the atmospheric dispersion corrector for the optical Nasmyth focus.
254: The entrance slit width was set to 360~$\mu$m ($0\farcs72$), which corresponded
255: to a resolution of $\sim$50,000. A quartz glass filter was inserted behind
256: the slit. HDS is equipped with two mosaiced CCDs from
257: EEV with 2048$\times$4100 pixels of 13.5~$\mu$m square.
258: We used the 250~grooves~mm$^{-1}$ cross-disperser grating to observe
259: the range between 3550--5200 {\AA} (3550--4350 {\AA} and 4400--5200 {\AA}).
260: We made two 30-minute exposures and one 30-minute
261: exposure in January and April, respectively.
262: A bright J-type carbon star, Y~CVn,
263: was also observed for 15 minutes on February 1, 2001 (UT) with the same settings
264: for comparison, because all the silicate carbon stars examined
265: spectroscopically were known to be J-type stars (Lloyd-Evans 1990),
266: which have low $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C abundance ratios ($\lesssim 10$) in the
267: atmosphere (Bouigue 1954).
268: We also observed the second and third brightest silicate carbon stars,
269: V778~Cyg and EU~And, for 40 minutes each on July 30, 2001 with almost
270: the same settings but we employed a slit width of $1\farcs0$ and
271: 2$\times$2 binning for the CCD readout to attain as high a signal to
272: noise ratio as possible, which gave an effective spectral resolution of
273: $\sim$38,000. A summary of the observations is given in Table 1.
274: The last column shows the signal to noise ratio at around 4000 {\AA} in
275: the reduced one-dimensional spectrum.
276: The photometric and astrometric data of the targets taken from the
277: literature are summarized in Table 2. The second and third columns show
278: the Hipparcos parallax and the uncertainty in the parallax (ESA 1997), respectively.
279: Near infrared data in the sixth through tenth columns are from Noguchi et al. (1981)
280: for BM~Gem and Y~CVn and from Noguchi et al. (1990) for V778~Cyg and EU~And.
281: $B$ and $V$ magnitudes are from the Hipparcos and Tycho catalogs (ESA 1997) for
282: BM~Gem and Y~CVn, and from Alksnis \& \u Zaime(1993) for V778~Cyg and EU~And.
283: Data reduction was performed using the echelle package on NOAO IRAF\footnote{
284: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is
285: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under
286: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation}.
287: Standard procedures were followed: bias subtraction, flat fielding, scattered
288: light subtraction, extraction of one-dimensional spectra,
289: dispersion correction by Th-Ar lamp spectra,
290: and removal of the echelle blaze profile by continuum lamp spectra.
291: Strong cosmic ray events were removed manually.
292:
293: We detected significant emission in BM~Gem throughout the observed
294: wavelength range. We then attempted to apply flux calibration
295: to the observed spectra of BM~Gem.
296: A star, Feige~34, observed on January 28, 2001 under $\sim0\farcs6$ seeing
297: with $4\farcs0$ slit width to let virtually all the incident light enter the spectrograph,
298: was used for our approximate flux calibration.
299: We derived the system response from the observed spectra
300: of the hot white dwarf Feige 34. We applied an atmospheric extinction
301: correction based on the Mauna Kea extinction curve
302: (Beland, Boulade \& Davidge 1988) to the spectra, and compared them with
303: the calibrated magnitudes at 50~{\AA} interval of Feige~34 prepared in IRAF,
304: which is based on Massey et al. (1988).
305: We then corrected the spectra of BM~Gem for the atmospheric extinction
306: and the system response.
307: Finally, we applied a correction for light losses from the entrance slit due to seeing.
308: Seeing size was measured to be $0\farcs80$' and $0\farcs85$ for January and
309: April observations, respectively.
310: We approximated the seeing image by a single Gaussian and obtained
311: values of 0.71 and 0.68 for the slit transmission efficiency for January and
312: April, respectively, against $0\farcs72$ slit width assuming perfect telescope guiding.
313: The spectra of Y~CVn were also calibrated in the same manner for comparison.
314: The seeing size at the observation of Y~CVn was $0\farcs80$, which gave
315: a slit efficiency of 0.71.
316:
317: The uncertainty in the absolute flux densities thus obtained is non-negligible because
318: the data were taken on different nights with somewhat different seeings
319: with a slit width close to the size of the seeing image, a flux standard was observed
320: on only one night, and the violet region is near the atmospheric cutoff, which
321: is sensitive to extinction corrections.
322: The uncertainty due to seeing and guiding, which applies to BM~Gem, is estimated
323: to be $\pm$0.25 mag in each spectrum, adopting maximum possible errors of
324: $0\farcs2$ in both seeing estimate and guiding.
325: The uncertainty in the extinction correction which applies to both BM~Gem and
326: Feige~34 can give rise to an underestimate in their brightness of about 0.2 mag.
327: It is obtained by assuming the employed extinction coefficient of
328: 0.37 mag~airmass$^{-1}$ at 3600{\AA} (Beland et al. 1988), with smaller values
329: for longer wavelengths, was subject to a possible increase of 50\%, although all
330: our observations were made under clear sky conditions and the airmasses were only
331: 1.01, 1.20, and 1.10 for BM~Gem(Jan), BM~Gem(Apr), and Feige~34, respectively.
332: Taking all these uncertainties into account, each flux density derived
333: is likely to be accompanied by an uncertainty range of (-0.45, +0.25),
334: while the relative uncertainty between BM~Gem(Apr) and BM~Gem(Jan)
335: can be as large as 0.7(=0.25+0.25+0.2).
336: Any difference between the two observations smaller than this magnitude is
337: dominated by a calibration error and should be treated as insignificant.
338:
339: We did not apply the above flux calibration to either V778~Cyg or EU~And
340: because we did not see any significant emission in the region
341: shortward of 4000 {\AA}. These stars are 3 magnitudes fainter than BM~Gem
342: in $B$ (Table 2). If we put BM~Gem farther away from us so that
343: its $B$ becomes 3 mag fainter, then any signal of the violet
344: continuum on the raw CCD image becomes only one-quarter or less of
345: the CCD read noise and merely equal to it or less even in the case of
346: 2$\times$2 binning.
347: Then, the non-detection of the violet continua here in V778~Cyg and EU~And
348: indicates that they are not as bright as that of BM~Gem
349: for their $B$ magnitudes. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean
350: that they do not have a similar violet continuum.
351: it is necessary to achieve much higher sensitivities for V778~Cyg and EU~And to
352: distinguish between the presence and absence of a continuum like that
353: in BM~Gem.
354: We will not discuss the violet spectra of V778~Cyg or
355: EU~And further in this paper.
356:
357: The observed spectrum was corrected for the Doppler shift
358: and transformed to the wavelength scale with respect to the
359: local standard of rest (``LSR")
360: using the tasks RVCORRECT and DOPCOR in IRAF.
361: The stellar systemic velocity with respect to LSR was also subtracted
362: in the final spectra shown in this paper. Thus, matter stationary
363: to the center of mass of the system should appear at zero velocity.
364: We employed the systemic velocity of 73.2 km~s$^{-1}$ (V$_{\rm LSR}$) for
365: BM~Gem based on mm-wave CO emission lines
366: (Kahane et al. 1998; Jura \& Kahane 1999).
367: This is in agreement with V$_{\rm LSR}$ of 74.7~km~s$^{-1}$
368: derived from the heliocentric radial velocity of 85.3~$\pm$0.4 km~s$^{-1}$
369: obtained for the CO first overtone bands by Lambert et al. (1990).
370: For Y~CVn, we used 21.2~km~s$^{-1}$, based on the mm-wave CO J=1-0 emission
371: (Izumiura, Ukita, \& Tsuji 1995), as the systemic velocity with respect to LSR.
372: It should be noted that radial velocities of observed spectral lines given below
373: will carry a typical uncertainty of $\sim$0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ on the basis of
374: the observed line widths and strengths, achieved S/N ratio, and employed spectral
375: resolution.
376:
377: \section{RESULTS}
378: \subsection{Violet Spectra of BM~Gem}
379: The resulting spectra of BM~Gem taken with the CCD that observes the
380: shorter wavelength portion, reduced to a resolution of 1 {\AA}, are shown
381: in Figure 1 along with those of Y~CVn.
382: %We scaled them by adjusting the slope of the spectrum between
383: %4050 {\AA} and 4200 {\AA} for comparison.
384: We have adjusted the vertical scales so that the slopes of the spectra between
385: 4050 {\AA} and 4200 {\AA} look similar to one another.
386: The spectra of BM~Gem show significant Balmer and Paschen continuum
387: emission in the violet region, which is evident when compared with Y~CVn,
388: which shows no detectable violet continuum. What is more intriguing
389: is that the level of the Balmer continuum is 1.3 times higher than that
390: of the Paschen continuum when compared around the Balmer limit
391: in both observation occasions.
392: This indicates that the continuum emission comes from an ionized gas region.
393: They also show a series of emission lines that are identified
394: with Hydrogen Balmer series lines from H$_{\gamma}$ through H$_{23}$.
395: Moreover, the Balmer lines show P Cygni-type line
396: profiles, suggesting the presence of an outflow being accelerated
397: outward against the central continuum source.
398: H$_{\beta}$ emission was not identified at all in our spectra
399: recorded on the CCD that covers the longer wavelength part,
400: probably because the spectral range is dominated by the strong
401: carbon star spectra.
402: Broad \ion{Ca}{2} K emission with a blueward depression was also detected
403: but \ion{Ca}{2} H emission was absent. The \ion{Ca}{2} H emission could be absorbed
404: by the hydrogen in the outflow because the expected wavelength range
405: of \ion{Ca}{2} H line (3968.470 {\AA}, Moore 1959) coincides with the absorption core
406: of the P Cygni profile of H$\varepsilon$ line (3970.074 {\AA}, Moore 1959).
407: Note here that the features that mimic emission lines, marked with small
408: vertical ticks seen shortward of 4150 {\AA} in Y~CVn, are contaminations
409: of ghost spectra of very strong red light of the star, probably due to the
410: cross-disperser grating.
411: The same ghost features are also present in the spectra of BM~Gem at
412: the same positions, by which only H$_{10}$
413: of the Balmer lines is significantly contaminated.
414:
415: The fluxes per unit wavelength at wavelength $\lambda$, $F_{\lambda}$,
416: of the Balmer continuum of BM~Gem after the approximate flux calibration in \S 2
417: are 3.0$\times$10$^{-15}$ erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~{\AA}$^{-1}$
418: in the January spectra and 4.3$\times$10$^{-15}$ erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~{\AA}$^{-1}$
419: in the April spectra immediately shortward of the Balmer limit at 3646 {\AA}.
420: These correspond to 16.1 mag and 15.7 mag following the definition of
421: $m\equiv -2.5$~log($F_{\nu}$) $-$ 48.59, where $m$ is the magnitude,
422: $\nu$ is frequency, and $F_{\nu}$ is the flux per unit frequency at $\nu$
423: in erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$.
424: Here, $F_{\nu}$ is calculated by $F_{\nu} = F_{\lambda}~|d{\lambda}/d{\nu}|
425: = c\nu^{-2}F_{\lambda}$ (i.e., $\nu F_{\nu} = \lambda F_{\lambda}$),
426: where $c$ is the speed of light.
427: This definition gives 0.048 for the magnitude of Vega at 5556 {\AA} (Hayes \& Latham 1975).
428: The apparent difference in the continuum level of 0.4 mag is not significant,
429: considering the possible uncertainty of 0.7 mag given in \S 2.
430: Thus, we argue that the continuum level is unchanged, and adopt a geometrical mean
431: of the two values,
432: 3.6$\times$10$^{-15}$ erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~{\AA}$^{-1}$ or 15.9 mag.
433: We take the differences of $\pm$0.2 mag between this 15.9 mag
434: and the two direct values as an additional uncertainty. Adding this to that
435: given in \S 2, the total uncertainty range has a magnitude of (-0.65, +0.45).
436: Similarly, the Paschen continuum at 4000 {\AA} has 16.2 mag and 15.6 mag in
437: the January and April spectra, respectively, and they give 15.9 and (-0.75, +0.55)
438: in magnitude as the flux level and uncertainty range, respectively.
439: Note, however, that BM~Gem shows light variation of 0.2--0.4 mag in 100 days in
440: $B$ and $V$ bands (Alksnis \& \u Zaime 1993). Whether BM~Gem is indeed
441: variable in the violet continuum is an interesting issue for future studies.
442:
443:
444: In the original high-resolution spectra of BM~Gem, CN red system lines between
445: 4830--5250 {\AA} give average radial velocities around $-1$~km~s$^{-1}$
446: with respect to the systemic velocity adopted in \S 2
447: in the two observations.
448: Absorption features of \ion{Mn}{1} triplet at 4030-4034 {\AA} were identified,
449: while low-excitation lines of \ion{Ti}{1} were observed in emission shortward of 4040 {\AA},
450: both of which are typical for late-N type carbon stars, as described by Gilra (1976).
451: The \ion{Mn}{1} lines at the two epochs
452: give average radial velocities around $-6$~km~s$^{-1}$,
453: which are compatible with the mm wave CO outflow velocity of
454: $7.5$~km~s$^{-1}$ and may suggest that they form in
455: the mass-loss flow of the carbon star. The \ion{Ti}{1} lines have
456: apparent FWHMs of $\sim$10~km~s$^{-1}$
457: and show average radial velocities near 0~km~s$^{-1}$ in the two observations,
458: suggesting that they originate in the extended atmosphere of the carbon star.
459: The uncertainties in the average radial velocities given above are
460: as large as 1~km~s$^{-1}$ for all of the CN red system, \ion{Mn}{1} triplet,
461: and \ion{Ti}{1} lines. Whether this magnitude of uncertainties,
462: which is slightly larger than the internal uncertainties of
463: $\sim0.5$~km~s$^{-1}$ given in \S 2, is due to their intrinsic variabilities
464: or not is an issue for a future work.
465: The continuum shortward of 4040 {\AA} is almost featureless except for
466: the Balmer and \ion{Ti}{1} lines. No absorption features typical of stellar
467: photospheres are seen.
468:
469: Figure 2 shows higher resolution views of the vicinity of H$_{\delta}$,
470: H$_{\varepsilon}$, and H$_{8}$ lines together with \ion{Ca}{2} K line observed
471: on the two nights 75 days apart.
472: The zero systemic velocity corresponds to the middle of the P Cygni profile,
473: which argues for the outflowing gas being associated with
474: BM~Gem. The line profiles show that the emitting gas, which is likely
475: ionized, is expanding at a velocity as large as 400 km~s$^{-1}$
476: in the sight line. This is greater than the highest velocity outflows observed to date
477: in AGB and post-AGB stars, V Hya (200 km~s$^{-1}$, Knapp, Jorissen, \& Young 1997),
478: CRL 618 (200 km~s$^{-1}$, Cernicharo et al. 1989),
479: OH231.8+4.2 (330 km~s$^{-1}$, Alcolea, Bujarrabal, \& S\'anchez Contreras 1996),
480: and R Coronae Borealis stars (200--350 km~s$^{-1}$, Clayton, Geballe, \& Bianchi 2003),
481: with the exception of Mira~B (250 and 400 km~s$^{-1}$, Wood, Karovska, \& Hack 2001,
482: Wood, Karovska, \& Raymond 2002) and V854~Cen (390 km s$^{-1}$, Clayton et al. 1993).
483: It is, however, much smaller than those of jets seen in symbiotic objects (e.g.,
484: $\sim$6000 km~s$^{-1}$ in MWC560, Tomov et al. 1990).
485: In addition, a change in the line shape in each of the Balmer lines over a period of
486: 75 days is evident. The blue edge of the absorption features shifted redward by
487: 200 km~s$^{-1}$, while the red edge did so by only 50 km~s$^{-1}$.
488:
489:
490:
491: \subsection{Energetics of the Violet Emission}
492: Our discoveries of the Balmer and Paschen continua, the former being
493: higher than the latter, the P Cygni-type Balmer series lines, and
494: their line profile variability all suggest that BM~Gem is associated
495: with a compact ionized gas region that is accelerated to form a rather
496: spherical, high velocity outflow.
497: No mechanism is known for a single cool luminous carbon star to produce an ionized
498: gas region as well as a high velocity outflow.
499: They can, however, be accounted for if we introduce an unseen,
500: low-mass companion that captures matter in the stellar wind from the primary
501: to give rise to an accretion disk.
502: This hypothesis is partially supported by similar spectral features observed in
503: Mira~B ($o$~Cet~B) (see \S 4), which is a low-mass companion to
504: the AGB star Mira~A ($o$~Cet~A) and is considered to be associated
505: with an accretion disk
506: (Joy 1926, 1954; Deutsch 1958; Warner 1972; Reimers \& Cassatella 1985).
507: Low-mass companions with an accretion disk have also been suggested for
508: R Coronae Borealis stars, which show outflows with similar high velocities
509: and \ion{He}{1} lines that require excitation sources
510: (Rao et al. 1993; Clayton et al. 2003).
511:
512: Formation of an accretion disk has proven to be robust around a companion star to
513: a mass-losing giant in various detached configurations (Mastrodemos \& Morris 1998, 1999).
514: The inner part of the accretion disk must be heated by the released gravitational
515: potential energy from the accreting matter.
516: A hot ionized gas region should form between the innermost region of the
517: disk and the surface of the companion.
518: The accretion phenomenon may also be responsible for the discovered high velocity,
519: variable outflow, although the details of the acceleration mechanism
520: is not yet settled for this type of outflow.
521: Alternatively, the outflow may be due to dust formation in the circumcompanion region,
522: analogous to the scenario proposed for RCB stars by Clayton (1996).
523: Dust grains would be accelerated through radiation pressure, dragging gas to form
524: the observed high velocity outflow. The ionization could then be due to collisional
525: ionization in the flow. In this case, to be compatible with the observed broad
526: absorption core that extends from the systemic velocity to the terminal velocity
527: in the P Cygni profile, the ionization must occur before the gas acceleration
528: is completed. Otherwise the absorber in front of the continuum source has
529: terminal outflow velocity and a much narrower absorption component appears
530: near the terminal velocity.
531: In either case of an outflow powered by accretion or driven by radiation
532: pressure on dust grains, the observed spectral features favor the presence
533: of a companion to BM~Gem.
534:
535: The companion should be either a white dwarf or a low-mass dwarf
536: star because hypotheses invoking a luminous companion have been rejected
537: by previous studies (Noguchi et al. 1990; Lambert et al. 1990;
538: Chan \& Kwok 1988; Lloyd-Evans 1990).
539: The gas expansion velocity provides a hint to distinguish the candidates
540: for the companion.
541: White dwarfs have escape velocities on the order of several thousand~km~s$^{-1}$,
542: while those of low-mass dwarf stars are of the order of several
543: hundred~km~s$^{-1}$. If gas acceleration occurs near the surface of
544: the secondary and the flow is aligned with the sight line, the latter is
545: the case for BM~Gem. However, the former could also be the case if the acceleration
546: takes place at some point distant from the white dwarf,
547: as suggested by Warner (1972),
548: or the flow has a narrow opening angle and is markedly inclined with
549: respect to the sight line. Below, we examine whether such a binary and
550: accretion hypothesis is plausible energetically.
551:
552:
553: We first attempted to determine the absolute magnitudes of BM~Gem at the observed
554: wavelengths by finding the distance to BM~Gem. Although it exists,
555: the Hipparcos parallax of BM~Gem (Table 2) is unreliable.
556: Claussen et al. (1987) gave 1.51 kpc assuming that carbon
557: stars have a constant absolute K-band magnitude of -8.1.
558: We made another estimate by comparing the near-infrared flux
559: densities of BM~Gem with those of Y~CVn, as they are $^{13}$C-rich (J-type) carbon
560: stars resembling each other in the spectral characteristics in the optical
561: and near-infrared (Barnbaum 1991; Ohnaka \& Tsuji 1999, Yamamura et al. 2000),
562: which may indicate they have similar intrinsic properties.
563: Y~CVn is the only J-type star that has a relatively reliable
564: Hipparcos parallax (Table 2) of 218 pc with 16\% uncertainty.
565: It is evident from the data shown in Table 2 that the differences between Y~CVn and BM~Gem in
566: $I$ through $L$ bands are quite constant with a simple mean of 3.72,
567: which indeed shows the two stars to be similar and gives a distance to BM~Gem
568: of 1.21 kpc.
569: In addition, the distance of 1.51 kpc reported by Calussen et al. may be reduced
570: to 1.14 kpc, considering the distance they gave of 0.29 kpc for
571: Y~CVn should be readjusted to 0.218 kpc.
572: Hence, we adopted 1.2 kpc with a conservative uncertainty
573: factor of 1.2 as a reasonable estimate for the distance to BM~Gem.
574: The total luminosity then becomes
575: 5.4$\times 10^{3}~~L_{\odot}$ (cf. Groenewegen et al. 1992),
576: which implies that they are on the AGB even with the distance uncertainty.
577:
578: Interstellar extinction toward BM~Gem ($l=193\fdg2$ and $b=17\fdg2$)
579: at 3650 {\AA} ($= U$ band), $A_{3650}$, is estimated to be at most
580: 0.6 mag. It is obtained by
581: \begin{equation}
582: A_{3650}=\alpha\ N(HI) (N(H)/E(B-V))^{-1} (A_{V}/E(B-V)) (A_{3650}/A_{V}),
583: \end{equation}
584: where $N(HI)$ is the column density of atomic neutral hydrogen,
585: $\alpha$ is a conversion factor from $N(HI)$ to the total column density
586: of neutral hydrogen $N(H)$ including \ion{H}{1} and H$_{2}$,
587: $E(B-V) = A_{B} - A_{V}$, and $A_{B}$ and $A_{V}$ are the extinction at
588: $B$ band and $V$ band, respectively.
589: We read $N(HI)=7\times10^{20}~{\rm atoms}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$
590: in the direction of BM~Gem from Heiles (1975).
591: Other quantities are found in Cox (2000) and references therein:
592: $N(H)/E(B-V)=5.8\times 10^{21}~{\rm atoms~cm^{-2}~mag^{-1}}$ (Bohlin, Savage, \& Drake 1978);
593: $R_{V}=A(V)/E(B-V)=3.1$, a standard value for diffuse interstellar matter;
594: $A_{3650}/A_{V}=1.56$ for $R_{V}=3.1$ (Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis 1989).
595: %Then, $E(B-V) = \alpha\times 7\times 10^{20}/5.8\times 10^{21} = \alpha\times$ 0.12 mag,
596: %which is an upper limit on the $E(B-V)$ of BM Gem.
597: Then, we find $A_{3650} = 0.6 \alpha$, which should be an upper limit
598: because the column denisity that Heiles (1975) gave is an upper
599: limit to BM Gem, which lies somewhere between the boundary
600: of the HI gas distribution in that direction and us.
601: Since there are no significant molecular clouds found
602: in the direction of BM Gem (e.g., Dame, Hartmann, \& Thaddeus 2001),
603: $\alpha$ should be close to unity and the use of $R_{V}=3.1$ should be justified.
604: Therefore we regard $A_{3650} = 0.6$ as an upper limit.
605: We have also obtained another estimate of $A_{3650} = 0.3$ for the interstellar
606: extincion toward BM~Gem, using $E(B-V)=0.067$ read from
607: Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998) by way of NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive,
608: $R_{V}=3.1$, and $A_{3650}/A_{V}=1.56$.
609: %This is much smaller than the one derived above from
610: %the \ion{H}{1} gas column density.
611: This is another upper limit because BM Gem must lie somewhere between
612: the boundary of the dust distribution in the sight line and us.
613: Taking these into account we adopt the 0.3 mag directly from
614: far-inrared dust observations as a nominal value, the 0.6 mag from the \ion{H}{1}
615: observations as a maximum value, and no extinction as a minimum value,
616: for $A_{3650}$ to BM~Gem, namely, $A_{3650}=0.3\pm0.3$.
617: Then we find the absolute magnitudes at
618: $U$ ($M_{U}$) and 4000 {\AA} ($M_{4000}$) to be
619: %5.2$^{+1.2}_{-1.4}$ and 5.2$^{+1.3}_{-1.5}$, respectively.
620: 5.2$^{+1.0}_{-1.2}$ and 5.2$^{+1.1}_{-1.3}$, respectively.
621: These are obtained from the observed magnitudes of $M_{U}$=15.9$^{+0.45}_{-0.65}$
622: and $M_{4000}$=15.9$^{+0.55}_{-0.75}$, the adopted distance of 1.2 kpc,
623: its uncertainty factor of 1.2, and the same interstellar extinction
624: correction of -0.3$\pm$0.3 mag to both of them.
625: The distance and uncertainty factor corresponds to -10.4$\pm$0.2~mag.
626:
627: The violet continuum is not simply explained by the photosphere
628: of a postulated companion. For the case of a dwarf companion,
629: the probable range of $M_{4000}$ between +6.3 and +3.9
630: corresponds to a photosphere with a spectral type between
631: late G and late F, which should show numerous strong absorption
632: lines in the violet region. The violet continuum of BM~Gem is,
633: however, featureless except for the \ion{Ti}{1} emission lines due to the primary
634: carbon star and the Balmer series lines due to the outflow, as mentioned
635: in section 3.1. The featureless continuum requires that
636: the companion's photosphere is smeared by veiling with/without obscuration
637: and contributes only a small fraction of the observed violet continuum.
638: Considering the S/N ratios in the original high-resolution
639: spectra of $\sim$15, we should be able to detect absorption
640: lines of which central depths are as weak as 20\% of
641: the continuum level at 3 $\sigma$ confidence.
642: In this violet region, there are many absorption lines
643: the central depths of which are as strong as 80\% of
644: the continuum level in late F through late K dwarfs.
645: For such strong lines to appear weaker than
646: the 3 $\sigma$ upper limit of 20\%, the veiling should be
647: at least 4 times the companion's photosphere.
648: Possible cases are an F- or G-type dwarf obscured by continuous
649: absorption and covered with veiling and a dwarf later than
650: G-type either obscured or not by continuous absorption
651: and covered with veiling.
652: Obscured B- or A-type photosphere is not plausible for the violet
653: continuum because we do not see the Balmer Jump typical for such
654: spectral types and because the companion should be less
655: massive than the primary carbon star.
656: The observed violet continuum also cannot be explained by the photosphere
657: of a white dwarf companion, because the $U$ band brightness, $M_{U}$,
658: of a DB white dwarf with effective temperature of 25000~K is 9.1
659: (Allen 1976), and those classified as DA and later are less luminous.
660: Therefore, most of the observed violet flux in BM~Gem
661: should have an origin other than the photosphere of the
662: assumed companion, which is consistent with our accretion
663: hypothesis.
664:
665: The total flux of the observed continuum emission
666: $F^{cont}=\int_{0}^{\infty}F^{cont}_{\nu}d\nu$ is approximately
667: obtained by $\nu_{0} F^{cont}_{\nu_{0}}$, where $\nu$ and
668: $F^{cont}_{\nu}$ mean frequency and the flux of the continuum
669: at $\nu$ per unit frequency range (flux density)
670: and $F^{cont}_{\nu_{0}}$ and $\nu_{0}$ are their typical values.
671: We adopt the frequency at $Ly~ \alpha$ (1216 {\AA}), $\nu_{Ly \alpha}$
672: for $\nu_{0}$ and the flux density at $\nu_{Ly \alpha}$, $F^{cont}_{\nu_{Ly \alpha}}$
673: for $F^{cont}_{\nu_{0}}$ to obtain $F^{cont}\sim\nu_{Ly \alpha} F^{cont}_{\nu_{Ly \alpha}}
674: =\lambda_{Ly \alpha} F^{cont}_{\lambda_{Ly \alpha}}$, where $\lambda_{Ly \alpha}$
675: is the wavelength of ${Ly~ \alpha}$ and $F^{cont}_{\lambda_{Ly \alpha}}$ is
676: the flux of the continuum per unit wavelength range at $Ly~ \alpha$ wavelength.
677: Here, we assume $F^{cont}_{\lambda_{Ly \alpha}}$ is approximated by
678: $F^{cont}_{\lambda_{BL^{-}}}$,
679: which is the flux of the continuum per unit wavelength range
680: immediately shortward of the Balmer limit at 3646 {\AA}, for which we obtained
681: 3.6$\times$10$^{-15}$ erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ {\AA}$^{-1}$ in \S 3.1.
682: These approximations should be valid because model spectra of
683: ionized gas show that the continuum emission diminishes rapidly
684: toward higher frequencies with respect to $Ly~ \alpha$ line
685: and because the level of the continuum flux per unit wavelength
686: from an ionized gas at $Ly~\alpha$ wavelength is similar to that
687: just shortward in wavelength of the Balmer limit
688: (e.g., Harrington, Lutz, \& Seaton 1981; Pottasch et al. 1981).
689: Then, the product $\nu_{Ly \alpha} F^{cont}_{\nu_{Ly \alpha}}$ should
690: give a reasonable estimate of the total flux.
691: The above approximations, however, may overestimate the total flux,
692: and another uncertainty of (-0, +1) in magnitude should be added.
693:
694: Now, assuming spherical symmetry of the radiation field,
695: the gas radiative luminosity, $L_{g}$, can be estimated as
696: \begin{equation}
697: L_{g} \simeq 4\pi D^{2} \nu_{Ly \alpha} F^{cont}_{\nu_{Ly \alpha}}
698: =8\times 10^{32}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}
699: \sim0.2~L_{\odot},
700: \end{equation}
701: \noindent
702: where $D$ denotes the distance to BM~Gem.
703: The total uncertainty range has a magnitude of (-1.2, +2.0)
704: by summing those discussed previously, or 0.03--0.6~$L_{\odot}$.
705: $L_{g}$ in this range is
706: always larger than the gas kinematic luminosity,
707: (1/2) $\dot{m}_{out}V_{e}^{2}$, and thermal luminosity, $(3/2) nkT 4\pi R^{2}V_{e}$,
708: and dominates the total luminosity as far as
709: $\dot{m}_{out} \leq 10^{-9} M_{\odot}~{\rm yr^{-1}}$ and $T \leq 10^{6}$ K.
710: Here, $\dot{m}_{out}$, $V_{e}$, and $n$ are the mass ejection rate,
711: outflow velocity, and total particle number density, respectively,
712: of the high velocity outflow. $k$, $T$, and $R$ are
713: the Boltzmann constant, temperature of the gas, and radius under
714: consideration from the center of the outflow source, respectively.
715:
716: Maximum energy input, $L_{a}$, expected from the mass-accretion by a companion,
717: is constrained by the gravitational potential energy release from the
718: accreting matter, i.e.,
719: \begin{equation}
720: %\nonumber
721: L_{a}=G(M_{2}\dot{M}_{2})/r
722: %6.0\times 10^{32}(M_{2}/0.5)(\dot{M}_{2}/10^{-10}) (r/0.01)^{-1} {\rm ~erg~s^{-1}}\\
723: =0.16~(M_{2}/0.5)(\dot{M}_{2}/10^{-10}) (r/0.01)^{-1}~L_{\odot},
724: %\end{eqnarray}
725: \end{equation}
726: where $G$, $\dot{M}_{2}$, $M_{2}$, and $r$ are the gravitational constant,
727: the companion's mass accretion rate in $M_{\odot}~{\rm yr^{-1}}$,
728: its mass in $M_{\odot}$, and its radius in $R_{\odot}$, respectively.
729: In this equation $M_{2}/r$ is almost constant and near unity
730: for dwarf stars of type late F to late K,
731: and is 20--70 for white dwarfs (Allen 1976).
732: %Here we can expect $M_{2}$ to be around 0.5--1.0,
733: %irrespective of it being a white dwarf or a dwarf star,
734: %given that the companion candidate is either a dwarf cooler
735: %than late F-type, or a white dwarf.
736: For a white dwarf of 0.5 $M_{\odot}$ with 0.01 $R_{\odot}$ (Allen 1976),
737: an accretion rate of $(0.2-4)\times 10^{-10}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr^{-1}}$ can afford the observed
738: continuum luminosity of $(0.03-0.6)~L_{\odot}$,
739: whereas a K5 dwarf of 0.69 $M_{\odot}$ and 0.74 $R_{\odot}$ (Allen 1976)
740: can give rise to the observed luminosity when the mass accretion rate
741: is $(0.1-2)\times 10^{-8}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$.
742: It is not self-evident if the latter accretion rate is feasible for
743: a dwarf companion in a binary system compatible with the observations,
744: given the current mass loss rate of $3\times 10^{-7}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$
745: in BM~Gem (Kahane et al. 1998).
746:
747: According to Warner (1972), the Bondi-Hoyle type mass accretion rate is written as
748: \begin{eqnarray}
749: \nonumber
750: &&\dot{M}_{2} =
751: (1/2) G^{2} \dot{M}_{1} M_{2}^{2} [(v_{rel}^{2}+c^{2})^{3/2}v_{e}]^{-1} d^{-2} \\
752: &&~~~~=3.4\times 10^{-9}(\dot{M}_{1}/10^{-7})~(M_{2}/0.5)^{2}
753: [{(v_{rel}^{2}+c^{2})^{3/2}v_{e}} /(7.5)^{4}]^{-1}~(d/30)^{-2} ~~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1},
754: \end{eqnarray}
755: where $v_{e}$, $v_{rel}$, and c are the mass outflow velocity from the primary
756: carbon star, relative velocity of the companion to the primary outflow,
757: and speed of sound of the material, respectively, all in km~s$^{-1}$,
758: and $\dot{M}_{1}$ and $d$ are the mass loss rate of the primary in $M_{\odot}~{\rm yr^{-1}}$
759: and binary separation in AU, respectively.
760: Substituting equation~(4) in equation~(3) we find,
761: \begin{eqnarray}
762: &&\nonumber L_{a}=(1/2)G^{3}\dot{M}_{1}M_{2}^{3} [(v_{rel}^{2}+c^{2})^{3/2}v_{e}rd^{2}]^{-1}\\
763: %\nonumber =2.0\times 10^{34}(\dot{M}_{1}/10^{-7})~(M_{2}/0.5)^{3}
764: %[{(v_{rel}^{2}+c^{2})^{3/2}v_{e}} /(7.5)^{4}]^{-1}~(d/30)^{-2}~(r/0.01)^{-1} {\rm ~erg~s^{-1}}\\
765: &&~~~=5.2~(\dot{M}_{1}/10^{-7})~(M_{2}/0.5)^{3}
766: [{(v_{rel}^{2}+c^{2})^{3/2}v_{e}} /(7.5)^{4}]^{-1}~(d/30)^{-2}~(r/0.01)^{-1} ~L_{\odot}.
767: \end{eqnarray}
768: The speed of sound of the material can be neglected here as it is likely that
769: the wind is flowing supersonically.
770: Here, we may write $v_{rel}= ( v_{e}^{2} + v_{orbit}^{2} )^{1/2} $, where $v_{orbit}$
771: is the orbital velocity of the companion
772: (Warner 1972; Jura \& Helfand 1984).
773:
774: If we assume BM~Gem is in a binary system consisting of a carbon star of
775: 1.5~$M_{\odot}$ (Claussen et al. 1987; Groenewegen et al. 1992)
776: and a dwarf of 0.5~$M_{\odot}$, in a circular orbit with a separation of 30 AU,
777: which is one likely configuration, then the orbital velocity of the companion
778: about the primary becomes 7.7~km~s$^{-1}$. The outflow
779: velocity of the primary carbon star is 7.5~km~s$^{-1}$ and the current
780: %$\dot{M}_{1}$
781: mass loss rate is $\sim3\times 10^{-7}~M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ in BM~Gem
782: (Kahane et al. 1998). Then, equation~(5) gives an accretion luminosity of
783: 0.08~$L_{\odot}$,
784: which is at least compatible with the observed luminosity of BM~Gem
785: when its uncertainty range is taken into account.
786: In their smoothed particle hydrodynamic calculations,
787: Mastrodemos \& Morris (1999) found that the Bondi-Hoyle accretion is not
788: as efficient as initially thought. The obtained efficiency ($\dot{M}_{2}$/$\dot{M}_{1}$)
789: spreads over a range between 0.1\% and 10\% for the cases they
790: examined that are compatible with the configurations under consideration here.
791: The efficiencies they found differ not by an order but by a factor
792: from those obtained using equation~(4) for the same parameter sets.
793: A dwarf companion is thus at least compatible with the observations.
794:
795: \section{DISCUSSION}
796: In the previous section, we showed that our results were compatible with
797: BM~Gem being accompanied by a low-mass, low-luminosity companion with an
798: accretion disk, for which both a main-sequence star and a white dwarf are viable.
799: In this section, we further consider the characteristics of the BM~Gem system.
800:
801: The observed UV-optical (violet) spectral features of BM~Gem nearly
802: parallel those of Mira ($o$ Cet). Mira is known to consist of a long
803: period variable on the asymptotic giant branch, Mira~A %($o$ Cet A)
804: and a low-mass, low-luminosity companion separated by about $0\farcs6$ ($\sim$70~AU),
805: Mira~B %($o$ Cet B)
806: (Karovska et al. 1997 and references therein).
807: Joy (1926, 1954) reported the first detection of a UV-optical continuum and of complex
808: profiles of Hydrogen Balmer lines with emission and absorption cores in Mira~B.
809: Figure~8 of Reimers \& Cassatella (1985) showed that both Balmer
810: and Paschen continua existed, and the level of the former was higher than that of the latter.
811: The Balmer lines were found to be in P Cygni-type and their profiles were
812: shown to be highly variable on a time scale similar to that found for BM~Gem
813: (Joy 1926, Yamashita \& Maehara 1977), although the lines were not in P Cygni-type
814: in Reimers \& Cassatella (1985).
815: The P Cygni profiles indicated that
816: the outflow velocity was as large as 400~km~s$^{-1}$ (Wood et al. 2002).
817: Warner (1972) examined the energetics of Mira~B and reported that its total luminosity
818: of $\sim0.2~L_{\odot}$ could be accommodated by the Bondi-Hoyle type accretion
819: of Mira~A's wind to Mira~B, if the mass loss rate from Mira~A is greater than
820: 0.8$\times10^{-7}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$. The actual mass loss rate of Mira~A is
821: $\sim3\times10^{-7}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ (Ryde \& Sch$\ddot{\rm o}$ier 2001),
822: which supports the Bondi-Hoyle type accretion.
823: Jura \& Helfand (1984) also found the UV-optical luminosity of Mira~B to be
824: 0.2 (0.05--1)~$L_{\odot}$.
825: The above parallels between BM~Gem and Mira in the spectral features as well
826: as the UV-optical luminosity support the presence of
827: a companion to BM~Gem.
828:
829: Based on the X-ray luminosity as well as of the outflow velocity of $\sim$400~km~s$^{-1}$,
830: the companion of BM~Gem may not be a white dwarf but a dwarf.
831: Here, we again present a parallel discussion with Mira.
832: A very low X-ray luminosity, which is $\sim$10$^{-3}$ of the UV-optical luminosity,
833: in the Mira system led Jura \& Helfand (1984) to conclude that Mira~B was not a white
834: dwarf but a dwarf. They argued that the X-ray luminosity
835: would be comparable to the UV-optical luminosity if the companion was a white dwarf.
836: Reimers \& Cassatella (1985) noted that there was no direct evidence for
837: the presence of a hot white dwarf companion to Mira~A, although they favored
838: a white dwarf companion. Based on a similar discussion, Ireland et al. (2007)
839: recently concluded that Mira~B is a K5 dwarf of 0.7~$M_{\odot}$.
840: If Mira~B is indeed a dwarf, then the X-ray luminosity of BM~Gem would
841: be as small as that of Mira in the case of a dwarf companion but could be
842: 10$^{3}$ times as much for a white dwarf companion.
843: Mira has an X-ray photon flux of 7.6$\times10^{-3}$~counts~s$^{-1}$ in
844: the 0.1--2.4~keV energy band in the second ROSAT source catalog of
845: pointed observations (ROSAT Consortium 2000).
846: The X-ray flux from BM~Gem in the same energy band could be
847: as much as $\sim$0.08~counts~s$^{-1}$ for a white dwarf companion,
848: with the difference in their distances of a factor 10 taken into account.
849: It should have been detected in the ROSAT all-sky survey (Voges et al. 1999, 2000),
850: the detection limit of which was about 0.05~counts~s$^{-1}$,
851: which is actually not the case.
852: This argues for a dwarf as the companion of BM~Gem.
853: However, that both Mira and BM~Gem possess
854: a white dwarf companion cannot be excluded completely,
855: because there may exist a mechanism that suppresses
856: the X-ray luminosity arising from the accretion process
857: and one to accelerate the outflow from some distant point
858: from the white dwarf simultaneously.
859: The latter mechanism is favorable for the picture suggested
860: for Mira~B by Warner (1972).
861: It is thus difficult to choose exclusively between
862: a dwarf and a white dwarf as the companion, although the data favor a dwarf.
863:
864: The binary separation of the BM~Gem system is only loosely constrained.
865: The separation is found to be (6--0.3)$\times 10^{1}$~AU for a dwarf companion,
866: while that for a white dwarf companion is (5--1)$\times 10^{2}$~AU to reproduce
867: the observed luminosity of 0.03--0.6~$L_{\odot}$ using equation~(5).
868: We adopted $\dot{M}_{1}=3\times10^{-7}$ and
869: $v_{e}=7.5$ and assumed that $M_{1}$ (the mass of the
870: primary in $M_{\odot}$)=1.5, $M_{2}=0.5$, $r$=0.65 (dwarf) or
871: 0.016 (white dwarf), and the system is in a circular orbit.
872: Further, for any combination of $M_{1}$ between 1.0 and 2.0 and
873: $M_{2}$ between 0.3 and 1.2 but $M_{1} > M_{2}$ (dwarf) or
874: between 0.3 and 0.7 (white dwarf), there are upper limits of
875: 210~AU and 930~AU for a dwarf and
876: a white dwarf companion, respectively,
877: where realistic $r$ corresponding to $M_{2}$ (Allen 1976, Lang 1999) is used.
878: As equation~(3) gives an upper limit and equation~(4) is suspected to
879: overestimate the accretion rate (Mastrodemos \& Morris 1999),
880: the derived upper limits for the separation are relatively stringent.
881: Mastrodemos \& Morris (1999) and Soker \& Rappaport (2000) suggested from
882: theoretical considerations that the separation should be $\lesssim$30~AU to
883: form an accretion disk around a companion, irrespective of whether it is a dwarf or
884: a white dwarf, in the detached binary configurations under consideration here.
885: The observation that Mira~B, which is at least 70~AU from Mira~A,
886: is associated with an accretion disk despite the moderate mass loss rate
887: of Mira~A of $\sim3\times10^{-7}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$
888: suggests that the current hydrodynamic simulations do not constrain
889: the upper-limit of the separation very well.
890: As BM~Gem has been shown to be a system resembling Mira, its binary separation
891: could be as large as 70~AU.
892: Ohnaka et al. (2006) derived an upper limit of $\sim$60--80~AU
893: for the diameter of the inner dust-free region in the silicate carbon star IRAS08002-3803
894: from mid-infrared interferometry, which at the same time gives an upper limit for
895: the postulated binary separation of $\sim$80~AU. However, they
896: suggested that silicate carbon stars with an optically thin dust reservoir, to which
897: BM~Gem belongs, have binary separations wider than those of silicate
898: carbon stars with an optically thick reservoir, to which IRAS08002-3803 belongs.
899: In addition, if we pose a constraint that we do not see a Roche-Lobe overflow,
900: then we find the binary separation should be larger than 1.8 AU for any combination of
901: mass ratio between 1 and 7 and carbon star radius between 1 and 1.5 AU
902: using the formulation by Paczy\'nski (1971).
903:
904:
905: Luminosity of the silicate dust in BM~Gem, $L_{d}$ is estimated as
906: \begin{equation}
907: L_{d}=4\pi D^{2} \int F^{silicate}_{\nu}d\nu
908: \sim 4\pi D^{2} (1/5)\nu_{9.7 \mu m} F^{silicate}_{\nu_{9.7 \mu m}}
909: = 4\times 10^{35}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}},
910: \end{equation}
911: \noindent
912: where $F^{silicate}_{\nu}$, $\nu_{9.7 \mu m}$,
913: and $F^{silicate}_{\nu_{9.7 \mu m}}$ are the flux density due to silicate dust,
914: frequency at 9.7 $\mu$m, and flux density due to silicate dust at 9.7 $\mu$m peak, respectively.
915: We assume the emission is isotropic, the feature extends over 8-12 $\mu$m,
916: and has a flux density of about 1.2$\times 10^{-11}$ W m$^{-2}$ at the peak,
917: which is read from the ``IRAS Low Resolution Spectrograph'' atlas
918: (Joint IRAS Science Working Group 1986). The factor 1/5 is a roughly determined
919: correction factor for substituting the integration with the multiplication
920: obtained by a simple calculation of (1/2)(12 $\mu$m-8 $\mu$m)/(9.7 $\mu$m).
921: The dust luminosity is then $\sim110~L_{\odot}$.
922: The accretion process discussed here cannot be the energy source
923: of the silicate emission lines.
924: The energy must be supplied by the radiation from the primary carbon star
925: of $\sim 5 \times 10^{3}~L_{\odot}$ (see \S 3.2).
926: The dust luminosity indicates that about 2\% of the
927: total stellar luminosity is captured by the dust
928: grains responsible for the silicate features.
929: Barnbaum et al. (1991) found similar values of 1--2 \%
930: in BM~Gem and V778~Cyg.
931:
932:
933: Silicate emission features have been speculated to arise from a circumstellar
934: disk around a companion as well as from a thickened circumbinary disk
935: (Lloyd-Evans 1990).
936: Engels \& Leinert (1994) inferred a minimum radius for a circumbinary
937: molecular reservoir of 45~sin~$i$~AU, where $i$ denotes the inclination
938: of the reservoir, which is 90$^{\circ}$ when seen edge-on, for V778~Cyg and
939: EU~And, assuming a 1~$M_{\odot}$ primary and circular Keplerian motion
940: of the reservoir. They based their inference on constancy better than
941: 0.06~km~s$^{-1}$~yr$^{-1}$ of the radial velocity of the water maser lines.
942: Kahane et al. (1998) and Jura \& Kahane (1999) detected
943: a very narrow emission component in the mm-wave CO lines
944: in BM~Gem and EU~And. They interpreted the narrow component as due
945: to a circumbinary reservoir in Keplerian motion formed by some binary
946: interaction with an unseen companion. They argue that the oxygen-rich
947: material responsible for the silicate emission is stored in
948: the long-lived circumbinary reservoir of 100--1000 AU size, which was
949: formed when the primary star was an oxygen-rich mass-losing star.
950: This picture is further reinforced by the study of Red Rectangle by Waters et al. (1998)
951: who noted the similarity to silicate carbon stars of Red Rectangle,
952: which possesses a circumbinary disk showing crystalline silicate features,
953: an extended carbon-rich outflow, and narrow CO emission lines.
954: The circumbinary reservoir of 100--1000 AU size is compatible with
955: both the binary separation of (0.3--6)$\times 10^{1}$~AU
956: (as well as a stringent upper limit of 210~AU) derived
957: for a dwarf companion to BM~Gem and the separation of (1--5)$\times 10^{2}$~AU
958: (as well as a stringent upper limit of 930~AU)
959: for a white dwarf companion.
960:
961: However, Yamamura et al. (2000) found that silicate dust grains responsible for the emission
962: features in V778~Cyg should have temperature between 600 and 300 K, which
963: implies their location to be between about 25 and 100 AU (12--50 stellar radii)
964: from the primary.
965: They concluded that a circumstellar disk around an invisible companion should
966: be the reservoir of oxygen-rich material, because they found it difficult to
967: locate a circumbinary disk in the vicinity of the companion's orbit.
968: Dust grains there will be swept outward in less than one orbital period
969: by radiation pressure from the primary.
970: They speculated that the silicate features originate from oxygen-rich material
971: continuously blown out by radiation pressure of the primary from the
972: circumcompanion disk that was built when the primary was an oxygen-rich
973: mass-losing star.
974: Furthermore, Ohnaka et al. (2006) suggested that silicate carbon stars may be
975: classified into two groups: one with an optically thick circumbinary dust reservoir
976: with a smaller binary separation, and another with an optically thin dust outflow
977: from the companion's disk with a wider binary separation. Following their criteria,
978: BM~Gem belongs to the latter group, and thus may show dust outflow from
979: the companion, possibly extending out in a region at 50--100 AU from the primary.
980: Therefore, the region at 30--100~AU is a likely location of the circumstellar
981: molecular/dust reservoir according to both Yamamura et al. and Ohnaka et al.
982: This location is compatible with the binary separation for a dwarf companion,
983: but not with the separation for a white dwarf companion.
984:
985: Finally, it should be noted that all of the silicate carbon stars
986: examined spectroscopically are known to be J-type
987: stars (Lloyd-Evans 1990, 1991), while the opposite is not true.
988: It has been argued that J-type carbon stars are the direct descendants of
989: R-type carbon stars (Lloyd-Evans 1990; Lambert et al. 1990), which form
990: through a mechanism unrelated to the third dredge-up, as
991: both groups of stars are $^{13}$C-rich and lack s-process enhancements
992: in the surface chemical compositions (Utsumi 1985, Dominy 1985).
993: Abia \& Isern (2000), however, favor another scenario in which
994: the low-mass J-type stars discussed here form via a combination of
995: non-standard extra mixing and cool bottom processing (Wasserburg,
996: Boothroyd, \& Sackmann 1995) early on the AGB,
997: which is consistent with their luminosities being similar to those
998: of normal cool carbon stars on the AGB
999: (Wallerstein \& Knapp 1998; Alksnis et al. 1998).
1000: As there seems to be a connection between the J-type nature
1001: and the silicate features, the presence of a companion to BM~Gem
1002: would suggest a possible connection between binarity and
1003: J-type phenomena, which is worth investigating further.
1004: Radial velocity monitoring of J-type stars would be important,
1005: which could be carried out by observing the \ion{Ti}{1} emission lines
1006: in the violet region as well as numerous photospheric
1007: molecular absorption lines.
1008:
1009:
1010: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
1011: We observed the violet spectra of the three brightest silicate carbon stars,
1012: BM~Gem, V778~Cyg, and EU~And, using the High Dispersion Spectrograph on the Subaru
1013: telescope, and used a prototypical J-type carbon star Y~CVn for comparison.
1014: Balmer continuum and Paschen continuum emission typical
1015: for ionized gas were found to be prominent in the region shortward of
1016: 4000 {\AA} in BM~Gem, while no significant emission was observed
1017: in the same region in V778~Cyg, EU~And, or Y~CVn.
1018: In BM~Gem, Balmer series lines were also detected from H$_{\gamma}$
1019: through H$_{23}$, and they showed P Cygni-type line profiles.
1020: Broad \ion{Ca}{2} K emission with blueward depression was also found,
1021: while the \ion{Ca}{2} H line is missing perhaps because it is absorbed
1022: by hydrogen in the outflow.
1023: The P Cygni profiles give the gas outflow velocity of at least
1024: 400 km~s$^{-1}$. Such spectral features have not been observed
1025: in other cool luminous carbon stars.
1026: Furthermore, the P Cygni profiles changed significantly within a period of 75 days,
1027: suggesting a compact geometry of the outflow.
1028: The overall spectral features mimic those of Mira B.
1029: All these features in the cool carbon star BM~Gem
1030: suggest the presence of a companion that gives rise to
1031: an accretion disk, which is responsible for the ionized gas region and
1032: the observed high velocity outflow.
1033:
1034: We investigated the energetics of the observed emission assuming
1035: a binary system and Bondi-Hoyle type mass accretion process.
1036: The luminosity of the observed continuum emission is estimated to be
1037: $\sim$0.2 (0.03--0.6)~$L_{\odot}$, while the silicate dust features convey
1038: about 110 $L_{\odot}$, which shows that the silicate dust grains are
1039: heated not by the phenomenon discovered here but by radiation
1040: from the carbon star. We found that the violet continuum luminosity
1041: is accommodated if an accretion rate on the order of
1042: $10^{-8}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ is achieved to a dwarf
1043: companion, while $10^{-10}~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ is sufficient to
1044: a white dwarf companion. Although the required accretion efficiency
1045: seems rather high, a main-sequence companion is favored based on
1046: the observed outflow velocity of 400 km~s$^{-1}$ and the
1047: non-detection of X-ray flux in the ROSAT all sky survey.
1048: The possibility of a white dwarf companion, however, cannot be ruled out,
1049: because the outflow could be narrow and inclined with respect to
1050: the sight line or be accelerated at some distant point from the
1051: surface of the white dwarf.
1052:
1053: Based on the above findings combined with those of previous studies,
1054: we conclude that BM~Gem is associated with a low-mass,
1055: low-luminosity companion giving rise to an accretion disk.
1056: We note that the spectral features and UV-optical luminosity
1057: obtained for the BM~Gem system closely resemble those
1058: of the Mira system, which should represent the actual similarity
1059: between the binary configurations of the two systems.
1060: We derived the binary separations based on the observed UV-optical
1061: luminosity as (0.3--6)$\times 10^{1}$~AU and (1--5)$\times 10^{2}$~AU
1062: for a dwarf and a white dwarf companion, respectively,
1063: assuming the primary mass of 1.5~$M_{\odot}$,
1064: companion mass of 0.5~$M_{\odot}$,
1065: circular orbits, and Bondi-Hoyle type accretion.
1066: We also derived another stringent upper limit of the separation
1067: of 210~AU and 930~AU
1068: for a dwarf and a white dwarf companion, respectively.
1069: The separations for a dwarf are compatible with both the circumcompanion dust
1070: reservoir proposed by Yamamura et al. (2000) and Ohnaka et al. (2006)
1071: and the circumbinary dust reservoir proposed by Kahane et al. (1998) and Jura \& Kahane (1999),
1072: while those for a white dwarf are plausible only for the circumbinary reservoir.
1073: However, it is still difficult to choose between the two scenarios
1074: for the dust reservoir responsible for the silicate emission features in BM~Gem.
1075: A very high angular resolution imaging in the ultraviolet would be interesting
1076: to depict the reservoir through the violet continuum emission scattered
1077: by the silicate grains.
1078: If the silicates are located in a circumbinary reservoir, we will see
1079: a ring-like structure, while we may see a spiral structure if they are
1080: blown out continuously from a circumcompanion disk.
1081: It is also important to carry out high sensitivity, medium
1082: resolution spectroscopy in the ultraviolet of
1083: silicate carbon stars other than BM~Gem to determine whether
1084: the violet spectral features are common among silicate
1085: carbon stars. Theoretical studies of the formation mechanism
1086: of the dust reservoir are also required.
1087:
1088:
1089: \acknowledgments
1090: The authors thank Dr. Geoff Clayton, the referee of this paper, for valuable
1091: comments and careful reading that helped improve the manuscript considerably.
1092: The authors are also grateful to all the staff members of the Subaru telescope.
1093: H.I. and K.N. were supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
1094: (C) (No.13640247) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).
1095: H.I. and M.Y. were also partly supported by a JSPS grant for Scientific Research (A)
1096: (No.14204018). This research made use of SIMBAD and VizieR databases,
1097: maintained by CDS (Strasbourg), France, and of the NASA/IPAC Infrared
1098: Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1099: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1100: Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1101:
1102:
1103: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1104: \bibitem[Abia \& Isern(2000)]{abi00} Abia, C. \& Isern, J. 2000, \apj, 536, 438
1105: \bibitem[Alcolea et al.(1996)]{alco96} Alcolea, J., Bujarrabal, V.,
1106: \& S\'anchez Contreras, C. 1996, \aap, 312, 560
1107: \bibitem[Alksnis \& \u Zaime(1993)]{alk93} Alksnis, A., \& \u Zaime, D. 1993,
1108: Baltic Astronomy, 2, 281
1109: \bibitem[Alksnis et al.(1998)]{alk98} Alksnis, A., Balklavs, A., Dzervitis, U.,
1110: \& Eglitis, I. 1998, \aap, 338, 209
1111: \bibitem[Allen(1976)]{allen76} Allen, C. W. 1976, Astrophysical Quantities
1112: (3rd ed.; London: The Athlone Press, Univ. of London)
1113: \bibitem[Barnbaum et al.(1991)]{barn91} Barnbaum, C., Morris, M.,
1114: Likkle, L., \& Kastner, J. H. 1991, \aap, 251, 79
1115: \bibitem[Bohlin et al.(1978)]{boh78} Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., \& Drake, J. F. 1978, \apj, 224, 132
1116: \bibitem[CFHT]{cfht} Beland, S., Boulade, O., \& Davidge, T. 1988,
1117: CFHT Info. Bull., 19, 16
1118: \bibitem[Benson et al.(1987)]{ben87} Benson, P.J.,
1119: \& Little-Marenin, I. R. 1987, \apjl, 316, L37
1120: \bibitem[Bouigue(1954)]{boug54} Bouigue, R. 1954, Ann. d'Astrophys., 17, 104
1121: \bibitem[Cardelli(1989)]{car89} Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., \& Mathis, J. S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1122: \bibitem[Cernicharo et al.(1989)]{cer89} Cernicharo, J., Gu\'elin, M.,
1123: Martin-Pintado, J., Pe\~nalver, J., \& Mauersberger, R. 1989, \aap, 222, L1
1124: \bibitem[Chan \& Kwok(1998)]{chan98} Chan, S. J, \& Kwok, S. 1988, \apj, 334, 362
1125: \bibitem[Claussen et al.(1987)]{clau87} Claussen, M. J., Kleinmann, S. G.,
1126: Joyce, R. R., \& Jura, M. 1987, \apjs, 65, 385
1127: \bibitem[Clayton(1993)]{cla93} Clayton, G. C., Lawson, W. A., Whitney, B. A., \& Pollacco, D. L.
1128: 1993, \mnras, 264, L13
1129: \bibitem[Clayton(1996)]{cla96} Clayton, G. C. 1996, \pasp, 108, 225
1130: \bibitem[Clayton(2003)]{cla03} Clayton, G. C., Geballe, T. R., \& Bianchi, L. 2003, \apj, 595, 412
1131: \bibitem[Cox(2000)]{cox00} Cox, A. N., ed. 2000, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (4th ed.; New York: AIP)
1132: \bibitem[Dame et al.(2001)]{dam01} Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., \& Thaddeus, P. 2001, \apj, 547, 792
1133: \bibitem[Deutsch(1958)]{deu58} Deutsch, A. J. 1958, \aj, 63, 49
1134: \bibitem[Dominy(1985)]{dom85} Dominy, J. F. 1985, \pasp, 97, 1104
1135: \bibitem[Engels(1994)]{eng94} Engels, D., \& Leinert, Ch. 1994, \aap, 282, 858
1136: \bibitem[ESA(1997)]{ESA97} ESA 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues (ESA SP-1200)
1137: %\bibitem[Garc\'ia-Arredondo \& Frank(2004)]{gar04} Garc\'ia-Arredondo, F.
1138: \& Frank, A. 2004, \apj, 600, 992
1139: \bibitem[Gilra(1976)]{gil76} Gilra, D. P. 1976,
1140: Memoires Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 9, 77
1141: \bibitem[Groenewegen et al.(1992)]{gron92} Groenewegen, M. A. T.,
1142: de Jong, T., van der Bliek, N. S., Slijkhuis, S., \& Willems, F. J. 1992, \aap, 253, 150
1143: \bibitem[Harrington et al.(1981)]{har81} Harrington, J. P., Lutz, J. H.,
1144: \& Seaton, M. J. 1981, \mnras, 21P
1145: %\bibitem[Hartmann(2000)]{har00} Hartmann, L. 2000, Accretion Processes in Star Formation
1146: % (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
1147: \bibitem[Hayes \& Latham(1975)]{hay75} Hayes, D. S., \& Latham, D. W. 1975, \apj, 197, 593
1148: \bibitem[Heiles(1975)]{hei75} Heiles, C. 1975, \aaps, 20, 37
1149: \bibitem[Iben(1975)]{ibe75} Iben, I., Jr. 1975, \apj, 196, 525
1150: \bibitem[Iben \& Renzini(1983)]{ibe83} Iben, I., Jr., \& Renzini, A. 1983, \araa, 21, 271
1151: \bibitem[Ireland et al.(2007)]{ire07} Ireland, M. J., Monnier, J. D.,
1152: Tuthill, P. G., Cohen, R. W., de Buizer, J. M., Packham, C., Ciardi, D.,
1153: Hayward, T., \& Lloyd, J. P. 2007, \apj, 662, 651
1154: \bibitem[Iye et al.(2004)]{iye04} Iye, M., Karoji, H., Ando, H. et al. 2004, \pasj, 56, 381
1155: \bibitem[Izumiura et al.(1995)]{izu95} Izumiura, H., Ukita, N., \& Tsuji, T. 1995, \apj, 440, 728
1156: \bibitem[Jura \& Helfand(1984)]{jur84} Jura, M. \& Helfand, D. J. 1984, \apj, 287, 785
1157: %\bibitem[Jura et al.(1997)]{jur97} Jura, M., Kahane, C., Fischer, D., \& Grady, C. 1997,
1158: \apj, 485, 341
1159: \bibitem[Jura \& Kahane(1999)]{jura99} Jura, M. \& Kahane, C. 1999, \apj, 521, 302
1160: \bibitem[Joint IRAS SWG(1986)]{jrs86} Joint IRAS Science Working Group, 1986,
1161: IRAS catalogues and Atlasses, Low Resolution Spectrograph (LRS), \aaps, 65, 607
1162: \bibitem[Joy(1926)]{joy26} Joy, A. H. 1926, \apj, 63, 281
1163: \bibitem[Joy(1954)]{joy54} Joy, A. H. 1954, \apjs, 1, 39
1164: \bibitem[Kahane et al.(1998)]{Kaha98} Kahane, C.,
1165: Barnbaum, C., Uchida, K., Balm, S.P., \& Jura, M.
1166: 1998, \apj, 500, 466
1167: \bibitem[Kaifu et al.(2000)]{kaifu00} Kaifu, N., Usuda, T.,
1168: Hayashi, S. S. et al. 2000, \pasj, 52, 1
1169: \bibitem[Karovska et al.(1997)]{karov97} Karovska, M., Hack, W., Raymond, J., \& Guinan, E. 1997,
1170: \apjl, 482, L175
1171: \bibitem[Knapp et al.(1997)]{kap97} Knapp, G. J., Jorissen, A., \& Young, K. 1997, \aap, 326, 318
1172: \bibitem[Lambert et al.(1990)]{lam90} Lambert, D.L.,
1173: Hinkle, K. H., \& Smith, V. V. 1990, \aj, 99, 1612
1174: \bibitem[Lang(1999)]{lan99} Lang, K. R. 1999, Astrophysical Formulae, Vol. 1, (Berlin: Springer)
1175: \bibitem[Little-Marenin(1986)]{lit86} Little-Marenin, I.R.
1176: 1986, \apjl, 307, L15
1177: \bibitem[Little-Marenin(1988)]{lit88} Little-Marenin, I. R.,
1178: Benson, P. J., \& Dickinson, D. F. 1988, \apj, 330, 828
1179: \bibitem[Lloyd-Evans(1990)]{lloy90} Lloyd-Evans, T.
1180: 1990, \mnras, 243, 336
1181: \bibitem[Lloyd-Evans(1991)]{lloy91} Lloyd-Evans, T.
1182: 1991, \mnras, 249, 409
1183: \bibitem[Massey et al.(1988)]{massy88} Massey, P., Strobel, K.,
1184: Barnes, J. V., \& Anderson, E. 1988, \apj, 328, 315
1185: \bibitem[Mastrodemos \& Morris(1998)]{mas98}
1186: Mastrodemos, N. \& Morris, M. 1998, \apj, 497, 303
1187: \bibitem[Mastrodemos \& Morris(1999)]{mas99}
1188: Mastrodemos, N. \& Morris, M. 1999, \apj, 523, 357
1189: \bibitem[Molster et al.(2001)]{mol01} Molster, F.J.,
1190: Yamamura, I., Waters, L. B. F .M., Nyman, L.-A.,
1191: Kaufl, H.-U., de Jong, T., \& Loup, C. 2001, \aap, 366, 923
1192: \bibitem[Moore(1959)]{moo59} Moore, C. E. 1959,
1193: A Multiplet Table of Astrophysical Interest, NBS Technical Note,
1194: (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce)
1195: \bibitem[Morris(1987)]{mor87} Morris, M. 1987, \pasp, 99, 1115
1196: \bibitem[Nakada et al.(1987)]{nak87} Nakada, Y., Izumiura, H.,
1197: Onaka, T., Hashimoto, O., Ukita, N., Deguchi, S., \& Tanabe, T.
1198: 1987, \apjl, 323, L77
1199: \bibitem[Nicolet 1978]{nic78} Nicolet, B. 1978, \aaps, 34, 1
1200: \bibitem[Noguchi et al.(1981)]{nog81} Noguchi, K., Kawara, K., Kobayashi, Y.,
1201: Okuda, H., Sato, S., \& Oishi, M. 1981, \pasj, 33, 373
1202: \bibitem[Noguchi et al.(1990)]{nog90} Noguchi, K., Murakami, H., Matsuo, H.,
1203: Noda, M., Hamada, H., \& Watabe, T. 1990, \pasj, 42, 441
1204: \bibitem[Noguchi et al.(2002)]{nog02} Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S.,
1205: Ando, H., Honda, S., Izumiura, H., Kambe, E., Okita, K., Sadakane, K.,
1206: Sato, B., Takada-Hidai, M., Tanaka, W., \& Watanabe, E. 2002, \pasj, 54, 855
1207: \bibitem[Ohnaka \& Tsuji(1999)]{ohn99} Ohnaka, K. \& Tsuji, T. 1999, \aap, 345, 233
1208: \bibitem[Ohnaka et al.(2006)]{ohn06} Ohnaka, K., Driebe, T., Hofmann, K.-H.,
1209: Leinert, Ch., Morel, S., Paresce, F., Preibisch, Th., Richichi, A.,
1210: Schertl, D., Sch$\ddot{\rm o}$ller, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., Weigelt, G., \& Wittkowski, M.
1211: 2006, \aap, 445, 1015
1212: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1971)]{Pac71} Paczy\'nski, B. 1971, \araa, 9, 183
1213: \bibitem[Pottasch et al.(1981)]{pot81} Pottasch, S. R., Gathier, R., Gilra, D. P., \& Wesselius, P. R.
1214: 1981, \aap, 102, 237
1215: \bibitem[Reimers \& Cassatella(1985)]{rei85} Reimers, D. \& Cassatella, A. 1985, \apj, 297, 275
1216: \bibitem[Rao(1999)]{rao99} Rao, N. K., Lambert, D. L., Adams, M. T., Doss, D. R.,
1217: Gonzalez, G., Hatzes, A. P., James, C. R., Johns-Krull, C. M., Luck, R. E.,
1218: Pandey, G., Reinsh, K., Tomkin, J., \& Woolf, V. M. 1999, \mnras, 310, 717
1219: \bibitem[ROSAT Consortium(2000)]{ros00} ROSAT Consortium, 2000,
1220: ROSAT News, 72, 25-May-2000
1221: \bibitem[Ryde \& Sch$\ddot{\rm o}$ier(2001)]{ryd01} Ryde, N. \& Sch$\ddot{\rm o}$ier, F. L. 2001, \apj, 547, 384
1222: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{sch98} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, \& D. G., Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1223: \bibitem[Shane(1928)]{sha28} Shane, C. D. 1928, Lick Obs. Bull., 13, 123
1224: \bibitem[Soker \& Rappaport(2000)]{sok00} Soker, N. \& Rappaport, S. 2000, \apj, 538, 241
1225: \bibitem[Sugimoto \& Nomoto(1975)]{sug75} Sugimoto, D. \& Nomoto, K. 1975, \pasj, 27, 193
1226: \bibitem[Tomov et al.(1990)]{tom90} Tomov, T., Kolev, D., Zamanov, R., Georgiev, L.,
1227: \& Antov, A. 1990, \nat, 346, 637
1228: \bibitem[Utsumi(1985)]{uts85} Utsumi, K. 1985, in {\it Cool Stars with Excesses of Heavy Elements,}
1229: eds. M. Jaschek, \& P. C. Keenan (Dordrecht: Reidel), 243
1230: %\bibitem[Walker(1972)]{walk72} Walker, M. F. 1972, \apj, 175, 89
1231: \bibitem[Voges(1999)]{vog99} Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., Braeuninger, H.,
1232: Briel, U., Burkert, W., Dennerl, K., Englhauser, J., Gruber, R., Haberl, F., Hartner G.,
1233: Hasinger, G., Kuerster, M., Pfeffermann, E., Pietsch, W., Predehl, P., Rosso, C.,
1234: Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Truemper, J., \& Zimmermann, H.U. 1999, \aap, 349, 389
1235: \bibitem[Voges(2000)]{vog0} Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, Th., Brauninger, H.,
1236: Briel, U., Burkert, W., Dennerl, K., Englhauser, J., Gruber, R., Haberl, F., Hartner, G.,
1237: Hasinger, G., Pfeffermann, E., Pietsch, W., Predehl, P., Schmitt, J., Trumper, J.,
1238: \& Zimmermann, U. 2000b, IAU Circ. 7432, 1
1239: \bibitem[Wallerstein \& Knapp(1998)]{wall98} Wallerstein, G. \& Knapp, G. R. 1998, \araa, 36, 369
1240: \bibitem[Warner(1972)]{war72} Warner, B. 1972, \mnras, 159, 95
1241: \bibitem[Wasserburg et al.(1995)]{was95} Wasserburg, G. J., Boothroyd, A. I., \& Sackmann, I.-J. 1995,
1242: \apjl, 447, L37
1243: \bibitem[Waters et al.(1998)]{wat98} Waters, L. B. F. M., Cami, J., de Jong, T., Molster, F. J.,
1244: van Loon, J. Th., Bouwman, J., de Koter, A., Waelkens, C., van Winckel, H., \& Morris, P. W.
1245: 1998, \nat, 391, 868
1246: \bibitem[Willems \& de Jong(1986)]{wil86} Willems, F.J.
1247: \& de Jong, T. 1986, \apjl, 309, L39
1248: \bibitem[Willems \& de Jong(1988)]{wil88} Willems, F.J.
1249: \& de Jong, T. 1988, \aap, 196, 173
1250: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2001)]{woo01} Wood, B.E., Karovska, M., \& Hack, W. 2001, \apjl, 556, L51
1251: \bibitem[Wood et al.(2002)]{woo02} Wood, B.E., Karovska, M., \& Raymond, J.C. 2002, \apj, 575, 1057
1252: \bibitem[Yamamura et al.(2000)]{yam00} Yamamura, I., Dominik, C.,
1253: de Jong, T., Waters, L.B.F.M., \& Molster, F.J. 2000, \aap, 363, 629
1254: \bibitem[Yamashita \& Maehara(1977)]{yam77} Yamashita, Y. \& Maehara, H. 1977, \pasj, 29, 319
1255: \end{thebibliography}
1256:
1257: \clearpage
1258:
1259:
1260: \begin{deluxetable}{lllrllr}
1261: \tablecolumns{7}
1262: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1263: \tablewidth{0pc}
1264: \tablecaption{Observation Summary}
1265: \tablehead{
1266: \colhead{} & \colhead{RA(h m s)} & \colhead{Dec($^\circ$ ' ")} & \colhead{Exp} & \colhead{Res.} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{S/N} \\
1267: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(sec)} & \colhead{($\lambda/\Delta\lambda$)} & \colhead{(UT)} & \colhead{(@4000 {\AA})}}
1268: \startdata
1269: BM~Gem & 07 20 58.9 & +25 00 07.28 & 3600 & 50,000 & 2001 Jan 29 & $\sim$15~~ \\
1270: & & & 1800 & 50,000 & 2001 Apr 14 & $\sim$15~~ \\
1271: V778~Cyg & 20 36 07.4 & +60 05 26.2 & 2400 & 38,000 & 2001 Jul 30 & $<$1~~ \\
1272: EU~And & 23 19 58.2 & +47 14 28 & 2400 & 38,000 & 2001 Jul 30 & $<$1~~ \\
1273: Y~CVn & 12 45 07.8 & +45 26 24.9 & 900 & 50,000 & 2001 Feb 1 & $\sim$1~~ \\
1274: Feige~34 & 10 39 36.7 & +43 06 09.3 & 300 & 9,000 & 2001 Jan 28 & $\sim$80~~ \\
1275: \enddata
1276: \end{deluxetable}
1277:
1278: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllrrrrr}
1279: \tablecolumns{10}
1280: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1281: \tablewidth{0pc}
1282: \tablecaption{Astrometric and Photometric Data}
1283: \tablehead{
1284: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\pi$}& \colhead{$\sigma_{\pi}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &
1285: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} \\
1286: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{(mas)} & \colhead{(mas)} & \colhead{B} & \colhead{V} &\colhead{I} &
1287: \colhead{J} & \colhead{H} & \colhead{K} & \colhead{L}}
1288: \startdata
1289: BM~Gem & 1.83 & 1.24 & 10.72 & 8.40 & 4.96 & 4.28 & 3.32 & 2.75 & 2.47 \\
1290: V778~Cyg & \nodata & \nodata & 13.75 & 10.26 & \nodata & 5.25 & 4.20 & 3.54 & 3.18 \\
1291: EU~And & \nodata & \nodata & 13.70 & 10.47 & \nodata & 5.41 & 4.37 & 3.79 & 3.33 \\
1292: Y~CVn & 4.59 & 0.73 & 8.41 & 5.42 & 1.25 & 0.59 & -0.37 & -0.89 & -1.42 \\
1293: \enddata
1294: \end{deluxetable}
1295:
1296:
1297:
1298: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1299: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1300:
1301: \clearpage
1302: \begin{figure}
1303: %\plotone{f1.eps}
1304: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90,clip]{f1.eps}
1305: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90,clip]{f1.eps}
1306: \caption{Violet spectra of a silicate carbon star, BM~Gem, on
1307: January 29 and April 14, 2001, and a prototypical J-type
1308: carbon star, Y~CVn. All the spectra are binned to 1 {\AA} step.
1309: The dotted horizontal line indicates the zero level.
1310: Note the significant continuum emission,
1311: Balmer lines, and \ion{Ca}{2} K emission in BM~Gem.
1312: The small difference in the continuum level is probably due to
1313: the measurement uncertainty (see text for details).
1314: Small vertical ticks in the panel of Y~CVn give the
1315: positions of artifacts due to strong red light contamination,
1316: which is also present in BM~Gem but is not prominent because
1317: of the strong continuum (see text for details)
1318: \label{fig1}}
1319: \end{figure}
1320:
1321: \clearpage
1322:
1323: \begin{figure}
1324: %\plotone{f2.eps}
1325: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=-90,clip]{f2.eps}
1326: \caption{
1327: H$_{\delta}$ (top-left), H$_{\epsilon}$ (top-right),
1328: H$_{8}$ (bottom-left), and \ion{Ca}{2} K (bottom-right) lines
1329: in BM~Gem observed on January 29 (thick line) and
1330: April 14, 2001 (thin line), shown with the original resolution
1331: ($\lambda/\Delta \lambda$) of 50,000. The spectra are normalized
1332: to the local Paschen continuum. For H$_{\delta}$ the contribution
1333: of the carbon star spectrum was approximately subtracted.
1334: The profiles indicate that the gas expansion velocity in January
1335: was as large as 400 km~s$^{-1}$
1336: \label{fig2}}
1337: \end{figure}
1338:
1339: \end{document}
1340: