1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Stellar Rotation in Field and Cluster B-Stars
4: %
5: %
6: % Revision history:
7: % 2007 June 06 Draft from Huang
8: % 2007 July 06 Edited by Gies
9: % 2007 July 09 Edited by Huang
10: % 2007 Sept 13 Edited by Huang
11: % 2007 Sept 13 Submitted to ApJ MS ID 73056
12: % 2007 Nov 15 Edited by Huang
13: % 2007 Dec 04 Edited by Gies
14: % 2007 Dec 04 Resubmitted to ApJ
15: % 2008 Apr 16 Edited by Huang
16: % 2008 Apr 29 Edited by Gies
17: % 2008 May 01 Edited and Resubmitted to ApJ by Huang
18: % 2008 May 13 Edited and resubmitted to ApJ by Huang
19: %
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21:
22: %\documentclass{aastex}
23: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
24: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
25: %\voffset 0.7truein
26:
27: \newcommand{\myemail}{wenjin@astro.caltech.edu}
28:
29: \shorttitle{Stellar Rotation in B-Stars}
30: \shortauthors{Huang \& Gies}
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \received{}
35: \accepted{}
36:
37: \title{Stellar Rotation in Field and Cluster B-Stars}
38:
39: \author{W. Huang}
40:
41: \affil{Department of Astronomy \\
42: Caltech, MC 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125;\\
43: wenjin@astro.caltech.edu}
44:
45: \author{D. R. Gies}
46:
47: \affil{Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy\\
48: Department of Physics and Astronomy \\
49: Georgia State University, P. O. Box 4106, Atlanta, GA 30302-4106;\\
50: gies@chara.gsu.edu}
51:
52: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory
53: %and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory,
54: %National Optical Astronomy Observatory, operated by the Association
55: %of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with
56: %the National Science Foundation.}
57:
58: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
59:
60: \paperid{73056}
61:
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65: We present the results of a spectroscopic investigation of 108 nearby
66: field B-stars. We derive their key stellar parameters,
67: $V \sin i$, $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, and
68: $\log g_{\rm polar}$, using the same methods that we used
69: in our previous cluster B-star survey. By comparing the results
70: of the field and the cluster samples, we find that the main
71: reason for the overall slower rotation of the field sample is that it
72: contains a larger fraction of older stars than found in the
73: (mainly young) cluster sample.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \keywords{line: profiles ---
77: stars: rotation ---
78: stars: fundamental parameters ---
79: stars: early-type
80: }
81:
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83:
84: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
85: \section{Introduction} % Section 1
86: It is a curious but well known fact that field B-stars rotate
87: slower than cluster B-stars \citep*{abt02,str05,hua06a,wol07},
88: but the explanation for the difference is still controversial.
89: One possible solution is that field B-stars represent a population that
90: contains more evolved stars than cluster B-stars do. They appear to
91: rotate slower because stars generally spin down as they evolve
92: \citep{abt02,hua06a,hua06b}. On the other hand, \citet{str05} and \citet{wol07}
93: suggest that difference in rotation rates between field and cluster
94: B-stars is mainly due to the difference between the initial conditions
95: of the stellar forming regions. The denser the environment (such as in
96: young open clusters), the more rapid rotators can form. The second
97: explanation brings more attention to the possible connection between
98: stellar rotation and the physical mechanisms playing a role during
99: the star formation stage. A plausible
100: higher accretion rate around a forming star in a denser region may
101: lead to a higher initial angular momentum and a shorter accretion
102: disk lifetime with its associated spin-down effects via magnetic
103: interactions between the star and the disk.
104:
105: Because both the evolutionary status of stars and the initial conditions
106: of their forming regions may influence their rotation rates,
107: knowing the evolutionary status of these stars precisely becomes
108: a prerequisite for the solution of this puzzle.
109: With this in mind, we made a spectroscopic investigation
110: of 108 field B-stars using the same methods that we applied
111: in our previous cluster B-star survey \citep{hua06a,hua06b}. There
112: are two advantages over previous studies of this topic: 1) Because
113: we apply identical spectroscopic methods to both the field and
114: cluster samples, the influence of any imperfection in our
115: methods on the final comparisons will be reduced
116: to a minimum; 2) We use the estimated $\log g_{\rm polar}$ as
117: an indicator of stellar evolutionary status, which is more
118: accurate and reliable for large numbers of stars with diverse
119: masses and rotation rates. We describe our
120: derivation of the key stellar parameters of a field sample of B-stars
121: in next section. The results of a comparison between the field
122: sample and the cluster sample are reported in Section 3, and a
123: short discussion and our conclusion are given in Section 4.
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126:
127: \section{Field B-Star Sample} % Section 2
128:
129: Our field B-star sample was selected from the NOAO Indo-U.S.\ Library
130: of Coud\'e Feed Stellar Spectra\footnote{http://www.noao.edu/cflib/}
131: \citep{val04}. This library contains moderate resolution
132: spectra (FWHM = $1 - 2$\AA) of 1273 stars that were
133: obtained with the 0.9-m Coud\'e Feed telescope at Kitt Peak National
134: Observatory. Roughly about 140 B-star spectra are found in this library.
135: These spectra are comparable in S/N and resolution to those analyzed
136: in our previous cluster B-star survey.
137:
138: Following the exact same procedure that we applied to cluster
139: B-stars \citep{hua06a,hua06b}, we obtained the stellar parameters
140: of 108 B stars in our final sample:
141: the projected rotational velocity $V \sin i$,
142: the effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$, the apparent gravity $\log g$,
143: and the estimated polar gravity $\log g_{\rm polar}$.
144: These results are summarized in Table 1.
145: We excluded all double-lined spectroscopic binaries (SB2) from the sample
146: because the derived parameters of these objects are not reliable.
147: The errors are estimated from the deviations between the observed and
148: model profiles (see \citealt{hua06b}), and inclusion of uncertainties
149: related to the continuum placement may increase these errors by $\approx 40\%$.
150:
151: \placetable{tab1} % Table 1 - Derived Stellar Parameters
152:
153: The $V \sin i$ values were derived by fitting synthetic model profiles of \ion{He}{1}
154: $\lambda4471$ (or \ion{Mg}{2} $\lambda4481$ if the \ion{He}{1} line is too weak) to
155: the observed profiles, using realistic physical models of rotating stars
156: (including Roche geometry and gravity darkening). The details of this
157: step are described in \citet{hua06a}.
158: One concern about the derived $V \sin i$ values is that we do not know the
159: exact instrumental broadening data of the NOAO Indo-U.S. Library
160: spectra for the investigated region (4470 - 4480 \AA), and assumed only
161: the lower limit of the given FWHM range, 1 \AA,
162: in the convolution of our synthesized line profiles.
163: An underestimation of the instrumental broadening can lead to higher
164: derived $V \sin i$ values. In order to determine and then correct
165: the possible systematic errors caused by the uncertainty in
166: the assumed instrumental broadening, we also obtained high resolution
167: spectra ($R = \lambda/\triangle\lambda \sim 42000$)
168: of 34 stars in our sample from the ELODIE
169: archive\footnote{http://atlas.obs-hp.fr/elodie/} \citep{mou04}.
170: By comparing the $V \sin i$ values derived
171: from the NOAO library to those from the ELODIE library, we found the best
172: relationship between them can be written as
173:
174: \begin{equation}\label{eq_vsini_correct}
175: V \sin i_{\rm Elodie} \simeq \sqrt{(V \sin i_{\rm NOAO})^2 - (46 ~{\rm km~s}^{-1})^2}.
176: \end{equation}
177:
178: For the stars in our sample that are not found in the Elodie library,
179: we corrected their $V \sin i$ using eq.~\ref{eq_vsini_correct} for $V \sin i_{\rm NOAO}
180: > 46$ km~s$^{-1}$, and we set $V \sin i = 0$ for $V \sin i_{\rm NOAO} \leq
181: 46$ km~s$^{-1}$. The corrected $V \sin i$ and its numerical fitting error
182: are given in columns (6) and (7)
183: of Table~1. A comparison of the derived $V \sin i$ values between our results
184: and those from \citet{abt02} is illustrated in Figure~1. The good agreement in the
185: low $V \sin i$ region indicates that our corrections to $V \sin i$ are properly
186: assigned. In the high $V \sin i$ region, our results are systematically greater
187: than the results from \citet{abt02}. This discrepancy is not surprising, considering that our models
188: take the gravity darkening effect into account. \citet*{tow04} showed
189: that the $V \sin i$ derived from fitting the \ion{He}{1} $\lambda4471$ line could
190: be lower by as much as 10-20\% for a rapid rotator if the strong gravity
191: darkening effect on its surface is ignored. The most discrepant point
192: in Figure~1 is the star HD~172958. Our $V \sin i$ measurement of this
193: star (167 km~s$^{-1}$) is similar to the measurements by \citet{pea87} and
194: \citet{wol78} (175 km~s$^{-1}$). The much larger value measured by \citet{abt02},
195: $V\sin i = 315$ km~s$^{-1}$, might result if the star is
196: an unresolved, doubled-line binary that was observed
197: at a time of larger relative Doppler shifts, but the
198: star is not a known binary.
199:
200: \placefigure{fig1} % Figure 1 - Vsini Comparison
201:
202: The effective temperature and gravity were derived by fitting the H$\gamma$
203: profile (see details in \citealt{hua06b}). The results and the associated
204: numerical fitting errors are listed in columns (2) to (5) of Table~1. As
205: pointed out by \citet{hua06b}, the derived $\log g$ values represent
206: an average of gravity over the visible hemisphere of these rotating stars.
207: They may not be good indicators of stellar evolutionary status, especially
208: for rapid rotators that have much lower gravity in the equatorial area caused
209: by the strong centrifugal force. Following the method described in \citet{hua06b},
210: we made a statistical correction to estimate the polar gravity of each star from its
211: derived $V \sin i$, $T_{\rm eff}$, and $\log g$, and the resulting polar gravity
212: is listed in column (8) of Table~1.
213: Our estimates of $\log g_{\rm polar}$ are consistent with the available
214: observations. For example, one of our targets is Regulus (HD~87901) that was recently
215: resolved by the CHARA Array optical long baseline interferometer \citep{mca05}.
216: Models of the spectroscopy and interferometry of this rotationally
217: deformed star lead directly to a polar gravity of $\log g_{\rm polar}=3.98$, which
218: compares well with the statistical estimate here of $\log g_{\rm polar}=3.95$.
219: Furthermore, we used our derived $\log g_{\rm polar}$ values with
220: masses estimated from Figure~3 to derive radii, luminosities, bolometric
221: corrections, and absolute magnitudes. We combined these with the observed magnitudes
222: to find distance estimates, and a comparison of the derived distances
223: with those from {\it Hipparcos} \citep{van07} shows good consistency.
224: We note for completeness that in a sample of
225: ten stars in common, \citet{fit05} find temperatures that are $\approx 4\%$ larger
226: and gravities that are $\approx 0.1$ dex greater than our values. While
227: these differences between results from spectral flux and H$\gamma$ fitting
228: are interesting, they are insignificant for our purpose of comparing the
229: parameters of the field and cluster B-stars in a consistent manner.
230:
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232:
233: \section{A Comparison of Field and Cluster B Stars} % Section 3
234:
235: The recent studies \citep{abt02,str05,hua06a,wol07} that found that field
236: B-stars appear to rotate slower than cluster B-stars were mainly based on
237: the field sample from \citet{abt02} that includes roughly 1100 bright field
238: B-stars selected from the Bright Star Catalogue \citep{hof82}.
239: We note that both this and our own smaller sample of B-stars are not
240: volume-limited but tend to select from the intrinsically brighter members
241: of the population. Furthermore, both samples include some members of nearby
242: OB associations and moving groups, which are not strictly ``field'' objects.
243: Nevertheless, these field samples are similar enough in their sampling
244: of the spectral types, luminosities, and true field star content that we
245: can use both to compare with the cluster star rotational properties.
246: The Abt et al.\ field sample (ALG02) contains a total of 902 B-stars of classes III-V,
247: excluding all SB2s, which we use in our statistical analysis below.
248: Our field sample consists of only 108 B-stars, so one might question whether
249: its content and size are sufficient to represent a field star population
250: similar to that of ALG02. The spectral sub-type distribution of our field sample
251: and of the ALG02 sample are very similar (see Table~2). Furthermore,
252: we show in Figure~2 that the cumulative distribution functions of projected
253: rotational velocities $V \sin i$ appear to be the same. The mean $V \sin i$
254: of our field sample is $114\pm 9$ km~s$^{-1}$ while the mean $V \sin i$ of the
255: ALG02 sample is $116\pm 3$ km~s$^{-1}$. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS)
256: test shows that these two samples have a probability of 0.72
257: to be drawn from the same parent sample. Thus, we conclude that our
258: limited sample makes a fair representation of the larger field sample of ALG02
259: and of the rotational properties associated with this group of stars.
260:
261: \placetable{tab2} % Table 2 - Field Sample Contents
262: \placefigure{fig2} % Figure 2 - Cumulative Curves
263:
264: The cluster B-star sample used for comparison is extracted from our
265: previous survey of B-stars in 19 open clusters \citep{hua06a,hua06b}. After removing
266: all O-stars and SB2s, 432 cluster B-stars remain in this sample, which
267: covers a range of age from 6 to 72 Myr (the average is 12.5 Myr).
268: The mean $V \sin i$ of the cluster sample is $146\pm 4$ km~s$^{-1}$,
269: which is definitely higher than the corresponding value of the
270: field sample. The cumulative curve for the cluster sample
271: is also significantly different
272: from that of the field sample (Fig.~2). The KS probability
273: that our field and cluster samples are drawn from the same parent sample
274: is as low as 0.001.
275:
276: The distributions of the field and the cluster B-star samples in the
277: $\log T_{\rm eff} - \log g_{\rm polar}$ plane are plotted in Figure~3.
278: We see that along each evolutionary track the field stars are more
279: evenly distributed in $\log g_{\rm polar}$ than is the case for
280: the cluster stars, which mainly have higher $\log g_{\rm polar}$ (near the ZAMS).
281: This indicates that the field B-star sample contains a larger fraction of older stars
282: (i.e., with lower $\log g_{\rm polar}$) than found in the cluster B-star
283: sample\footnote{Some of the low $\log g_{\rm polar}$ stars among the
284: young cluster sample may be pre-main sequence stars \citep{hua06b}.}.
285: If the stars in the field sample spin down with time in a similar way as
286: those in the cluster sample \citep{hua06b}, then it is not surprising that
287: the field sample with more older B-stars appears to be rotating slower than
288: the cluster sample. Note that the cluster sample contains relatively more massive
289: stars compared to the field star sample because the cluster targets were
290: typically selected from the brighter, more massive cluster members.
291:
292: \placefigure{fig3} % Figure 3 - log teff-log gp
293:
294: Is the larger fraction of older B-stars in the field sample
295: the dominant cause of its apparent slow rotation
296: or do some additional factors, such as the initial conditions and environment,
297: need to be considered?
298: In order to investigate this, we plot in Figure~4 the $V \sin i$ distributions
299: of both the field and cluster samples against $\log g_{\rm polar}$.
300: Figure 4 also illustrates the mean $V \sin i$ of stars in
301: each bin of 0.2 dex in $\log g_{\rm polar}$ ({\it solid line}) and the
302: associated standard deviation of the mean ({\it shaded area}).
303: The advantage of using Figure~4 is that the evolutionary
304: spin down effect is dramatically revealed as we compare the stellar rotation
305: of the two samples in each $\log g_{\rm polar}$ bin.
306: The overall decrease in mean $V \sin i$ with lower
307: $\log g_{\rm polar}$ shows clearly
308: that the spin down process exists in both samples.
309: By comparing the mean $V \sin i$ of corresponding bins,
310: we found that it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion
311: about which sample rotates faster. At each evolutionary
312: stage (indicated by $\log g_{\rm polar}$), the B-stars in
313: these two samples appear to rotate equally fast. Thus, the overall
314: slowness of rotation in the field sample is mainly due to
315: the larger percentage of its content occupying the bins of lower
316: $\log g_{\rm polar}$.
317:
318: \placefigure{fig4} % Figure 4 - log gp - Vsini
319:
320: Note that we are interpreting the line broadening solely in terms
321: of rotation, but \citet{rya02} and \citet{duf06} find that
322: macroturbulent broadening is also important among the luminous
323: supergiants (where it may amount to velocities of 20 -- 60 km~s$^{-1}$).
324: We have only seven stars in the sample with $\log g_{\rm polar} < 3.0$,
325: and these have measured $V \sin i$ velocities of 31 -- 59 km~s$^{-1}$,
326: i.e., comparable to the expected macroturbulent velocities.
327: Thus, we regard the $V \sin i$ values of the stars with low
328: $\log g_{\rm polar}$ as upper limits, and the trend of declining
329: rotation velocity with lower $\log g_{\rm polar}$ may actually
330: be steeper than indicated in the low $\log g_{\rm polar}$ part
331: of Figure~4.
332:
333: One possible concern about the comparison made above is that many late B-stars
334: in our cluster sample are found to have non-solar helium abundances \citep{hua06b}.
335: Since the hydrogen abundance will be lower in helium enriched atmospheres,
336: the change in atmospheric opacity may cause a change in the appearance
337: of the H$\gamma$ profile that could lead to erroneous derived values of
338: $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$. We checked this possibility by measuring
339: the H$\gamma$ profile in synthetic model spectra for He-peculiar
340: stars\footnote{http://star.arm.ac.uk/\%7Ecsj/models/Grid.html}
341: calculated by C.\ S.\ Jeffrey using the {\it Sterne/Spectrum} LTE codes
342: \citep*{jef01}. Our results are shown in Table~3 that lists the
343: fraction of H and He atoms by number and our derived $T_{\rm eff}$ and
344: $\log g$ for three temperature cases. The three rows in the table give
345: the results for sub-solar He, solar He, and enhanced He, respectively.
346: Ideally, we should recover exactly the assumed model $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$
347: for the solar He case, but our scheme arrives at temperatures
348: that are somewhat low (especially at higher $T_{\rm eff}$; for the
349: expected values of 16000K/4.0, we obtain derived values of 15200K/3.95).
350: We suspect that this systematic difference reflects differences between the
351: LTE codes {\it Sterne/Spectrum} and the LTE codes {\it ATLAS9/SYNSPEC}
352: that we used to develop the H$\gamma$ calibration. While these
353: differences are significant, they are not important for our analysis here
354: where we are making a differential comparison between the cluster and field samples
355: using the same method to obtain the stellar parameters. What is important
356: are the relative changes as the He abundance increases. We see that
357: He enrichment results in a deeper H$\gamma$ profile that is interpreted
358: in our scheme mainly as a decrease in the resulting temperature while
359: changes in the derived gravity are small. Furthermore, we show in
360: Figure~5 that we find no evidence of a correlation between He abundance
361: and $V\sin i$ among the late B stars ($T_{\rm eff}< 20000K$) in our cluster sample.
362: Thus, any corrections to the gravity that might be applied to the He-peculiar
363: star subset would be too small to change the rotational trends seen in Figure~4.
364:
365: \placetable{tab3} % Table 3 - Tests of Derived Parameters for He-Peculiar Spectra
366: \placefigure{fig5} % Figure 5 - V sin i vs. He abundance
367:
368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369:
370: \section{Discussion and Conclusions} % Section 4
371:
372: Our findings in previous section seem to support the first
373: explanation mentioned in \S1, i.e.,
374: field B-stars rotate slower statistically because they represent
375: an older population than cluster B-stars.
376: The projected rotational velocities with each $\log g_{\rm polar}$
377: bin (corresponding to evolutionary state) appear to be very
378: similar in the field and cluster samples, which suggests that
379: any differences in environmental factors at birth between the
380: field and cluster samples has little influence on their present
381: rotational properties. This conclusion differs from that of
382: \citet{str05} and \citet{wol07} who argue that the stellar
383: number density at formation affects the rotational velocity
384: distribution.
385:
386: Our field sample contains 108 B-stars. The relatively small
387: sample size precludes an analysis of subsets based on binned mass
388: ranges. This raises a question: can we use the whole field sample
389: of B-stars, which span a large range of mass and main sequence (MS)
390: lifetime, to compare with the cluster sample, and still draw
391: meaningful conclusions? The answer is yes, since our method of
392: comparison is based on the estimated polar gravity $\log g_{\rm polar}$
393: of individual B-stars. For all subtypes of MS B-stars,
394: the surface $\log g$ falls in a range between 4.2 -- 4.3
395: (for the zero-age main sequence, ZAMS) to 3.4 -- 3.6 (for the
396: terminal-age main sequence, TAMS), as shown in Figure 3.
397: The evolutionary spin down of a MS B-star is mainly due to the
398: evolutionary increase of its moment of inertia (and stellar
399: radius) and/or stellar wind mass loss. However, compared to the
400: more massive O-stars, the stellar winds of MS B-stars are generally
401: weak, so wind mass loss plays a minor role in spin down. Thus, the
402: evolutionary changes in stellar properties, such as stellar radius and
403: moment of inertia, will be the major cause of evolutionary
404: spin down. These properties are directly related to surface
405: $\log g$ of the star (or more accurately, $\log g_{\rm polar}$ for a
406: rotating star). In this sense, consideration of B-stars binned in
407: groups of similar $\log g_{\rm polar}$ is a reasonable means to
408: search for evidence of changes in the mean rotational properties
409: with advancing evolutionary state.
410:
411: \citet{str05} relied on the Str\"omgren $\beta$ and $c_0$ indices
412: to select their objects in both the field and cluster samples.
413: We note, however, that estimates of surface gravity derived from fitting
414: the H$\gamma$ line profile are generally more reliable than those
415: based upon $\beta$ index, which has a larger intrinsic error
416: (since $\beta$ measures the difference in magnitude
417: between a narrow band and a wide band centered
418: at H$\beta$). Thus, even though the
419: cluster and field samples were selected from the same area
420: in the $\beta - c_0$ plane, they may still contain populations in
421: different evolutionary states (i.e., over a greater range in gravity).
422: The cluster sample from \citet{str05} is known
423: to be young because it consists of member stars from young open clusters
424: (h and $\chi$ Persei) while the field sample may include a lot
425: of older stars because its content relies on the $\beta - c_0$
426: selection criterion.
427: \citet{sma95} calculated a grid of synthetic $\beta$ indices
428: applicable to B-stars (given in Table 7 of their paper).
429: The differences in $\beta$ index between ZAMS ($\log g = 4.0$)
430: and TAMS ($\log g = 3.5$) B-stars are only about 0.04 -- 0.05 mag.
431: Since the Str\"{o}mgren data collected by \citet{str05}
432: for the field B-stars came from diverse sources and have errors
433: of 0.01 - 0.02 mag, it is not easy to distinguish between
434: the evolved and unevolved stars based upon the $\beta$ index alone.
435: Thus, despite their best efforts to compare the rotational velocities
436: of comparably evolved stars in $h$ and $\chi$~Per and the field,
437: \citet{str05} probably included a significant fraction of more
438: evolved stars in the field sample.
439: Our field sample has 21 stars in common with
440: the low mass group (group 1) of the field sample from
441: \citet{str05}, the group with the largest difference in the
442: $V \sin i$ cumulative distribution from their cluster sample.
443: Among these 21 stars, 14 have $\log g_{\rm polar} < 4.0$.
444: Figure~3 shows that the majority of cluster B-stars with
445: mass less than 5 $M_\odot$ has $\log g_{\rm polar} > 4.0$.
446: If we assume that the rest of field B-stars in their group 1
447: are similar to these 21 stars, the slower rotation in
448: group 1 of their field sample can be naturally explained by
449: its older population, instead of the initial conditions (a low
450: density environment of the star forming region) as suggested
451: in their paper.
452:
453: \citet{wol07} investigated stellar samples from both
454: low density and high density stellar environments. In their analysis,
455: they first inspected the evolutionary effect (spin-down)
456: on stellar rotation, and concluded that the evolutionary
457: effect is too small to account for the difference in
458: stellar rotation that exists between the low and high density
459: samples. However, the evolutionary status of individual
460: stars in their samples is based on the estimated age
461: of the parent association or cluster only. This approach to
462: evolutionary change is less specific than our estimate based
463: upon the polar gravity of each star, since the individual
464: cluster samples may contain quite different proportions of
465: evolved to unevolved stars. Thus, it is possible that
466: the samples considered by \citet{wol07} contain stars
467: that occupy a wider range of evolutionary state than assumed.
468: Consequently, their comparison between the low-density
469: and high-density cumulative probability curves that
470: are based on the whole sample may be influenced more by the
471: evolutionary effect on stellar rotation than the authors realized.
472:
473: In summary, our spectroscopic investigation of the stellar rotation
474: of 108 field B-stars suggests that the field B-stars contain a
475: larger fraction of more evolved stars than found among our sample
476: of young cluster stars (with an average age of 12.5 Myr)
477: and that makes the field stars appear to rotate
478: slower as whole. This is not a surprising result, since
479: most of the bright field stars belong to the local Gould's Belt structure
480: that has an expansion age of 30 to 60~Myr \citep*{tor00}.
481: At this point, we do not see any significant differences
482: between the rotational distributions of the field and young cluster
483: B-stars when considered as a function of evolutionary state.
484: We applied identical spectroscopic
485: methods to both the field and cluster samples,
486: and this should minimize any method-related errors in the
487: comparison of rotational properties. We used the estimated
488: $\log g_{\rm polar}$ as an indicator of evolutionary
489: status for each individual star, a
490: necessary precaution for rapidly rotating stars and for the purpose
491: of our paper. Our field B-star sample is
492: still small. In the near future, we plan to obtain more
493: spectra of a much larger field B-star sample to improve
494: the statistical basis of our conclusion and to
495: investigate the subgroups in confined stellar mass ranges.
496:
497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
498:
499: \acknowledgments
500:
501: The spectral data used in this paper are from the NOAO Indo-U.S.\ Library
502: of Coud\'e Feed Stellar Spectra and the ELODIE archive.
503: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
504: under Grant No.~AST-0606861. The authors are also very grateful for partial
505: support from NSF grant No.~AST-0507219 to Dr. Judith G. Cohen.
506:
507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
508:
509: % References
510:
511: \clearpage
512:
513: \begin{thebibliography}{}
514: \bibitem[Abt et al.(2002)Abt, Levato, \& Grosso]{abt02}
515: Abt, H. A, Levato, H., \& Grosso, M. 2002, \apj, 573, 359
516: \bibitem[Dufton et al.(2006)]{duf06}
517: Dufton, P. L., Ryans, R. S. I., Sim\'{o}n-Díaz, S., Trundle, C., \&
518: Lennon, D. J. 2006, \aap, 451, 603
519: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick \& Massa(2005)]{fit05}
520: Fitzpatrick, E. L., \& Massa, D. 2005, \aj, 129, 1642
521: \bibitem[Hoffleit \& Jaschek(1982)]{hof82}
522: Hoffleit, D., \& Jaschek, C. 1982, The Bright Star Catalogue(4th rev. ed.;
523: New Haven; Yale Univ. Obs.)
524: \bibitem[Huang \& Gies(2006a)]{hua06a}
525: Huang, W., \& Gies, D. R. 2006a, \apj, 648, 580
526: \bibitem[Huang \& Gies(2006b)]{hua06b}
527: Huang, W., \& Gies, D. R. 2006b, \apj, 648, 591
528: \bibitem[Jeffrey et al.(2001)Jeffrey, Woolf, \& Pollacco]{jef01}
529: Jeffery, C. S., Woolf, V. M., \& Pollacco, D. L. 2001, \aap, 376, 497
530: \bibitem[McAlister et al.(2005)]{mca05}
531: McAlister, H. A. et al. 2005, \apj, 628, 439
532: \bibitem[Moultaka et al.(2004)]{mou04}
533: Moultaka, J., Ilovaisky, S. A., Prugniel, P., \& Soubiran, C.
534: 2004, \pasp, 116, 693
535: \bibitem[Peacock \& Connon-Smith(1987)]{pea87}
536: Peacock, T., \& Connon-Smith, R. 1987, The Observatory, 107, 12
537: \bibitem[Ryans et al.(2002)]{rya02}
538: Ryans, R. S. I., Dufton, P. L., Rolleston, W. R. J., Lennon, D. J.,
539: Keenan, F. P., Smoker, J. V., \& Lambert, D. L. 2002, \mnras, 336, 577
540: \bibitem[Smalley \& Dworetsky(1995)]{sma95}
541: Smalley, B. \& Dworetsky, M. M. 1995, \aap, 293, 446
542: \bibitem[Strom et al.(2005)Strom, Wolff, \& Dror]{str05}
543: Strom, S. E., Wolff, S. C., \& Dror, D. H. A. 2005, \aj, 129, 809
544: \bibitem[Schaller et al.(1992)]{sch92}
545: Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A. 1992, \aaps, 96, 269
546: \bibitem[Torra et al.(2000)Torra, Fern\'{a}ndez \& Figueras]{tor00}
547: Torra, J., Fern\'{a}ndez, D., \& Figueras, F.
548: 2000, \aap, 359, 82
549: \bibitem[Townsend et al.(2004)Townsend, Owocki, \& Howarth]{tow04}
550: Townsend, R. H. D., Owocki, S. P., \& Howarth, I. D.
551: 2004, \mnras, 350, 189
552: \bibitem[Valdes et al.(2004)]{val04}
553: Valdes, F., Gupta, R., Rose, J. A., Singh, H. P., \& Bell, D. J.
554: 2004, \apjs, 152, 251
555: \bibitem[van Leeuwen(2007)]{van07}
556: van Leeuwen, F. 2007, Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data
557: (ASSL 350) (Dordrecht: Springer)
558: \bibitem[Wolff \& Preston (1978)]{wol78}
559: Wolff, S. C., \& Preston, G. W. 1978, \apjs, 37, 371
560: \bibitem[Wolff et al.(2007)]{wol07}
561: Wolff, S. C., Strom, S. E., Dror, D., \& Venn, K. 2007, \aj, 133, 1092
562: \end{thebibliography}
563:
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565:
566: % Tables
567: \clearpage
568:
569: % Table 1 - Derived Stellar Parameters
570:
571: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccl}
572: \tablewidth{0pc}
573: \tablecaption{Derived Stellar Parameters
574: %\tablenotemark{*}
575: \label{tab1}}
576: \tablehead{
577: \colhead{ } &
578: \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$ } &
579: \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm eff}$ } &
580: \colhead{ } &
581: \colhead{ } &
582: \colhead{$V \sin i$ } &
583: \colhead{$\Delta V \sin i$ } &
584: \colhead{ } &
585: \colhead{Spec. } \\
586: \colhead{HD } &
587: \colhead{(K) } &
588: \colhead{(K) } &
589: \colhead{$\log g$ } &
590: \colhead{$\Delta\log g$ } &
591: \colhead{(km~s$^{-1})$ } &
592: \colhead{(km~s$^{-1})$ } &
593: \colhead{$\log g_{\rm polar}$ } &
594: \colhead{Class.}}
595: \startdata
596: 886 & 19255 & 294 & 3.696 & 0.034 & \phn\phn7\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.699 & B2 IV \\
597: 3360 & 18755 & 350 & 3.642 & 0.043 & \phn23\tablenotemark{a} & \phn4 & 3.654 & B2 IV \\
598: 10362 & 13211 & 133 & 3.144 & 0.024 & \phn61 & 11 & 3.253 & B7 II \\
599: 12303 & 11491 & \phn81 & 3.195 & 0.023 & \phn77 & 12 & 3.332 & B8 III \\
600: 17081 & 12769 & \phn89 & 3.689 & 0.023 & \phn\phn5 & 20 & 3.724 & B7 IV \\
601: 18296 & 11602 & 146 & 3.702 & 0.047 & \phn\phn0 & 16 & 3.702 & B9p \\
602: 24398 & 21950 & 504 & 3.061 & 0.055 & \phn54\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.091 & B1 Iab \\
603: 24760 & 26517 & 648 & 3.923 & 0.058 & 121\tablenotemark{a} & \phn9 & 3.973 & B0.5 V \\
604: 25940 & 17746 & 552 & 3.898 & 0.060 & 166 & 10 & 4.038 & B3 Ve \\
605: 27295 & 11334 & 113 & 3.972 & 0.036 & \phn33 & 15 & 4.008 & B9 IV \\
606: 33904 & 12291 & 135 & 3.715 & 0.040 & \phn46 & 14 & 3.774 & B9 IV \\
607: 34816 & 25892 & 714 & 4.053 & 0.076 & \phn13 & 14 & 4.062 & B0.5 IV \\
608: 35468 & 20286 & 411 & 3.613 & 0.051 & \phn47\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.634 & B2 III \\
609: 35497 & 13129 & \phn98 & 3.537 & 0.023 & \phn60\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.596 & B7 III \\
610: 38899 & 10272 & \phn40 & 3.781 & 0.018 & \phn39\tablenotemark{a} & \phn4 & 3.812 & B9 IV \\
611: 40111 & 27866 & 535 & 3.559 & 0.059 & 101\tablenotemark{a} & \phn2 & 3.610 & B0.5 II \\
612: 41692 & 13669 & 144 & 3.260 & 0.020 & \phn37 & 12 & 3.328 & B5 IV \\
613: 43247 & 10391 & \phn72 & 2.573 & 0.025 & \phn40 & 13 & 2.700 & B9 II-III \\
614: 51309 & 16898 & 406 & 2.657 & 0.047 & \phn59 & 14 & 2.766 & B3Ib/II \\
615: 58343 & 15025 & 317 & 3.428 & 0.045 & \phn35 & 10 & 3.481 & B2 Vne \\
616: 74280 & 18630 & 411 & 3.933 & 0.050 & 101\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.998 & B3 V \\
617: 75333 & 12105 & 121 & 3.775 & 0.036 & \phn49 & 16 & 3.833 & B9mnp \\
618: 79158 & 12718 & 228 & 3.554 & 0.056 & \phn57 & 12 & 3.633 & B8mnp III\\
619: 79469 & 10190 & \phn39 & 3.920 & 0.022 & \phn93\tablenotemark{a} & \phn7 & 4.006 & B9.5 V \\
620: 87344 & 10689 & \phn64 & 3.526 & 0.026 & \phn32 & \phn9 & 3.586 & B8 V \\
621: 87901 & 12174 & \phn63 & 3.574 & 0.018 & 322 & 11 & 3.950 & B7 V \\
622: 100889 & 10422 & \phn38 & 3.649 & 0.018 & 235 & 10 & 3.911 & B9.5 Vn \\
623: 116658 & 28032 & 868 & 4.301 & 0.109 & 192 & 14 & 4.363 & B1 III-IV \\
624: 120315 & 15689 & 128 & 4.004 & 0.022 & 144\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 4.110 & B3 V \\
625: 129956 & 10333 & \phn51 & 3.731 & 0.023 & \phn87\tablenotemark{a} & \phn7 & 3.825 & B9.5 V \\
626: 135742 & 12450 & 226 & 3.565 & 0.065 & 260 & 26 & 3.873 & B8 V \\
627: 145502 & 20157 & 295 & 4.194 & 0.039 & 164\tablenotemark{a} & \phn8 & 4.281 & B3 V/B2 IV\\
628: 147394 & 14166 & 149 & 3.806 & 0.026 & \phn\phn0 & 15 & 3.806 & B5 IV \\
629: 149630 & 10600 & \phn34 & 3.598 & 0.017 & 276\tablenotemark{a} & 15 & 3.909 & B9 V \\
630: 150100 & 10441 & \phn42 & 4.015 & 0.017 & \phn79 & 12 & 4.095 & B9.5 Vn \\
631: 150117 & 10594 & \phn37 & 3.670 & 0.017 & 203 & 10 & 3.900 & B9 V \\
632: 152614 & 11812 & \phn41 & 3.865 & 0.013 & 113\tablenotemark{a} & \phn4 & 3.969 & B8 V \\
633: 154445 & 22831 & 363 & 3.985 & 0.034 & 123\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 4.049 & B1 V \\
634: 155763 & 12833 & \phn86 & 3.543 & 0.020 & \phn47\tablenotemark{a} & \phn4 & 3.584 & B6 III \\
635: 157741 & 10569 & \phn43 & 3.639 & 0.020 & 287 & 13 & 3.952 & B9 V \\
636: 158148 & 14210 & \phn99 & 3.733 & 0.017 & 247\tablenotemark{a} & \phn6 & 3.980 & B5 V \\
637: 160762 & 15961 & 155 & 3.613 & 0.025 & \phn\phn5\tablenotemark{a} & \phn2 & 3.616 & B3 IV \\
638: 161056 & 20441 & 327 & 3.433 & 0.039 & 287 & \phn8 & 3.758 & B1.5 V \\
639: 164284 & 22211 & 573 & 4.207 & 0.055 & 276\tablenotemark{a} & \phn7 & 4.346 & B2 Ve \\
640: 164353 & 15488 & 334 & 2.638 & 0.036 & \phn46\tablenotemark{a} & \phn9 & 2.694 & B5 Ib \\
641: 166014 & 10345 & \phn28 & 3.511 & 0.020 & 174\tablenotemark{a} & 12 & 3.763 & B9.5 V \\
642: 168199 & 14660 & 104 & 3.762 & 0.019 & 186 & \phn8 & 3.942 & B5 V \\
643: 168270 & 10245 & \phn34 & 3.419 & 0.018 & \phn74 & 10 & 3.539 & B9 V\\
644: 169578 & 10901 & \phn36 & 3.498 & 0.014 & 252 & \phn9 & 3.819 & B9 V \\
645: 171301 & 12170 & \phn82 & 3.969 & 0.025 & \phn59 & 13 & 4.025 & B8 IV \\
646: 171406 & 14216 & 115 & 3.881 & 0.022 & 248 & 10 & 4.107 & B4 Ve \\
647: 172958 & 10727 & \phn69 & 3.577 & 0.030 & 167 & 12 & 3.806 & B8 V \\
648: 173087 & 14504 & 111 & 3.970 & 0.025 & \phn91 & 10 & 4.048 & B5 V \\
649: 173936 & 13489 & \phn88 & 3.989 & 0.015 & 116 & \phn8 & 4.085 & B6 V \\
650: 174959 & 13499 & \phn80 & 3.795 & 0.012 & \phn52 & 11 & 3.852 & B6 IV \\
651: 175156 & 14001 & \phn77 & 2.753 & 0.013 & \phn31 & 14 & 2.832 & B3 II \\
652: 175426 & 16137 & 197 & 3.764 & 0.032 & \phn86 & 10 & 3.848 & B2.5 V \\
653: 175640 & 11932 & 141 & 3.861 & 0.046 & \phn27 & 13 & 3.897 & B9 III \\
654: 176318 & 13058 & \phn67 & 3.888 & 0.015 & 122 & \phn8 & 3.999 & B7 IV \\
655: 176437 & 10005 & \phn48 & 2.909 & 0.026 & \phn70\tablenotemark{a} & \phn9 & 3.037 & B9 III \\
656: 176582 & 15338 & 150 & 3.727 & 0.024 & 119 & 13 & 3.847 & B5 IV \\
657: 176819 & 20209 & 356 & 4.056 & 0.039 & \phn67 & 10 & 4.096 & B2 IV-V \\
658: 177756 & 11084 & \phn41 & 3.822 & 0.016 & 170\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.974 & B9 Vn \\
659: 177817 & 12387 & \phn55 & 3.642 & 0.019 & 162 & 12 & 3.835 & B7 V \\
660: 178125 & 13120 & 100 & 4.078 & 0.017 & \phn74\tablenotemark{a} & \phn7 & 4.128 & B8 III \\
661: 178329 & 15317 & 208 & 3.827 & 0.033 & \phn\phn0 & 19 & 3.827 & B3 V \\
662: 179588 & 12177 & 101 & 4.366 & 0.033 & \phn52 & 14 & 4.402 & B9 IV \\
663: 179761 & 12746 & 103 & 3.469 & 0.027 & \phn12\tablenotemark{a} & \phn6 & 3.480 & B8 II-III \\
664: 180163 & 15250 & 164 & 3.196 & 0.026 & \phn37\tablenotemark{a} & \phn7 & 3.230 & B2.5 IV \\
665: 180968 & 27974 & 731 & 4.141 & 0.107 & 259 & \phn7 & 4.249 & B0.5 IV \\
666: 182568 & 16479 & 219 & 3.653 & 0.035 & 137 & \phn8 & 3.791 & B3 IV \\
667: 183144 & 14361 & 126 & 3.484 & 0.028 & 211 & \phn8 & 3.740 & B4 III \\
668: 184915 & 26654 & 747 & 3.592 & 0.072 & 249 & \phn7 & 3.791 & B0.5 III \\
669: 184930 & 13148 & \phn89 & 3.621 & 0.016 & \phn50 & \phn9 & 3.687 & B5 III \\
670: 185423 & 16603 & 328 & 3.209 & 0.049 & 103 & 14 & 3.348 & B3 III \\
671: 185859 & 25577 & 625 & 3.264 & 0.041 & \phn27 & 23 & 3.277 & B0.5 Iae \\
672: 187811 & 21331 & 640 & 4.173 & 0.062 & 242 & 10 & 4.307 & B2.5 Ve \\
673: 187961 & 16646 & 441 & 3.554 & 0.063 & 258 & 10 & 3.851 & B7 V \\
674: 188260 & 10363 & \phn50 & 3.592 & 0.025 & \phn59 & \phn8 & 3.679 & B9.5 III \\
675: 189944 & 14134 & 175 & 3.758 & 0.035 & \phn12 & 15 & 3.789 & B4 V \\
676: 191243 & 14368 & 285 & 2.580 & 0.049 & \phn55 & 13 & 2.703 & B5 Ib \\
677: 191639 & 29047 &1343 & 3.777 & 0.157 & 152 & 15 & 3.855 & B1 V \\
678: 192276 & 13272 & 155 & 4.088 & 0.031 & \phn29 & 12 & 4.116 & B7 V \\
679: 192685 & 17062 & 242 & 3.746 & 0.033 & 162 & 11 & 3.899 & B3 V \\
680: 193432 & 10208 & \phn53 & 3.814 & 0.028 & \phn27 & 18 & 3.855 & B9 IV \\
681: 195810 & 13146 & 121 & 3.646 & 0.025 & \phn47 & 10 & 3.707 & B6 III \\
682: 196504 & 10693 & \phn59 & 3.781 & 0.026 & 315 & 13 & 4.097 & B9 V \\
683: 196740 & 14129 & 154 & 3.673 & 0.030 & 276 & \phn7 & 3.971 & B5 IV \\
684: 196867 & 10568 & \phn44 & 3.572 & 0.017 & 138\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.759 & B9 IV \\
685: 198183 & 14187 & 137 & 3.765 & 0.027 & 120\tablenotemark{a} & 10 & 3.879 & B5 Ve \\
686: 205021 & 27784 & 768 & 4.261 & 0.064 & \phn35\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 4.264 & B2 IIIe\\
687: 205139 & 27860 & 540 & 3.556 & 0.057 & \phn\phn0 & 24 & 3.556 & B1 II \\
688: 205637 & 23102 & 951 & 3.515 & 0.073 & 203 & \phn8 & 3.706 & B3 Vp \\
689: 206165 & 19887 & 394 & 2.730 & 0.046 & \phn58\tablenotemark{a} & 12 & 2.782 & B2 Ib \\
690: 207330 & 16908 & 231 & 3.243 & 0.032 & \phn64 & 18 & 3.332 & B3 III \\
691: 207516 & 12187 & \phn80 & 4.020 & 0.024 & \phn91 & 10 & 4.104 & B8 V \\
692: 208501 & 17369 & 194 & 2.492 & 0.043 & \phn40 & 25 & 2.571 & B8 Ib \\
693: 209409 & 18389 & 524 & 4.178 & 0.065 & 224 & \phn8 & 4.317 & B7 IVe \\
694: 209419 & 13815 & 121 & 3.708 & 0.025 & \phn\phn0 & 12 & 3.708 & B5 III \\
695: 209819 & 12026 & \phn45 & 4.161 & 0.013 & 147 & \phn8 & 4.253 & B8 V \\
696: 212571 & 24011 & 713 & 3.593 & 0.071 & 294 & \phn8 & 3.854 & B1 Ve \\
697: 212978 & 18966 & 248 & 3.682 & 0.029 & \phn93 & \phn9 & 3.767 & B2 V \\
698: 214923 & 11927 & \phn89 & 3.858 & 0.030 & 153\tablenotemark{a} & \phn3 & 3.991 & B8 V \\
699: 217675 & 14458 & 210 & 3.195 & 0.040 & 235 & 11 & 3.535 & B6 IIIpe \\
700: 220575 & 12419 & 125 & 3.514 & 0.034 & \phn18\tablenotemark{a} & \phn5 & 3.531 & B8 III \\
701: 222439 & 10632 & \phn41 & 3.875 & 0.019 & 169\tablenotemark{a} & \phn4 & 4.015 & B9 IVn \\
702: 224926 & 14047 & 118 & 3.842 & 0.023 & \phn97 & 26 & 3.935 & B7 III-IV \\
703: 225132 & 10839 & \phn48 & 3.767 & 0.014 & 249 & 10 & 4.011 & B9 IVn \\
704:
705: \enddata
706: \tablenotetext{a}{Derived $V \sin i$ using spectra from the Elodie library.}
707: \end{deluxetable}
708:
709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
710: % Table 2 - Field Sample Contents
711:
712: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
713: \tablewidth{0pc}
714: \tablecaption{Field Sample Spectral Distribution
715: %\tablenotemark{*}
716: \label{tab2}}
717: \tablehead{
718: \colhead{Sample } &
719: \colhead{B0-2 } &
720: \colhead{B3-5 } &
721: \colhead{B6-8 } &
722: \colhead{B9-9.5 }}
723: \startdata
724: ALG02 & 23.6\% & 20.8\% & 28.5\% & 27.1\% \\
725: This work & 23.1\% & 25.9\% & 26.9\% & 24.1\% \\
726: \enddata
727: \end{deluxetable}
728:
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730: % Table 3 - Teff and logg of helium peculiar stars
731:
732: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
733: \tablewidth{0pc}
734: \tablecaption{Tests of Derived $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ for He-peculiar
735: Model Spectra
736: %\tablenotemark{*}
737: \label{tab3}}
738: \tablehead{
739: \multispan{2}{Model Abundance} &
740: \multispan{4}{\hfil Tested Cases\hfil} \\
741: \\
742: \cline{1-2}
743: \cline{4-6}
744: \colhead{H} &
745: \colhead{He} &
746: \colhead{}&
747: \colhead{12(kK)/4.0} &
748: \colhead{14(kK)/4.0} &
749: \colhead{16(kK)/4.0} \\
750: \colhead{Fraction} &
751: \colhead{Fraction} &
752: \colhead{} &
753: \colhead{$\triangle T_{\rm eff}(\%)/\triangle\log g$ (dex)\tablenotemark{a}} &
754: \colhead{$\triangle T_{\rm eff}(\%)/\triangle\log g$ (dex)\tablenotemark{a}} &
755: \colhead{$\triangle T_{\rm eff}(\%)/\triangle\log g$ (dex)\tablenotemark{a}}}
756: \startdata
757: % H He 12000 4.0 14000 4.0 16000 4.0
758: 0.95 & 0.05 && +0.9/--0.01 & +0.7/--0.05 & +1.2/--0.03 \\
759: 0.90 & 0.10 && 0.0/ 0.00 & 0.0/ 0.00 & 0.0/ 0.00 \\
760: 0.70 & 0.30 && --5.3/ 0.00 & --3.3/ +0.10 & --3.9/ +0.09 \\
761: \enddata
762: \tablenotetext{a}{The relative differences are calculated against the derived values
763: of the solar model (0.90 H and 0.10 He), which are 11900K/4.02, 13600K/4.00, and
764: 15200K/3.95.}
765: \end{deluxetable}
766:
767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
768: % Figures
769:
770: \clearpage
771:
772: % Figure 1
773: \begin{figure}
774: \epsscale{0.8}
775: \plotone{f1.eps}
776: \caption{
777: A comparison of our measured $V \sin i$ values and those from
778: \citet{abt02}. The diamonds represent the measurements derived from
779: spectra from the Elodie archive while the asterisks represent the corrected
780: measurements (see text) derived from spectra from the NOAO Indo-U.S.\
781: Library of Coud\'e Feed Stellar Spectra. The dotted line is the result
782: of a linear least-squares fit. The most discrepant star in this
783: figure is HD~172958.}
784: \label{fig1}
785: \end{figure}
786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
787: % Figures
788:
789: \clearpage
790:
791: % Figure 2
792: \begin{figure}
793: \epsscale{1.}
794: \plotone{f2.eps}
795: \caption{The cumulative distribution function of projected
796: rotational velocity for several different samples.}
797: \label{fig2}
798: \end{figure}
799: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
800: % Figures
801:
802: \clearpage
803:
804: % Figure 3
805: \begin{figure}
806: \epsscale{1.}
807: \plotone{f3.eps}
808: \caption{The distribution of the sample B-stars in the $\log T_{\rm eff}-
809: \log g_{\rm polar}$ plane. The left panel shows the distribution for the field
810: sample, and the right panel shows the same for the cluster sample. The
811: average errors in $\log T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g_{\rm polar}$ are
812: plotted in the top left corner of each panel. The solid lines
813: are the evolutionary tracks for non-rotating stellar models
814: \citep{sch92} marked by the initial mass ($M_\odot$) at the bottom.
815: }
816: \label{fig3}
817: \end{figure}
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819: % Figures
820:
821: \clearpage
822:
823: % Figure 4
824: \begin{figure}
825: \epsscale{0.75}
826: \plotone{f4.eps}
827: \caption{The distribution of the field ({\it top}) and cluster ({\it bottom})
828: sample B-stars in the $\log g_{\rm polar}-V \sin i$ plane. The average
829: errors in $\log g_{\rm polar}$ and $V \sin i$ are plotted in the top
830: right corner of each panel. The solid line shows the mean $V \sin i$ of each
831: 0.2 dex bin of $\log g_{\rm polar}$ that contains six or more measurements
832: while the dotted line shows the same for the rest of bins. The
833: shaded areas indicate the associated error of the mean in each bin.
834: }
835: \label{fig4}
836: \end{figure}
837: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
838: % Figures
839:
840: \clearpage
841:
842: % Figure 5
843: \begin{figure}
844: \epsscale{0.8}
845: \plotone{f5.eps}
846: \caption{The distribution of the late B-stars ($T_{\rm eff}< 20000$ K) in our
847: cluster sample in the $\log (\epsilon_{\rm He}/\epsilon_{\rm He\odot})
848: -V \sin i$ plane. The thick lines indicate the mean $V \sin i$ value
849: of each 0.2 dex bin of $\log (\epsilon_{\rm He}/\epsilon_{\rm He\odot})$.
850: The shadowed areas show the error of the mean in each bin.
851: }
852: \label{fig5}
853: \end{figure}
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855:
856:
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858:
859: \end{document}
860:
861: