1: %%
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
5: \newcommand{\myemail}{cryan@nmsu.edu}
6:
7: \slugcomment{To Appear in ApJ, 2008}
8:
9: \shorttitle{Phase-Resolved Cyclotron Spectroscopy of Polars}
10: \shortauthors{Campbell et al.}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Cyclotron Modeling Phase-Resolved Infrared Spectroscopy of Polars III:
15: AM Herculis and ST Leo Minoris}
16:
17: \author{Ryan K. Campbell\altaffilmark{1,2} and
18: Thomas E. Harrison\altaffilmark{1,3}}
19: \affil{Astronomy Department, New Mexico State University,
20: Las Cruces, NM 88003}
21:
22: \author{Stella Kafka}
23: \affil{Spitzer Science Center / Caltech, MS 220-6, 1200 E.California Blvd,
24: Pasadena, CA 91125}
25:
26: \altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Infrared Telescope Facility.
27: IRTF is operated by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration}
28: \altaffiltext{2}{Supported by New Mexico State Space Grant}
29: \altaffiltext{3}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory}
30:
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: We present phase-resolved low resolution infrared spectra of
34: AM Her and ST LMi, two low-field polars that we observed with SPEX on the IRTF.
35: Optical/NIR lightcurves are also published to help constrain the viewing
36: geometry and brightness of the objects at the time they were observed.
37: Currently, only limited IR spectra have been published for these
38: objects, and none with the phase-coverage presented here.
39: In both cases, the resulting spectra are dominated by emission from the
40: secondary star in the NIR. However, the emission regions are
41: also self-eclipsed, allowing us to isolate the cyclotron emission through
42: subtraction of the dim-phase spectrum. We use a ``Constant Lambda''
43: prescription to model the changing cyclotron features seen in the resulting
44: data. For AM Her, we find a best fit model of: B = 13.6 MG, kT = 4.0 keV,
45: and log$\Lambda$ = 5.0. The cyclotron derived accretion geometry is
46: consistent with $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$ and $\beta$ = 85$^{\circ}$.
47: For ST LMi, B = 12.1 MG, kT = 3.3 keV, and log$\Lambda$ = 5.7
48: with $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$ and $\beta$ = 128$^{\circ}$.
49:
50:
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{Cataclysmic Variables: general --- Polars: AM Her, VV Pup}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: Polars are interacting binary systems containing a primary white dwarf (WD) and
58: a late type secondary star. Material flows from the
59: secondary, through the L$_{1}$ point and falls ballistically toward the WD.
60: The WDs in polars are highly magnetized with magnetic field strengths that
61: range between 10 - 240 MG. Eventually, the accreting material couples to
62: the field lines of the WD and is transported to the magnetic pole(s) of the
63: star where a dense, standing-shock is formed, with nominal temperatures of
64: 2 - 20 keV, which cools by emitting bremsstrahlung and cyclotron radiation .
65:
66: AM Her is the prototype polar (see Tapia, 1977a). It has an
67: orbital period of 3.094 hrs and is nearby (78 pc; Thorensten et al., 2003).
68: Despite being extensively
69: studied many characteristics of the system remain uncertain.
70: One point of discrepancy is the exact mass of the primary WD with
71: estimates ranging from 0.39 M$_{\odot}$ (Young et al., 1981) to 1.22
72: M$_{\odot}$ (Cropper et al., 1998). Additionally, the geometry of the
73: system remains unclear with orbital inclination
74: estimates ranging from $i$ = 35$^{\circ}$ (Brainerd \& Lamb, 1985) to $i$ =
75: 60$^{\circ}$ - 80$^{\circ}$ (Watson et al., 2003), although the self-eclipse
76: observed in the X-Ray and UV requires that $i$ + $\beta$ $\geq$ 90$^{\circ}$,
77: where $\beta$ is the magnetic co-latitude. Indeed, both Sirk $\&$ Howell (1998)
78: and Gansicke et al. (1998) found that
79: $i$ + $\beta$ = 105$^{\circ}$. Later, Gansicke et al.(2001) determined that
80: combinations of $i$ and $\beta$ between ($i$ = 50$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ =
81: 55$^{\circ}$) and ($i$ = 35$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ = 70$^{\circ}$) best modeled the
82: high-state optical lightcurves. In other ways, however, AM Her is well
83: characterized. The temperature of the primary WD has been well
84: constrained. Gansicke et al. (2006) modeled low-state FUSE and STIS spectra
85: from AM Her with TLUSTY/SYNSPEC (Hubeny \& Lanz, 1995), finding that
86: T$_{wd}$ = 19800 $\pm$ 700 K. Also, the secondary star is
87: spectroscopically determined to be M4 $\pm$ 1 (Kafka et al., 2005b), although
88: there is some evidence that it
89: is irradiated by the WD and thus the spectral type of the secondary
90: is orbitally modulated (Davey \& Smith, 1992). The published photometry of AM
91: Her is exhaustive. Orbital lightcurves show variability in every pass-band
92: from the UV (Gansicke et al. 1998) out to the $K$-band (see below). Extensive
93: AAVSO and automatic photometric telescope, ``APT'' (e.g. RoboScope) monitoring
94: from 1990 - 2004, has revealed that AM Her is usually
95: in one of two states: a ``high-state'', with large intrinsic variability: 13.0
96: $\leq V \leq$ 14.0, and a ``low-state'' with $V$ $\simeq$ 15.5 (Kafka et al.,
97: 2005a). Finally, Bailey, Ferrario, \& Wickramasinghe (1991; henceforth BFW91)
98: used a Constant Lambda (``CL'') code to model the NIR low-state (V $\sim$ 15.0)
99: cyclotron spectrum, which were binned into bright-phase ($\phi$ = 0.46 - 0.88)
100: and dim-phase ($\phi$ = 0.46 - 0.88) spectra. The dim-phase showed only
101: emission from the secondary star, while strong cyclotron emission was observed
102: for the duration of the bright phase. After subtracting a 3250 K model
103: atmosphere with log $g$ = 4.75 to mimic the secondary spectrum, BFW91 found
104: B $\simeq$ 14.5 MG, and a shock temperature of kT = 8.5 keV.
105:
106: ST LMi (= CW1103 +254) is a short period polar (P$_{orb}$ = 114 min)
107: containing a 0.7 M$_{\odot}$ primary (Ramsay et al. 2004) with a
108: likely temperature of 11000 K (Araujo-Betancor et al., 2005; Sion, 1999)
109: and a M5 - M6 secondary (Knigge, 2006; Harrison et al., 2005; Howell
110: et al., 2000; Warner, 1995) at a distance of 115 - 138 pc (Araujo-Betancor
111: et al., 2005; Kafka et al., 2007). It was classified as an AM Her object by
112: Stockman et al. (1983) on the basis of its highly variable polarization. For 70
113: \% of the orbit the object shows no significant polarization.
114: Subsequently, a strong pulse is observed peaking near $\phi$ = 0.00 at 12 \%
115: and -20 \% in linear and circular light, respectively (Cropper et al., 1986).
116: This observed bi-modality is echoed in optical and IR orbital lightcurves,
117: which show a quiescent ``dim-phase'' for most of the orbit in each band that
118: is followed by a significant jump in brightness (the ``bright-phase'')
119: coincident to the peak in polarization. Peacock et al. (1992) obtained
120: multi-band photometry of ST LMi, showing that $\Delta$m $\simeq$ 0.6, 1.4,
121: 2.0, 1.5, and 1.3 for the $BRIJH$ bands, respectively. Long-term $V$-band
122: lightcurves were obtained with RoboScope from 1990 to 2003 (Kafka et al.,
123: 2005a). From 1992 - 1997, the system was in a protracted ``low-state'' with
124: $<$$V$$>$ = 17.5 $\pm$ 0.2. From 1997 - 2003, a more variable, slightly higher
125: state was observed with $<$$V$$>$ = 16.0 $\pm$ 1.5. Additionally, instances of
126: ``extreme low-states'' have been observed. In Ciardi et al. (1998)
127: the $K$-band spectra of ST LMi, showed no obvious emission lines and were
128: modeled successfully with a $\simeq$ 3000 K atmosphere
129: suggesting that accretion had almost completely shut off. Kafka et al. (2007)
130: has presented photometry of a similar extreme low-state showing that the
131: system can be as faint as $V$ = 18.5. $JHK$ cyclotron spectra were previously
132: modeled by Ferrario, Bailey \& Wickramasinghe (1993; henceforth FBW93) finding
133: that two spots were necessary to fully model their spectra: a primary region
134: with B = 12.0 and kT = 12 keV, and a secondary, ``cool-spot'' with kT = 5.0
135: keV. The accretion geometry of the primary emission region has also been
136: previously determined, with 55$^{\circ}$ $\leq i \leq$ 64$^{\circ}$ and
137: 140$^{\circ}$ $\leq \beta \leq$ 150$^{\circ}$ (Schmidt et al., 1983;
138: Potter, 2000).
139:
140: Limited IR spectroscopy exists for these two low-field polars. Below, we
141: present and model new phase-resolved low-state infrared spectra as well
142: as $JHK$ lightcurves for AM Her and ST LMi. In both instances,
143: we show that variable cyclotron emission over the orbit is responsible for
144: the spectroscopic and photometric behavior. Additionally, we present a second
145: epoch data set for ST LMi that shows no cyclotron emission and must be in
146: an extreme low-state similar to that seen by Kafka et al. (2007). In the next
147: section,
148: we describe the observations of each object, in section 3 we fit these data
149: with cyclotron models, discuss our results in section 4, and draw our
150: conclusions in section 5.
151:
152: \section {Observations}
153:
154: AM Her and ST LMi were observed using SPEX (c.f. Rayner et al., 2003) on the
155: Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF). AM Her was observed once on 2005 September
156: 1, whereas ST LMi was observed on two different epochs: 2005 Feb 7 and 2006
157: Feb 2. Both AM Her and ST LMi were found to be in low-states, although as we
158: discuss below, the 2005 Feb 7 data found ST LMi in an extreme
159: low-state. SPEX was used in low-resolution ``prism'' mode with a 0.3'' x 15''
160: slit. To remove background, each object was nodded along the slit. In its
161: low-resolution mode SPEX produces R(=$\lambda$/$\Delta \lambda$)
162: $\sim$ 250 spectra, with short enough exposure times to obtain phase resolved
163: spectra of polars with $K \leq 16.0$. For ST LMi, we used 240 second exposure
164: times, where shorter, 120 s, integration times were adequate for AM Her. Each
165: of these spectra were then median combined with 2-3 other spectra to allow for
166: cosmic-ray removal and to improve the S/N ratio. The spectra were reduced
167: using the SPEXTOOL package (Vacca et al., 2003). A telluric correction was
168: applied using an A0V star of similar airmass to our program objects. We use
169: the Kafka et al. (2005b) ephemeris to phase all observations of AM Her. For ST
170: LMi because of the large phase uncertainty ($\Delta \phi \simeq$ 0.10) in the
171: Howell et al. (2000) ephemeris, we phased our observations to the $J$-band
172: minimum found in the photometry presented in this paper, which worked out to a
173: phase-shift of $\Delta \phi$ = 0.15 from that ephemeris.
174:
175: Because of the narrow slit size on IRTF/SPEX (0.3'') infrared photometry
176: is required to calibrate the fluxes of the spectra. The $JHK$ photometry for
177: each object was obtained with SQIID on the KPNO 2.1-m telescope (Ellis et al.,
178: 1992). AM Her was observed on 2002 September 26, and ST LMi on 2003 April 9. In
179: addition, we obtained simultaneous $BVRIJHK$ photometry on 2005 May 20 for
180: AM Her. The $JHK$ photometry was obtained with NIC-FPS\footnote{see
181: http://www.apo.nmsu.edu/arc35m/Instruments/NICFPS/nicfpsusersguide.html}
182: on the Apache Point 3.5-m, while the optical data set was obtained with the
183: NMSU 1-m (see Harrison et al., 2003). To aid the reader, we have collated
184: all the observational specifics in Table 1.
185:
186: \section{Modeling}
187:
188: To produce our cyclotron models, we use a Constant-Lambda (``CL'')
189: cyclotron code first developed by Schwope (1990). In Campbell et al. (2008a;
190: hereafter paper I), we presented a theoretical synopsis of CL modeling which
191: will not be repeated here. The
192: model spectra depend on four global parameters: B (the magnetic field
193: strength), kT (the plasma temperature), $\Theta$ (the viewing angle to the
194: magnetic ``pole''), and $\Lambda$ (the ``size parameter''), which is
195: closely tied to the column density along the line of sight through the
196: accretion region. In paper I, we found that we could adequately model the
197: data for EF Eri as cyclotron + WD. In Campbell et al. (2008b; hereafter paper
198: II), we found that in many polars there are other sources of non-stellar
199: continuum radiation (e.g., Bremsstrahlung emission) which contaminate the
200: spectra and need to be taken into account. For each object in paper II,
201: the accretion column was self-eclipsed. In this case, cyclotron emission is
202: only seen for the part of the orbital cycle when the accretion column is in
203: view (the ``bright-phase'') although it is contaminated by other sources. To
204: subtract these away, we assume that the ``dim-phase'' spectra represent all
205: the additional components of radiation which obfuscate the cyclotron emission.
206: The dim-phase spectrum is then subtracted from the spectra at other phases
207: where accretion column is in view, thus yielding uncontaminated cyclotron
208: spectra over the orbit. We refer to the dim-phase subtraction method as
209: ``Stream-Emission Subtraction'' (SE-subtraction) for consistency with Schwope
210: et al. (2002). An additional contaminant for the objects in the current work
211: is the irradiated secondary star whose spectral type slowly changes with phase
212: and can not be completely subtracted. Thus, when the SE-subtraction technique
213: was applied features due to the secondary star remained.
214:
215: \subsection{AM Her}
216:
217: In Figure 1, we show the $JHK$ lightcurves taken with the SQIID on the KPNO
218: 2.1-m on 2002 September 26 , at a time when the system was at $V$ = 15.5. This
219: is a typical low-state magnitude identical to that of our SPEX spectroscopy, as
220: shown in Fig. 2. Overlaid in each band, are binary star models computed
221: using WD2005\footnote{WD2005 is an updated version of WD98, and can be obtained
222: at this website maintained by J. Kallrath:
223: http://josef-kallrath.orlando.co.nz/HOMEPAGE/wd2002.htm} with a M5 secondary
224: at an orbital inclination of $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$. The $J$-band morphology is
225: well explained by classic ellipsoidal variations except the lightcurve minimum
226: at $\phi$ = 0.00 is somewhat deeper than predicted and residual structure
227: appears at the $\Delta$J = 0.05 mag level. The derived inclination
228: should be considered a lower limit because other dilution sources may be
229: present. Both the $H$ + $K$ lightcurves show a large cyclotron component
230: folded-in with the ellipsoidal variations. In Fig. 3, we include additional
231: $BVRIJHK$ photometry obtained 2.5 years later on 2005 May 20, at a time when
232: the system was again at similar brightness. We find that the same ellipsoidal
233: models provide excellent fits to the $JHK$ data at this epoch. Because
234: of the narrow slit size on SPEX (0.3''), at each orbital phase we flux
235: calibrate our spectra to the ``cyclotron-free'' $J$-band lightcurve.
236:
237: The IRTF phase-resolved spectra from 2005 September 1 are dominated by
238: emission from the secondary star. To remove this component, we
239: subtracted the spectrum at $\phi$ = 0.42 from every other phase. The
240: subtraction spectrum is near to both the ellipsoidal minimum ($\phi$ = 0.50)
241: and because of the ongoing self-eclipse, is free of cyclotron emission.
242: To approximate the effect of the ellipsoidal variability,
243: we scaled the subtraction spectrum at each phase to match the magnitude
244: expected from our ellipsoidal models. The underlying continuum SED and
245: intrinsic water vapor features at 1.35 and 1.85 $\mu$m in the residual
246: spectra were orbitally variable producing a small blue excess and apparent
247: water vapor emission at ellipsoidal maxima ($\phi$ = 0.25, 0.75), and a red
248: excess with apparent water vapor absorption at ellipsoidal minima ($\phi$ =
249: 0.00, 0.50), resulting from a changing spectral type as the distorted secondary
250: star changed orientation. From M4 to M6 water vapor absorption becomes ever
251: more pronounced. Thus, even small differences of the secondary temperature are
252: apparent in our data and residuals from the water vapor features remain in our
253: final spectra (shown in black in Fig. 4). The final cyclotron models are
254: overlaid in green. No cyclotron emission was observed over the
255: interval 0.27 $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.74 due to the self-eclipse of the emission
256: region. Thus, these phases are not shown in Fig. 4 to aid in the presentation
257: of data. Between 0.92 $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.09, the spectra appear to show a
258: single strong cyclotron harmonic ($n$ = 4) near 2.0 $\mu$m. The $n$ = 4, 5, and
259: 6 harmonics are obvious between 0.20 $\leq \phi \leq $ 0.26 and again from
260: 0.75 $\leq \phi \leq $ 0.86.
261:
262: For our best fit cyclotron models at each phase, see Table 2. The average
263: parameter values are: B = 13.6$_{-0.8}^{+1.0}$ MG, kT = 4.0$_{-1.0}^{+1.5}$
264: keV, and log$\Lambda$ = 5.0$_{-0.6}^{+0.6}$, with an average $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$
265: = 2.42. The statistical limits were derived by finding where the value of
266: $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ changed by 50 \% over its fiducial value. We find that
267: $i$ + $\beta$ = 135$^{\circ}$, with $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ = 85$^{\circ}$,
268: $\phi_{min}$ = 0.01, where $\phi_{min}$ is defined as the bluest position of
269: the cyclotron harmonics.
270:
271: \subsection{ST LMi}
272:
273:
274: In Fig. 5, we present $JHK$ lightcurves of ST LMi taken with the KPNO 2.1-m
275: during the normal high accretion state of the system.
276: In each band the morphology is similar: the dim-phase lasts from 0.00
277: $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.55 with mean magnitudes of 14.4, 13.9, and 13.9 in
278: the $J$, $H$, and $K$-bands, respectively. During the subsequent bright-phase,
279: the object brightens significantly ($\Delta J$ = 1.5 mag). Like AM Her, a
280: WD2005 ellipsoidal model was fit to the NIR lightcurves, finding
281: $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$. The models well approximate the dim-phase of ST LMi
282: in the $J$ and $H$-bands, while the fit in the $K$-band is more uncertain due
283: to the larger scatter in the photometry.
284:
285: ST LMi was observed spectroscopically over its entire orbit once on 2005
286: February 7 and once on 2006 February 2. On both occasions, photometry is
287: available within one month of our phase-resolved spectroscopy. Fig. 6 shows
288: the high/low states of ST LMi over the entire history of RoboScope and also
289: over a shorter, $\sim$ 1.5 year baseline surrounding our 2005 and 2006 IRTF
290: observations. For the first dataset, the nearest RoboScope data (February 28)
291: shows 17.1 $\leq V \leq$ 17.8, similar in brightness to its 1992 - 1997
292: protracted ``low-state''. However, as will be discussed below, our bright-phase
293: spectroscopy show a conspicuous lack of cyclotron emission during this epoch.
294: For this reason, we believe the object was in fact in an ``extreme low-state''
295: at the time of observation, similar to that observed on 2006 Feb 12 by Kafka
296: et al. (2007) which found 18.0 $\leq V \leq$ 18.4. Curiously, our 2006 data
297: was obtained only 10 days prior to that epoch, but shows clear
298: evidence of cyclotron emission and thus must have been in a normal low-state.
299: We note, however, photometric extreme low-states like that observed by Kafka et
300: al. are short lived, as normal low states were observed within a month both
301: before and after it.
302:
303: The spectra of ST LMi are also strongly contaminated by its secondary star at
304: every phase. During the extreme low-state we found no evidence for cyclotron
305: emission, with the secondary contributing all of the NIR flux at each
306: orbital phase. In Fig. 7, we show the observed SPEX spectrum at $\phi$ = 0.02
307: of the 2005 dataset with the best-fitting secondary template overlaid (M6).
308:
309: For the 2006 low-state, we present SE-Subtracted data in Fig. 8a. The SE
310: spectrum was produced by averaging the dim-phase spectra together. Since the
311: relative uncertainty in the Howell et al. (2000) ephemeris is rather large
312: ($\Delta\phi_{0} \simeq 0.10$), we phased our data
313: by defining ellipsoidal minimum in our 2003 KPNO lightcurve as $\phi$ = 0.50,
314: and then using the Howell et al. (2000) period. We found that averaging three
315: dim-phase spectra together produced the best SE-subtraction spectra, with
316: faint cyclotron features visible during the bright orbital phase at $\sim$
317: 2.25, 1.85, 1.53 and perhaps 1.30 $\mu$m, corresponding to the $n$ = 4 - 7
318: harmonics in a field with B = 12 MG. Like AM Her, the tidally distorted nature
319: of the secondary star imparts spectral type and overall flux changes that are
320: orbitally modulated allowing residual emission/absorption from the secondary
321: star to remain even after SE subtraction has been performed. Indeed, the upturn
322: in the $J$-band SED as well as the strong water vapor absorption at
323: $\phi \simeq$ 0.73 are indicative of subtraction of too cool a secondary star
324: at those phases. In Fig. 8b, we display the phase-resolved spectra from the
325: 2005 extreme low-state. Like the 2006 low-state the SE spectrum was found by
326: averaging three dim-phase spectra together. While weak cyclotron emission was
327: observed during the 2006 low-state none was seen during the 2005 extreme
328: low-state.
329:
330: Previous work has determined that ST LMi is a one pole accretor with
331: 55$^{\circ}$ $\leq i \leq$ 64$^{\circ}$ and 140$^{\circ}$ $\leq \beta \leq$
332: 150$^{\circ}$ (Schmidt et al., 1983; Potter, 2000). The primary accretion
333: region also appears to have some structure. FBW93 computed
334: cyclotron models for ST LMi in a high state, finding that two separate
335: emission regions were needed to adequately model the observed spectra from
336: the primary pole: the first is a high temperature/high density region located
337: between magnetic longitudes ($\psi$) 130 and 170 that has kT = 12.0 keV, and
338: log$\Lambda$ = 7.6.
339: The second is located between 170 $\leq \psi \leq$ 250 with
340: kT = 5 keV and log$\Lambda$ = 4.4. Both regions had magnetic field strengths of
341: $\simeq$ 12.0 MG, a result which is consistent with the values previously
342: published. The relevancy of these models to our SPEX data is unclear since they
343: were determined when the object was in a high state ($J$ = 13.8) more
344: similar to that observed in our SQIID photometry than our low-state
345: spectroscopy. In addition, Peacock et al. (1992) reported seeing a second
346: pole in ST LMi during a high-state ($B$ $\sim$ 16.7). Their $H$-band
347: photometry showed a sudden increase of $\Delta$$H$ = 0.3 mag at
348: $\phi$ = 0.35 was observed, with the $J$-band showing a smaller increase.
349: Simultaneous polarization curves were published along with their photometry
350: that found V/I = 15 - 20\%
351: over the duration of the alleged secondary pole. The errors, however, were
352: extremely large and the data are in fact, consistent with zero polarization.
353: Because both the phasing and amplitude of the
354: lightcurve variations are consistent with the WD2005 models found in this
355: study (Fig. 5), we believe the excess $H$-band feature may be due to
356: ellipsoidal variability from the secondary star.
357:
358: We used the published values $i$ and $\beta$ to constrain the orbital variation
359: of $\Theta$ and thus, effectively limit
360: the possible parameter space to three dimensions, B, kT and log$\Lambda$.
361: Because of the very low rate of accretion, the models presented here have low
362: temperatures. We found 12.0 $\leq$ B(MG) $\leq$ 12.2, 3.2 $\leq$ kT(keV)
363: $\leq$ 3.4, and 5.5 $\leq$ log$\Lambda$ $\leq$ 6.1, and $\Theta$ which is well
364: described with $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ = 128$^{\circ}$, $\phi_{max}$ =
365: 0.22$\pm$ 0.05. The average $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ = 2.70. As for AM Her , we find
366: the following uncertainties on the parameter values: B $\pm$ 0.5 MG, kT $\pm$
367: 1.8 keV, and log$\Lambda$ $\pm$ 0.6. Table 3 lists the phase-resolved
368: parameters.
369:
370: \section{Discussion}
371:
372: \subsection{Analysis of Results}
373:
374: We have presented the first phase-resolved IR spectroscopy published for
375: these two sources allowing for enhanced leverage over the parameters modeled.
376: The data presented in this paper proved the most challenging to model in this
377: series. In Paper I, we covered the basics of cyclotron modeling and applied our
378: technique to NIR spectra of EF Eri finding that it could be modeled using
379: only cyclotron and WD emission. In Paper II, we found that other sources of
380: contamination could be eliminated by subtracting the dim phase spectrum from
381: each phase for which cyclotron emission was observed. In the present work,
382: however, the spectra of both AM Her and ST LMi are dominated by emission from
383: the secondary star in the NIR. Because of the orbitally modulated nature of
384: both the spectral type and brightness of the secondary, additional issues
385: arose. Naive subtraction of only a single dim-phase spectrum from every other
386: phase is manifested in two ways. First, variable water vapor
387: absorption/emission is seen at at 1.35, 1.85 $\mu$m. Second, the underlying SED
388: cycles twice between a red and blue excess over the orbit. Both artifacts
389: result from the changing spectral type of the secondary star. Because we
390: subtract the same phase from each spectrum, the secondary imprint in the
391: SE-spectrum alternates between being too cool and too hot when compared to the
392: features seen at other phases. To assuage the situation, we median combined
393: three dim-phase spectra separated by $\Delta \phi$ = 0.25, to produce the final
394: SE spectrum, thus smearing out the effects of a changing secondary star.
395:
396: In AM Her, we found that for the bright-phase of the 2006 low-state
397: (V $\simeq$ 15.5) SPEX data: B = 13.7 $\pm$ 1.0 MG, kT = 4.2$\pm$ 1.0 keV, and
398: log$\Lambda$ = 5.0$\pm$ 0.5. The result is in dramatic contrast with
399: that found in BFW91 at a time when the system was also in a low, though
400: perhaps slightly higher state (V $\simeq$ 15.0): B = 14.5 $\pm$
401: 0.3 MG, kT = 8.5 $\pm$ 0.5 keV, and log$\Lambda$ = 3.3 $\pm$ 0.3. While the
402: magnetic field strengths for the two epochs agree to within their errors, the
403: same cannot be said for both the temperatures and values of log$\Lambda$. Our
404: SPEX data show a system with a cooler plasma than that inferred by BFW91. To
405: quantify this difference, we evoke the results of Fischer \& Beuermann
406: (2001), which found kT$_{max}$ $\propto$ $\dot{m}B^{-2.6}$, which we rewrite
407: as: $\dot{m_{1}}/\dot{m_{2}}$ = ($kT_{1}/kT_{2}$) $(B_{1}/B_{2})^{2.6}$.
408: Plugging in the average bright-phase parameters from the two epochs yields that
409: the $\dot{m}$ for the modeled SPEX data must be a factor of 2.34 lower than
410: that active during the BFW91 observations. The higher temperatures found in
411: BFW91 may be an artifact of medianing together moving cyclotron harmonics over
412: $\sim$ 40 \% of the orbit, which artifically broadens each feature.
413:
414: The final spectra and models allow us to understand the changing morphology
415: of AM Her's NIR light-curves. In Fig. 3b, the $J$-band is well
416: explained by ellipsoidal variations alone, while in the $H$ + $K$-bands the
417: cyclotron emission component is substantial, with a maximum contribution of
418: 0.25 mag in both bands and disappearing at $\phi$ = 0.00. The
419: $K$-band cyclotron component is relatively constant over the phases
420: 0.75 $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.25. Such behavior is explained by the cyclotron models
421: shown in Fig. 4. Near $\phi$ = 0.00 the $n$ = 4 harmonic dominates due to
422: the low viewing angle ($\Theta \simeq 35^{\circ}$) at that time. Consequently,
423: no emission is seen in the $H$-band. Later, (0.25 $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.75) the
424: viewing angle is larger causing the higher harmonics ($n$ = 5 and 6) to be
425: excited and thus a peak in the $H$-band emission is observed. Because the $n$ =
426: 4 harmonic is mostly optically thick, however, the cyclotron emission in the
427: $K$-band remains relatively constant over the entire bright-phase.
428:
429: The simultaneous optical photometry are also interesting. In the $R$ and $I$
430: bands, the data were entirely explained by the ellipsoidal models alone for
431: the first full orbit of phase coverage, in line with expectations from our
432: 13.7 MG cyclotron models that have very little emission shortward of
433: 1.2 $\mu$m. Subsequently, a brightening event seems to have occurred with
434: $\Delta$m = 0.20 in both bands. The $B$ and $V$-bands are more complex and
435: cannot be explained by ellipsoidal models alone. Additional modulation was
436: observed at the
437: level of $\Delta$m = 0.22 and 0.08 for $B$ and $V$, respectively. Gansicke et
438: al. (1998) modeled similar UV lightcurves as a hot-spot. In that work, three UV
439: bands covering wavelength regions of 1150 - 1167$\AA$, 1254 - 1286$\AA$, and
440: 1412 - 1427$\AA$ were found to be consistent with a 47000 K hotspot centered on
441: $\psi$ = 0$^{\circ}$ and covering 9 \% of the WD surface. We find the
442: similarity of our $B$-band lightcurve to Gansicke et al.'s UV lightcurves to
443: be striking. Both lightcurves show identical phasing and have amplitudes that
444: are consistent. We note, however, the large value of $B$ - $V$ $\simeq$ 0.15
445: during the bright phase. For any reasonable hotspot, $B$ - $V$ should be
446: closer to 0.00. Because (a) the UV lightcurves predict a very similar geometry
447: ($i$, $\beta$, and phase) to our cyclotron emission region and (b) the limited
448: wavelength coverage of the UV lightcurves, we find that this excess emission
449: could be caused by a partially saturated high-field cyclotron harmonic ($n$ = 3
450: or 4) that falls off toward the blue end of the $V$-band and extends through
451: the bluest UV band. Such a broad harmonic ($\Delta \lambda$ = 0.4 $\mu$m) is
452: expected in cyclotron emission (see AM Her's $n$=4 harmonic in Fig. 4, which is
453: more or less flat from 1.9 $\mu$m to 2.4 $\mu$m.) If the emission were from the
454: $n$ = 4 harmonic it would imply a $\sim$ 90 MG field. We also speculated on the
455: presence of a similar secondary high-field pole for EF Eri in Paper I.
456:
457: During the bright phase of the 2006 low-state, ST LMi displayed cyclotron
458: emission with the following properties: B = 12.1 $\pm$ 0.5 M, kT = 3.3 $\pm$
459: 1.8 keV and log$\Lambda$ = 5.7 $\pm$ 0.6 similar to the ``cool spot'' found
460: in FBW93. In addition, our accretion region appears to be in a similar
461: location on the WD surface: at magnetic longitude $\psi$ = 120$^{\circ}$,
462: lagging behind the onset of the secondary accretion region found in FBW93 by
463: $\Delta\phi$ $\simeq$ 0.13, likely due to the accumulation in phase-error
464: between 1991 and 2005. Unfortunately, no errors are given for any of the
465: cyclotron parameters in FBW93 and thus the significance of the difference in
466: results is hard to assess. However, both the FBW93 magnetic field strength, and
467: the plasma temperature agree to within our errors. More interesting is the
468: non-detection of their primary accretion region which should trail the
469: observed ``secondary'' emission region by about 0.10 in phase, implying an
470: onset at $\phi$ $\simeq$ 0.60 which is not seen.
471:
472: \subsection{Ellipsoidal Versus Cyclotron Derived Inclinations}
473:
474: In both cases, the geometry of the emission region was consistent with a
475: simple single spot model having a constant orbital inclination and magnetic
476: colatitude. In Fig. 9, we plot (black) the cyclotron derived values of the
477: viewing angle against the orbital phase for both AM Her(top) and
478: ST LMi(bottom). In red are the simple geometrical models, with the blue shading
479: indicating phases for which the cyclotron regions are self eclipsed. The
480: models fit the AM Her data well for nearly all phases, only deviating
481: near self-eclipse ingress and egress, where the viewing angle is
482: changing rapidly compared to the cadence of our spectroscopy. For ST LMi, the
483: bright phase is relatively short, lasting $\simeq$ 40 \% of the orbit.
484: Consequently, few data were available to constrain its geometry. We thus used
485: published values of $i$ and $\beta$ for an additional constraint, finding that
486: we could match the data with models quite similar to those found in the
487: literature.
488:
489: For AM Her, the cyclotron models imply an orbital inclination of
490: $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$, identical to that found in the
491: ellipsoidal modeling effort, although higher angles are possible if additional
492: sources of dilution remain in the IR light curves. Agreement was also found for
493: the ellipsoidal and cyclotron inclinations for ST LMi finding values of $i$ =
494: 55$^{\circ}$ and 40$^{\circ}$, respectively. The later value represents the
495: lowest inclination ellipsoidal model, and values of $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$ are more
496: consistent with the lightcurve (see Fig. 3). Some caution, however, should be
497: given to the fact that the spectroscopy and lightcurves of ST LMi were taken
498: at different epochs when the object was in different states, which could
499: affect the accretion geometry. In Schwope et al. (1993), the authors
500: found that the polar MR Serpentis appeared to show longitudinal migration of
501: the accretion spot by $\simeq$ 30$^{\circ}$, as well as a 10$^{\circ}$ shift
502: in the magnetic colatitude between its high and low states.
503:
504: \subsection{ST LMi in an Extreme Low-State}
505:
506: In Fig. 8b, we present SE-Subtracted SPEX data obtained during our 2005
507: February 7 observing run, which show a conspicuous lack of cyclotron emission
508: throughout the entire orbital cycle. The extreme low-state of ST LMi is
509: corroborated by near-epoch (2006 February 12) optical lightcurves obtained
510: with the WIYN 0.9-m, showing the system in a deep low-state. Despite the poor
511: telluric correction (the spectra were faint), the only strong feature in the
512: bright-phase (0.50 $\leq \phi \leq$ 0.85) is small ``bump'' longward of
513: 2.2 $\mu$m, caused by under subtraction of the secondary star at those phases.
514: In this series of papers (see Papers I,II, and Szkody et al. 2008, submitted)
515: we have modeled seven polars, representing $\sim$ 10\% of all known mCVs.
516: Included in this sample were EQ Cet, the prototype ``Low-Accretion Rate
517: Polar'', MQ Dra (= SDSS 1553), the prototype ``pre-polar'', and EF Eri, well
518: known for its protracted low-state. Intriguingly, in each of these objects
519: strong cyclotron emission was observed, while the extreme low-state dataset of
520: ST LMi is the only example where cyclotron emission completely disappeared. A
521: similar situation probably explains the 2006 Feb 12 photometric low-state found
522: by Kafka et al. (2007). This suggests that normal polars can have periods that
523: appear completely devoid of detectable accretion.
524:
525: \section{Conclusion}
526: We obtained a full orbit of phase-resolved IR spectra for both AM Her and
527: ST LMi. We found both objects to be dominated by emission from the secondary
528: in the IR. To remove this component, we utilized the fact that emission regions
529: for both stars were self-eclipsed. Thus, at each phase we subtract a dim-phase
530: or ``Stream-Emission'' spectrum. Because of the changing spectral type of
531: the secondary, we found that medianing dim-phase spectra over $\simeq$ 25 \%
532: of an orbit produced a better subtraction. For AM Her, we found a phase
533: averaged model of : B = 13.6$_{-0.8}^{+1.0}$ MG, kT = 4.0$_{-1.0}^{+1.5}$
534: keV (see Table 2 for specifics at each phase). Additionally, we found that the
535: viewing angle varied in a manner consistent with expectations from a system
536: with $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$ and $\beta$ = 85$^{\circ}$. For ST LMi, we collected
537: two datasets. The first had ST LMi in a low-state with $V$ $\simeq$ 17.4, and
538: displayed weak cyclotron harmonics that were difficult to decouple from
539: the water vapor signatures leftover after SE-subtraction. We found a phase
540: averaged model of : B= 12.1 $\pm$ 0.5 MG, kT = 3.3 $\pm$ 1.8 keV in an
541: accretion region consistent with $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$ and $\beta$ =
542: 128$^{\circ}$. For ST LMi, we include a second data set, taken when the object
543: was in an ``extreme low-state'' showing no substantial cyclotron
544: emission. The non-detection of cyclotron emission contrasts with our earlier
545: data from both EQ Cet and MQ Dra both of which show cyclotron emission, even
546: while being in extremely low-states.
547:
548: \acknowledgments
549:
550: \begin{thebibliography}{}
551:
552: \bibitem[Araujo-Betancor, S., Gansicke, B.T., Long, K.S., Beuermann, K.,
553: de Martino, D., Sion, E.M., Szkody, P. (2005)]{Araujo-Betancor2005}
554: Araujo-Betancor, S., Gansicke, B.T., Long, K.S., Beuermann, K., de Martino, D.,
555: Sion, E.M., Szkody, P., 2005, \apj, 622, 589
556: \bibitem[Bailey,J., Ferrario,L. \& Wickramasinghe, D.T. (1991)]{Bailey1991}
557: Bailey,J., Ferrario,L. \& Wickramasinghe, D.T., 1991, \mnras, 251, 37
558: \bibitem[Brainerd, J.J \& Lamb, D.Q. (1985)]{Brainerd1985} Brainerd, J.J \&
559: Lamb, D.Q., 1985, Proceeding of the 7th North American Workshop on Cataclysmic
560: Variables and Low-Mass X-Ray Binaries, 247
561: \bibitem[Campbell, R.K., Harrison, T.E., Schwope, A.D., Howell, S.B. (2008a)]{
562: Campbell2008a} Campbell, R.K., Harrison, T.E., Schwope, A.D., Howell, S.B.,
563: 2008, 672, 531
564: \bibitem[Campbell, R.K,, Harrison, T.E, Mason, E. Howell, S.B., Schwope, A.D.]
565: {Campbell2008b} Campbell, R.K,, Harrison, T.E, Mason, E. Howell, S.B.,
566: Schwope, A.D., 2008, \apj, in press.
567: \bibitem[Ciardi, D., Howell, S.B., Dhillon, V.S., Wagner, R.M., Hauschildt,
568: P.H, Allard, F. (1998)]{Ciardi1998} Ciardi, D., Howell, S.B., Dhillon, V.S.,
569: Wagner, R.M., Hauschildt, P.H, Allard, F., 1998, \pasp, 110, 1007
570: \bibitem[Cropper, M. (1986)]{Cropper1986} Cropper, M., 1986, \mnras, 222, 853
571: \bibitem[Cropper, M., Ramsay, G. \& Wu, K. (1998)]{Cropper1998} Cropper, M.,
572: Ramsay, G. \& Wu, K., 1998, \mnras, 293, 222
573: \bibitem[Davey S. \& Smith, R.C. (1992)]{Davey1992} Davey S. \& Smith, R.C.,
574: 1992, \mnras, 257, 476
575: \bibitem[Ellis et al. (1992)]{Ellis1992} Ellis, T., Drake, R., Fowler, A.M.,
576: Gatley, F., Heim, J., Luce, R., Merrill, K.M., Probst, R., Buchholz, N., 1992,
577: Proc. SPIE, 1765, 94
578: \bibitem[Ferrario, L., Bailey, J. \& Wickramasinghe, D.T. (1993)]{Ferrario1993}
579: Ferrario, L., Bailey, J., \& Wickramasinghe, D.T., 1993, \mnras, 262, 285
580: \bibitem[Fischer, A. \& Beuermann, K. (2001)]{Fischer2001} Fischer, A. \&
581: Beuermann, K., 2001, \aap, 373, 211
582: \bibitem[Gansicke, B.T, Hoard, D.W., Beuermann, K., Sion, E.M, Szkody, P.
583: (1995)]{Gansicke1995} Gansicke, B.T, Hoard, D.W., Beuermann, K., Sion, E.M,
584: Szkody, P., 1995, \aap, 338, 933
585: \bibitem[Gansicke, B.T., Fischer, A., Silvotti, R., and de Martino, D. (2001)]
586: {Gansicke2001} Gansicke, B.T., Fischer, A., Silvotti, R., and de Martino, D.,
587: 2001, \aap, 372, 557
588: \bibitem[Gansicke, B.T, Long, K.S. Barstow, M.A. \& Hubeny, I. (2006)]
589: {Gansicke2006} Gansicke, B.T, Long, K.S. Barstow, M.A. \& Hubeny, I., 2006,
590: \apj, 639, 1039
591: \bibitem[Harrison, T.E., Howell, S.B., Huber, M.E., Osborne, H.L., Holtzman,
592: J.A., Cash, J.L., Gelino, D.M. (2003)]{Harrison2003} Harrison, T.E., Howell,
593: S.B., Huber, M.E., Osborne, H.L., Holtzman, J.A., Cash, J.L., Gelino, D.M.,
594: 2003, \aj, 125, 2609
595: \bibitem[Harrison, T.E., Howell, S.B., Szkody, P., Cordova, F. (2005)]
596: {Harrison2005} Harrison, T.E., Howell, S.B., Szkody, P., Cordova, F., 2005,
597: \apj, 632, 123
598: \bibitem[Howell, S.B, Ciardi, D.R., Dhillon, V.S., Skidmore, W. (2000)]
599: {Howell2000} Howell, S.B, Ciardi, D.R., Dhillon, V.S., Skidmore, W., 2000,
600: \apj, 530, 904
601: \bibitem[Hubeny, I. \& Lanz, T. (1995)]{Hubeny1995} Hubeny, I. \& Lanz, T.,
602: 1995, \apj, 439, 875
603: \bibitem[Kafka, S. \& Honeycutt, R.K. (2005a)]{Kafka2005a} Kafka, S. \&
604: Honeycutt, R.K., 2005a, \aj, 130, 742
605: \bibitem[Kafka, S., Honeycutt, R.K., Howell, S.B., Harrison, T.E. (2005b)]
606: {Kafka2005b} Kafka, S. \& Honeycutt, R.K., S.B., Harrison, T.E., 2005b, \aj,
607: 130, 2852
608: \bibitem[Kafka, S., Howell, S.B., Honeycutt, R.K., Robertson, J.W. (2007)]
609: {Kafka2007} Kafka, S., S.B., Honeycutt, R.K., Robertson, J.W., 2005, \aj, 133,
610: 1645
611: \bibitem[Knigge, C. (2006)]{Knigge2006} Knigge, C., 2006, \mnras, 373, 484
612: \bibitem[Peacock, T., Cropper, M., Bailey, J., Hough, J.H., Wickramasinghe,
613: D.T. (1992)]{Peacock1992} Peacock, T., Cropper, M., Bailey, J., Hough, J.H.,
614: Wickramasinghe, D.T., 1992, \mnras, 259, 583
615: \bibitem[Potter, S.B. (2000)]{Potter2000} Potter, S.B., 2000, \mnras, 314, 672
616: \bibitem[Priedhorsky, W.C. \& Krzeminski, W. (1978)]{Priedhorsky1978}
617: Priedhorsky, W.C. \& Krzeminski, W., \apj, 219, 597
618: \bibitem[Ramsay, G., Cropper, M., Wu, K., Mason, K. O., Cordova, F. A.,
619: Priedhorsky, W. (2004)]{Ramsay2004} Ramsay, G., Cropper, M., Wu, K.,
620: Mason, K. O., Cordova, F. A., Priedhorsky, W., 2004. \mnras, 350, 1373
621: \bibitem[Rayner et al. 2003]{Rayner2003} Rayner, J.T., Toomey, D.W.,
622: Onaka, P.M., Denault, A.J., Stahlberger, W.E., Vacca, W.D., Cushing, M.C.,
623: Wang, S., 2003, \pasp, 115, 362
624: \bibitem[Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S., \& Grandi, S.A.]{Schmidt1983} Schmidt,
625: G.D., Stockman, H.S., \& Grandi, S.A., 1983, \apj, 271, 735
626: \bibitem[Schwope, A.D. (1990)]{Schwope1990} Schwope, A.D. 1990, Reviews In
627: Modern Astronomy, 3, 44
628: \bibitem[Schwope, A.D., Beuermann, K., Jordan, S., Thomas, H.-C. (1993)]
629: {Schwope1993} Schwope, A.D., Beuermann, K., Jordan, S., Thomas, H.-C., 1993,
630: \aap, 278, 487
631: \bibitem[Schwope, A.D., Brunner, H., Buckley, D., Greiner, J., Heyden, K. v.
632: d., Neizvestny, S., Potter, S., Schwarz, R. (2002)]{Schwope2002} Schwope,
633: A.D., Brunner, H., Buckley, D., Greiner, J., Heyden, K. v. d., Neizvestny, S.,
634: Potter, S., Schwarz, R., 2002, \aap, 396, 895
635: \bibitem[Sion, E. (1999)]{Sion1999} Sion, E., 1999, \pasp, 111, 532
636: \bibitem[Sirk, M.M. \& Howell, S.B. (1998)]{Sirk1998}Sirk, M.M. \& Howell,
637: S.B., 1998, \apj, 506, 173
638: \bibitem[Southwell, J.A., Still, M.D., Connon-Smith, R., Martin, J.S. (1995)]
639: {Southwell1995} Southwell, J.A., Still, M.D., Connon-Smith, R., Martin, J.S.,
640: 1995, \aap, 302, 90
641: \bibitem[Stockman, H.S., Foltz, C.B., Schmidt, G.D., Tapia, S. (1983)]
642: {Stockman1983} Stockman, H.S., Foltz, C.B., Schmidt, G.D., Tapia, S., 1983,
643: 271, 725
644: \bibitem[Szkody, P. \& Capps, R.W. (1980)]{Szkdoy1980} Szkody, P. \& Capps,
645: R.W., 1980, \aj, 85, 882
646: \bibitem[Szkody,P., Linnell, A.P., Campbell, R.K., Plotkin, R.M., Harrison,
647: T.E., Holtzman, J., Seibert, M., Howell, S.B. (2008)]{Szkody2008} Szkody,P.,
648: Linnell, A.P., Campbell, R.K., Plotkin, R.M., Harrison, T.E., Holtzman, J.,
649: Seibert, M., Howell, S.B., 2008, \apj, submitted, 73798
650: \bibitem[Tapia, S. (1977)]{Tapia1977a} Tapia, S. (1977), \apj, 212, L125
651: \bibitem[Thorstensen, J.R. (2003)]{Thorstensen2003} Thorstensen, J.R, 2003,
652: \aj, 126, 3017
653: \bibitem[Vacca, W.D, Cushing, M.C., Rayner, J.T. (2003)]{Vacca2003}
654: Vacca, W.D., Cushing, M.C., Rayner, J.T., 2003, \pasp, 115, 389
655: \bibitem[Warner, B. (1995)]{Warner1995} Warner, B., 1995, Astrophysics \&
656: Space Science, 232, 89
657: \bibitem[Watson, C.A., Dhillon, V.S., Rutten, R.G.M., Schwope, A.D. (2003)]
658: {Watson2003} Watson, C.A., Dhillon, V.S., Rutten, R.G.M., Schwope, A.D., 2003,
659: \mnras, 341, 129
660: \bibitem[Wilson, R.E. \& Devinney, E.J. (1971)]{Wilson1971} Wilson, R.E. \&
661: Devinney, E.J., 1971, \apj, 166, 605
662: \bibitem[Young, P., Schneider, D.P., Shectman, S.A. (1981)]{Young1981}
663: Young, P., Schneider, D.P., Shectman, S.A., 1981, \apj, 245, 1043
664: \end{thebibliography}
665:
666:
667: \clearpage
668: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
669: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
670: %\rotate
671: \tablecaption{Observing Log}
672: \tablewidth{0pt}
673: \tablehead{\colhead{Date} & \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Instrument}
674: &\colhead{Obs. Type} &\colhead{I(sec)} &\colhead{State}}
675: \startdata
676:
677:
678: 2005 September 1 & AM Her & IRTF/SPEX & Spec. & 120 & Low \\
679: 2002 September 26 & AM Her & KPNO & Phot. & & Low \\
680: 2005 May 20 & AM Her & APO & Phot. & 240 & Low \\
681: 2005 February 7 & ST LMi & IRTF/SPEX & Spec. & & Extreme Low \\
682: 2006 February 2 & ST LMi & IRTF/SPEX & Spec. & & Low \\
683: 2003 April 9 & ST LMi & KPNO & Phot. & 240 & High \\
684:
685: \enddata
686:
687: \end{deluxetable}
688: \clearpage
689:
690:
691:
692: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
693: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
694: %\rotate
695: \tablecaption{Cyclotron Modeling Parameters for AM Her}
696: \tablewidth{0pt}
697: \tablehead{\colhead{Phase} & \colhead{B(MG)} &\colhead{kT(keV)}
698: &\colhead{$\theta$} &\colhead{log$\Lambda$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} }
699: \startdata
700:
701:
702: 0.03 & 13.3 & 3.9 & 35.0 & 5.3 & 3.53 \\
703: 0.09 & 13.1 & 4.1 & 42.0 & 5.3 & 3.90 \\
704: 0.20 & 14.0 & 3.9 & 62.0 & 4.8 & 1.11 \\
705: 0.26 & 14.1 & 3.9 & 72.0 & 4.6 & 2.12 \\
706: 0.31 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
707: 0.37 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
708: 0.48 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
709: 0.52 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
710: 0.59 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
711: 0.64 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
712: 0.70 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
713: 0.75 & 13.8 & 4.3 & 75.0 & 5.0 & 1.78 \\
714: 0.80 & 13.6 & 4.3 & 67.0 & 5.2 & 1.30 \\
715: 0.86 & 13.6 & 4.2 & 55.0 & 5.1 & 3.30 \\
716: 0.92 & 13.4 & 4.0 & 46.0 & 5.1 & 2.28 \\
717: 0.97 & 13.3 & 3.9 & 37.0 & 5.4 & 2.48 \\
718:
719: \enddata
720:
721: \end{deluxetable}
722: \clearpage
723:
724:
725: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
726: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
727: %\rotate
728: \tablecaption{Cyclotron Modeling Parameters for ST LMi}
729: \tablewidth{0pt}
730: \tablehead{\colhead{Phase} & \colhead{B(MG)} &\colhead{T(keV)}
731: &\colhead{$\theta$} &\colhead{log$\Lambda$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} }
732: \startdata
733:
734: 0.14 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$\\
735: 0.26 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
736: 0.38 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$\\
737: 0.50 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$\\
738: 0.57 & 12.0 & 3.2 & 85.0 & 5.5 & 2.19 \\
739: 0.68 & 12.0 & 3.2 & 78.0 & 5.5 & 2.61 \\
740: 0.73 & 12.2 & 3.4 & 75.0 & 6.1 & 3.75 \\
741: 0.85 & 12.2 & 3.4 & 82.0 & 5.9 & 2.24 \\
742: 0.91 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$\\
743: 0.99 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$\\
744:
745: \enddata
746:
747: \end{deluxetable}
748: \clearpage
749:
750: {\bf Figure 1.}
751: $JHK$ photometry of AM Her obtained with the KPNO 2.1-m on September 26, 2002
752: when the object was in an faint-state ($V$ $\sim$ 15.5). The $J$ and
753: $H$ bands show strong ellipsoidal variations, while the $K$-band morphology
754: is the result of a combination of ellipsoidal and cyclotron emission. The
755: lightcurves were phased using the Kafka et al. (2005b) ephemeris. The
756: overplotted lines are ellipsoidal models for $i$ = 50$^{\circ}$.
757:
758: {\bf Figure 2.} Long-term RoboScope lightcurves of AM Her complimented by
759: AAVSO data. The ``P'' denotes the times of our our SQIID and NIC-FPS/NMSU 1-m
760: photometry, while the `` S'' indicates our spectroscopic observations. top:
761: $V$-band photometry following AM Her from 1991 through 2006. bottom-left:
762: Zoom-in of the year surrounding our SQIID photometric measurements.
763: bottom-right: Zoom-in of the year surrounding our IRTF spectroscopy.
764:
765: {\bf Figure 3.}
766: $BVRIJHK$ photometry of AM Her obtained with the APO 3.5-m/NMSU 1-m on May 20,
767: 2005 when the object was in a faint-state (V = 15.3) similar to the
768: KPNO lightcurves (see Fig. 1). An identical ellipsoidal model to that used for
769: the KPNO photometry is overplotted here, matching well from $R$ to $K$, and
770: although a small flare event is evident in $R$ and $I$ during the second cycle
771: of observation almost no cyclotron emission should be present in these bands.
772: Humps reminiscent of cyclotron emission reappear in the $V$ and especially $B$
773: bands suggesting that a higher field is active on AM Her. (a) The optical
774: bands (b) the NIR bands
775:
776: {\bf Figure 4.}
777: (a)IRTF/SPEX phase-resolved spectra of AM Her plotted (black) as
778: a stacked series, with a constant flux increment of $\lambda F_{\lambda}$ =
779: 1.10$\times$10$^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ and covering the
780: orbital phases for which the cyclotron emission region is in view. At each
781: phase, the 1.22 $\mu$m flux is normalized to the $J$-band lightcurve ensuring
782: proper flux calibration with the narrow 0.3'' slit and a dim-phase
783: spectrum ($\phi$ = 0.42) was subtracted. Because of the variability of the
784: secondary's spectral type over the orbit, the underlying continuum as well as
785: intrinsic water features changed over the orbit. Remnant intrinsic water
786: features, however, are still apparent at $\sim$ 1.35 and 1.8 $\mu$m. No
787: cyclotron emission was observed from $\phi$ = 0.27 to $\phi$ = 0.74.
788:
789: {\bf Figure 5.}
790: $JHK$ photometry of ST LMi obtained with the KPNO 2.1-m/SQIID on the April
791: 9, 2003 high-state. The dim-phase lasts from $\phi$ = 0.00 to 0.55, while from
792: $\phi$ = 0.60 to 0.95 the bright-phase is observed. The plotted lines are
793: ellipsoidal models for $i$ = 55$^{\circ}$.
794:
795: {\bf Figure 6.} Long-term lightcurves of ST LMi. top: $V$-band photometry
796: following ST LMi from late 1991 to early 2006. bottom: Zoom-in of the year
797: surrounding our IRTF/SPEX spectroscopy. The ``P'' denotes the epoch of our
798: photometry, while ``S'' marks our spectroscopic data during the 2005 extreme
799: low-state and the 2006 low-state, respectively.
800:
801: {\bf Figure 7.}
802: IRTF data of ST LMi in an extreme low-state (2005). An M6 template spectrum is
803: plotted during the dim-phase ($\phi$ = 0.02) confirming the spectral
804: classification.
805:
806: {\bf Figure 8.}
807: (a)Phase-Resolved SE-subtracted spectroscopy of ST LMi, taken in February 2006
808: during a low-state. The IRTF/SPEX data are plotted (black) as
809: a stacked series - a constant increment of $\lambda F_{\lambda}$ =
810: 1.2$\times$10$^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ is added to each spectrum
811: to offset it from the spectrum below it. The SE spectrum subtracted from
812: each phase was a median of three dim-phase spectra. The best fit
813: cyclotron model for each of the bright-phase spectra are shown in green. (b)
814: the same, but for the February 2005 extreme low-state.
815:
816: {\bf Figure 9.} (a) The derived value of the viewing angle ($\Theta$) for
817: AM Her is plotted vs. the orbital phase ($\phi$) in black, with the best fit
818: geometry ($i$ = 50$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ = 85$^{\circ}$) overlaid in red. The blue
819: shading indicates phases for which AM Her is self-eclipsed. (b) the same, but
820: for ST LMi and with a geometrical model of ($i$ = 55$^{\circ}$, $\beta$ =
821: 128$^{\circ}$).
822:
823:
824: \begin{figure}
825: \epsscale{0.80}
826: \plotone{f1.eps}
827: \end{figure}
828: \begin{figure}
829: \epsscale{0.80}
830: \plotone{f2.eps}
831: \end{figure}
832: \begin{figure}
833: \epsscale{0.80}
834: \plotone{f3a.eps}
835: \end{figure}
836: \begin{figure}
837: \epsscale{0.80}
838: \plotone{f3b.eps}
839: \end{figure}
840: \begin{figure}
841: \epsscale{0.80}
842: \plotone{f4.eps}
843: \end{figure}
844: \begin{figure}
845: \epsscale{0.80}
846: \plotone{f5.eps}
847: \end{figure}
848: \begin{figure}
849: \epsscale{0.80}
850: \plotone{f6.eps}
851: \end{figure}
852: \begin{figure}
853: \epsscale{0.80}
854: \plotone{f7.eps}
855: \end{figure}
856: \begin{figure}
857: \epsscale{0.80}
858: \plotone{f8a.eps}
859: \end{figure}
860: \begin{figure}
861: \epsscale{0.80}
862: \plotone{f8b.eps}
863: \end{figure}
864: \begin{figure}
865: \epsscale{0.80}
866: \plotone{f9.eps}
867: \end{figure}
868:
869:
870:
871:
872:
873: \end{document}
874: