1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: % Unit definitions
4: \newcommand{\um}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,\mu{}m}}}
5: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{\mathit{\,M_\odot}}}
6: \newcommand{\kps}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,km\,s^{-1}}}}
7:
8: \newcommand{\period}{\ensuremath{\mathit{P}}}
9: \newcommand{\e}{\ensuremath{\mathit{e}}}
10: \newcommand{\Tknot}{\ensuremath{\mathit{T}_0}}
11: \newcommand{\w}{\ensuremath{\mathit{\omega}}}
12: \newcommand{\qmin}{\ensuremath{\mathit{q}_{\mathrm{min}}}}
13: \newcommand{\q}{\ensuremath{\mathit{q}}}
14: \newcommand{\Kone}{\ensuremath{\mathit{K}_1}}
15: \newcommand{\Ktwo}{\ensuremath{\mathit{K}_2}}
16: \newcommand{\g}{\ensuremath{\mathit{\gamma}}}
17: \newcommand{\fmass}{\ensuremath{\mathit{f(M)}}}
18: \newcommand{\vrotsini}{\ensuremath{\mathit{v}_{\mathrm{rot}}\sin i}}
19: \newcommand{\Mone}{\ensuremath{\mathit{M}_1}}
20: \newcommand{\Mtwo}{\ensuremath{\mathit{M}_2}}
21: \newcommand{\Vone}{\ensuremath{\mathit{V}_1}}
22: \newcommand{\Vtwo}{\ensuremath{\mathit{V}_2}}
23:
24: \newcommand{\phnn}{\phantom{00}}
25: \newcommand{\phnnn}{\phantom{000}}
26: \newcommand{\phnnnn}{\phantom{0000}}
27: \newcommand{\phnnnnn}{\phantom{00000}}
28: \newcommand{\phnnnnnn}{\phantom{000000}}
29: \newcommand{\phdn}{\phantom{.0}}
30: \newcommand{\phdnn}{\phantom{.00}}
31: \newcommand{\phdnnn}{\phantom{.000}}
32: \newcommand{\phdnnnn}{\phantom{.0000}}
33: \newcommand{\phdnnnnn}{\phantom{.00000}}
34: \newcommand{\phdnnnnnn}{\phantom{.000000}}
35: \newcommand{\php}{\phantom{+}}
36: \newcommand{\phnp}{\phantom{0+}}
37: \newcommand{\phpn}{\phantom{+0}}
38: \begin{document}
39:
40: \title{The Detection of Low Mass Companions in Hyades Cluster
41: Spectroscopic Binary Stars}
42:
43: \author{Chad F.\ Bender\altaffilmark{1,2} and Michal
44: Simon\altaffilmark{2}}
45:
46:
47: \altaffiltext{1}{Naval Research Laboratory, Remote Sensing Division:
48: Code 7211, 4555 Overlook Ave.\ SW, Washington, DC 20375;
49: chad.bender@nrl.navy.mil}
50:
51: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook
52: University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800; michal.simon@sunysb.edu}
53:
54: \shortauthors{Bender and Simon}
55: \shorttitle{Hyades Spectroscopic Binary Stars}
56: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal}
57:
58:
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61:
62: We have observed a large sample of spectroscopic binary stars in the
63: Hyades Cluster, using high resolution infrared spectroscopy to
64: detect low mass companions. We combine our double-lined infrared
65: measurements with well constrained orbital parameters from visible
66: light single-lined observations to derive dynamical mass ratios.
67: Using these results, along with photometry and theoretical
68: mass-luminosity relationships, we estimate the masses of the
69: individual components in our binaries. In this paper we present
70: double-lined solutions for 25 binaries in our sample, with mass
71: ratios from $\sim0.1-0.8$. This corresponds to secondary masses as
72: small as $\sim0.15\msun$. We include here our preliminary detection
73: of the companion to vB~142, with a very small mass ratio of
74: $\q=0.06\pm0.04$; this indicates that the companion may be a brown
75: dwarf. This paper is an initial step in a program to produce
76: distributions of mass ratio and secondary mass for Hyades cluster
77: binaries with a wide range of periods, in order to better understand
78: binary star formation. As such, our emphasis is on measuring these
79: distributions, not on measuring precise orbital parameters for
80: individual binaries.
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \keywords{binaries: spectroscopic --- open clusters and associations:
84: individual (Hyades) --- stars: fundamental parameters ---
85: techniques: spectroscopic}
86:
87:
88: \section{\sc Introduction\label{intro}}
89:
90: Observations of spectroscopic binary stars provide dynamical
91: measurements of stellar mass and binary mass ratio that are important
92: inputs to theories of binary star formation \citep{bonnell2003,
93: tohline2002, clarke2001}. Measuring the radial velocity versus
94: orbital phase for a single-lined spectroscopic binary (SB1) yields
95: orbital parameters and the mass function, \fmass, in which the mass
96: ratio, $\q=\Mtwo/\Mone$, is inseparable from the orbital inclination.
97: For an ensemble of SB1s, a statistical approach can be used to derive
98: the distribution of mass ratios \citep[e.g.,][]{mazeh1992}. If,
99: however, a binary is observed as a double-lined system (SB2), then the
100: dynamical mass ratio follows directly from the radial velocity
101: measurements \citep{mazeh2002}. With an estimate of the primary mass,
102: say based on the spectral type, the mass ratio gives the secondary
103: mass, and in the case of an ensemble of SB2s, the secondary mass
104: distribution.
105:
106: Obtaining a purely dynamical mass ratio distribution using SB2s is
107: challenging: a binary with a mass ratio of much less than one has a
108: small flux ratio, $\alpha=\mathit{F}_2/\mathit{F}_1$, so the secondary
109: component is difficult to detect. This flux ratio problem is
110: particularly inhibitive at visible wavelengths where much of the long
111: term monitoring of spectroscopic binaries has occurred. For this
112: reason, most identified SBs are SB1s, and there is a strong selection
113: effect favoring the detection of SB2s with \q{} near 1. A binary
114: composed of main sequence stars with unequal masses will have an
115: $\alpha$ that increases towards longer wavelengths, making the
116: companion easier to detect using infrared spectroscopy. Such
117: observations have allowed the measurement of SB2s with \q's as small
118: as $\sim0.1-0.2$ \citep[e.g.,][]{mazeh2002,prato2002}.
119:
120: \citet{duquennoy1991} examined a sample of 164 nearby SB1s, SB2s,
121: visual binaries, and common proper motion pairs, with F- and G-type
122: primary stars, and found that the mass ratio distribution for medium
123: to long period binaries increases towards small mass ratios.
124: \citet{goldberg2003} used a well defined sample of 129 SB1s and SB2s
125: from the Carney-Latham sample of high proper motion stars
126: \citep{carney1994} to derive a bimodal mass ratio distribution with
127: peaks at $\q\sim0.2$ and $\q\sim0.8$. They found somewhat different
128: distributions for halo versus disk stars, and for binaries with
129: primary masses greater than and less than 0.67\msun. By working in
130: the infrared, \citet{mazeh2003} observed 32 binaries from the
131: Carney-Latham sample as SB2s, with mass ratios as small as $\sim$0.20.
132: When combined with SB2s from visible light spectroscopy, they found a
133: mass ratio distribution that is approximately flat from $\q\sim0.3 -
134: 1.0$.
135:
136: The samples studied by \citet{goldberg2003}, \citet{mazeh2003}, and,
137: for \q's near 1 by \citet{lucy2006}, represent averages of star
138: formation outcomes in the solar neighborhood over billions of years.
139: Most star formation occurs in localized regions within molecular
140: clouds. Studies of the binary population in diverse star forming
141: regions can isolate the physical parameters that determine the
142: properties of the binaries formed. For example, the competing effects
143: of fragmentation, dynamical interactions, and accretion are not fully
144: understood \citep{goodwin2007, ballesteros2007, whitworth2007}.
145: Observations of binaries in open clusters can clarify the important
146: processes because they share a common star formation origin and
147: history. Ideally, such observations would be carried out on young
148: clusters that have an easily identifiable membership and still retain
149: their most massive members. However, it is difficult to measure the
150: orbital velocities of the youngest stars because they tend to have
151: high rotation velocities. Stars in older open clusters still retain
152: much of their cluster identity yet are rotationally spun down.
153:
154: The Hyades is one such nearby open cluster: it is well studied and
155: presents an excellent laboratory for measuring a well defined sample
156: of binary stars in order to investigate binary star formation. The
157: cluster has an age of $\sim650$\,Myr \citep{lebreton2001}, old enough
158: that stars later than spectral type F3 have slowed to $v\sin i \la
159: 25\kps$ \citep{kraft1965}, and G-type and later to $v\sin i\la10\kps$
160: \citep{stauffer1987}. Most mid K-type and earlier cluster members
161: have individual \emph{Hipparcos} distances, and with a mean cluster
162: distance of $\sim46$\,pc \citep{perryman1998} the known binaries are
163: bright. Additionally, with metallicity [Fe/H]=0.14
164: \citep{lebreton2001} the spectral lines of Hyades members are deep and
165: well suited to spectroscopic analysis.
166:
167: Radial velocity surveys of the Hyades \citep[e.g.,][]{wilson1948,
168: kraft1965, detweiler1984, stefanik1985,
169: griffin1978,griffin1981,griffin1985, griffin1988} have identified a
170: sufficient number of SBs to facilitate a statistical analysis of their
171: physical properties. \citet{patience1998} carried out a study of
172: Hyades ``visual binaries'' using speckle interferometry. These wide
173: binaries have periods longer than most SBs and several are the wide
174: components of hierarchical triples with known SBs. From their
175: observations, \citet{patience1998} derived a photometric mass ratio
176: distribution for long period systems that appears to increase towards
177: small \q.
178:
179: At the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Robert
180: P. Stefanik (RPS) and David W. Latham (DWL) have monitored Hyades
181: members for SBs by visible light spectroscopy since 1979
182: \citep[e.g.,][]{latham1982,stefanik1985}. Their observations have
183: refined the cluster membership and yielded precise parameters for many
184: SB1s and SB2s. In 2003, the current authors began a collaboration
185: with the CfA group to extend, through infrared observations, the
186: detection of binary companions to smaller masses than possible by
187: visible light spectroscopy alone. To this end, RPS and DWL made
188: available to us their unpublished parameters for many Hyades SB1s. In
189: this paper we present infrared SB2 detections that span the range of
190: mass ratios from $\q\sim0.1$ to $\q\sim0.9$. We verified these
191: results using the sample of Hyades SB1s available in the literature
192: \citep[e.g.,][]{sanford1921,griffin1978,griffin1981,griffin1985}. When
193: combined with available surveys (both present and future) of Hyades
194: binaries, our SB2 detections will enable better determinations of the
195: distribution of secondary masses. In \S\ref{sample}, we present our
196: Hyades binary sample; \S\ref{infrared} describes our infrared
197: observations and velocity measurement techniques; \S\ref{sb2solutions}
198: includes the SB1 and SB2 solutions for our sample binaries;
199: \S\ref{discussion} discusses the quality of our SB2 solutions and
200: derives the secondary masses; and \S\ref{summary} presents a brief
201: summary and comments on our future papers.
202:
203: \section{\sc The Infrared SB2 Sample \label{sample}}
204:
205: Because the Hyades cluster is nearby, it covers a large angular extent
206: on the sky, so determining the cluster membership is difficult.
207: Considerable effort has been applied to identify true Hyades members
208: using measurements of proper motion, radial velocity, parallax, and
209: color-magnitude relationships \citep[e.g.,][]{vanbueren1952,
210: vanaltena1969, hanson1975, griffin1988, reid1992, perryman1998,
211: debruijne2001}. Nevertheless, these surveys contain many candidates
212: that are non-members or have uncertain membership status. In
213: particular the membership of SBs is often ambiguous until their
214: center-of-mass velocities can be calculated from orbital solutions.
215: The multi-decade long campaign at CfA to monitor candidate Hyades
216: binaries and multiple systems (\S\ref{intro}) has, for many systems,
217: resulted in precise measurements of both the orbital parameters (the
218: period, \period, the eccentricity, \e, the time of periastron passage,
219: \Tknot, the longitude of periastron, \w, the semi-major amplitude of
220: the primary, \Kone, and the center-of-mass velocity, \g) and the mass
221: function, \fmass.
222:
223:
224: In 2003, we used the preliminary CfA SB1 solutions to select a sample
225: of 32 binaries suitable for further observations in the infrared as
226: SB2s. We will refer to this as the \emph{infrared sample}, to
227: distinguish from the entire CfA sample. All infrared sample members
228: are confirmed as cluster members through the methods listed above. To
229: avoid early type stars with large rotational velocities
230: (\S\ref{intro}) we restricted the sample to targets with primaries of
231: spectral type F and later. Despite this, however, five targets do
232: have $V_{rot}\ga25\kps$ and required a modified analysis
233: (\S\ref{irrapidrotators}). Most of the infrared observations were
234: obtained with the CSHELL spectrometer at the IRTF, which, for Hyades
235: members, has an effective magnitude limit of \emph{H}$\sim$9 in a 90
236: minute integration; this corresponds to targets with early-M primary
237: stars, and serves as the faint cutoff for our sample. We intended the
238: infrared observing campaign to last at most a few years, during which
239: the orbital phase of systems with long periods would not change
240: significantly. Using \fmass{} from the SB1 solutions, an estimate of
241: the primary mass based on spectral type, and letting $i=\pi/2$, we
242: derived the minimum mass ratio, \qmin, allowed for each binary. From
243: \qmin{} we predicted the velocity separation of long period systems,
244: and excluded those with separations of only a few \kps{} or smaller.
245: Long period systems with large predicted velocity separations were
246: retained, with the expectation that observations at multiple phases
247: would not be possible. Table~\ref{table:irsample} lists the infrared
248: sample. Columns 1--5 give the name and HD number of the primary star,
249: the J2000 coordinates, and the primary spectral type as listed in the
250: SIMBAD database and confirmed with the analysis described in
251: \S\ref{infrared}. Columns 6 and 7 give \emph{V} magnitude
252: (\emph{Hipparcos} where available and SIMBAD otherwise) and \emph{H}
253: magnitude (2MASS), respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:hmag} shows the
254: distribution of \emph{H}-magnitude, from 2MASS, for the infrared
255: sample. The hashed regions indicate sample members for which we did
256: not detect a companion. (see \S\ref{sb2nondetections}).
257:
258:
259: \section{\sc Infrared Spectroscopy and Double-Lined
260: Measurements\label{infrared}}
261:
262: \subsection{\sc Observations\label{irobs}}
263:
264: We observed the infrared sample at the NASA Infrared Telescope
265: Facility (IRTF) with CSHELL, the facility near-infrared echelle
266: spectrograph \citep{greene1993}; Table~\ref{table:obslog} contains a
267: log of the observations. CSHELL uses a 256x256 pixel InSB detector
268: with a plate scale of $0\farcs2\,\mathrm{pixel}^{-1}$, and operates
269: under natural seeing at the IRTF. Echelle orders are isolated with an
270: order sorting circular variable filter. All of the observations used
271: a single grating setting centered at 1.5548\um{} because this spectral
272: region contains several deep lines, a requirement for precisely
273: measuring radial velocities. We used a $0\farcs5$ slit which provided
274: a spectral resolution of $\sim30,\!000$. The spectra we obtained have
275: a free spectral range of $\sim40$\AA.
276:
277: We observed each binary as a series of short integrations, from 60 to
278: 300\,s in duration, nodding the telescope $\sim10\arcsec$ along the
279: slit between integrations in an ABBA pattern. By differencing each
280: set of A and B frames we removed contributions from detector bias,
281: dark current, and sky background. We took a series of flat and dark
282: frames at the beginning of each observing session, which were median
283: filtered and normalized to provide a flat field correction for each
284: target ``A-B'' image. To measure the dispersion solution, we observed
285: Ar and Kr arc-lamp spectra from CSHELL's internal lamps. We extracted
286: each ``A-B'' image using a custom optimal extraction code written in
287: IDL, patterned after the algorithms described by \citet{piskunov2002},
288: and averaged the set of resulting spectra for each target. We
289: adjusted the total integration time for each target to provide spectra
290: with a signal-to-noise of $\mathrm{S/N}\sim100$, although we relaxed
291: this condition for targets with a large \qmin, and also for the
292: faintest targets to avoid very long integrations that were an
293: inefficient use of telescope time. Observations in October 2003
294: suffered from poor weather conditions and did not result in any usable
295: spectra. During the 2005 and 2006 observations the CSHELL detector
296: experienced brief, uncontrolled temperature warm-ups that increased
297: the thermal background by as much as two orders of magnitude over the
298: nominal few tens of ADUs, affecting $\sim20\%$ of the integrations.
299: Spectra obtained under these circumstances have decreased S/N, but
300: most are still usable.
301:
302: The CSHELL observations from 2004 suggested that high S/N observations
303: of H69 and vB~142 with a larger telescope would be particularly
304: useful. H69, with $H\sim9.1$ mag, is a faint target for the IRTF.
305: The SB1 solution for vB~142 yields a mass function with a very small
306: \qmin{} of 0.04, and the 2004 October 1 SB2 measurement indicated that
307: \q{} was indeed small and the companion possibly a brown dwarf. We
308: subsequently observed these binaries on 2005 February 22 at the W. M.
309: Keck Observatory with NIRSPEC, the facility near-infrared spectrograph
310: \citep{mclean2000}. We also observed vB~43, which at that time was
311: nearing a phase with a large velocity separation. These observations
312: are included in Table~\ref{table:obslog}. We used NIRSPEC in its
313: cross-dispersed echelle mode with the 2-pixel slit, which provided a
314: spectral resolution of $\sim31,\!000$. Each target was observed as a
315: sequence of ABBA integrations, using a nod of $\sim10\arcsec$. A
316: sequence of flat and dark frames was obtained at the beginning of the
317: night and median filtered. Night sky OH emission lines, identified
318: from the catalog of \citet{rousselot2000}, provided a simultaneous
319: wavelength reference to determine the dispersion solution. We
320: extracted the spectra in IDL using REDSPEC\footnote{See
321: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/nirspec/redspec/}, the NIRSPEC
322: facility software package. In addition to normal image processing,
323: REDSPEC rectifies the images in both the spatial and spectral
324: dimensions to extract each order. The extracted nod pairs were
325: averaged for each target. We worked only with NIRSPEC order 49,
326: centered at $\sim1.56\um$ and spanning $\sim220$\AA{}, because it is
327: nearly completely free of telluric absorption; the other orders
328: provided by our grating setting are contaminated to varying degrees
329: \citep[see][Fig.~1]{bender2005}.
330:
331: \subsection{\sc Template Spectra\label{irtemplates}}
332:
333: We measure the radial velocities of a binary spectrum with reference
334: to template stellar spectra having spectral type, metallicity, and
335: rotational velocity similar to the binary components. We have two
336: libraries of observed single star templates. The first was obtained
337: with NIRSPEC and covers spectral types from G0 through M9 \citep[][Fig
338: 3\,--\,6]{bender2005}. The template velocities are tied to the
339: \citet{nidever2002} reference frame; this procedure and the individual
340: template velocities are reported in \citet{simon2006}. The second
341: library was obtained with CSHELL and covers spectral types from G0
342: through M1 \citep[][Fig 2]{mazeh2002}. This library is considerably
343: more sparse in spectral type compared with the NIRSPEC library and
344: some CSHELL templates have a low S/N. Both template libraries are
345: comprised of stars with small rotational velocities. We used a
346: non-linear limb darkening model \citep{claret2000} to rotationally
347: broaden the templates as needed, following the procedure outlined by
348: \citet{gray1992}. In the analysis presented here, we relied primarily
349: on the NIRSPEC templates because of their high quality, but also
350: utilized the CSHELL templates where they matched the spectral types of
351: the targets.
352:
353: \subsection{\sc Radial Velocity Measurements\label{irccorr}}
354:
355: We analyzed the infrared spectra with a two-dimensional correlation
356: algorithm similar to the TODCOR algorithm described by
357: \citet{zucker1994}. For each infrared observation, we used the SB1
358: parameters to calculate the orbital phase and the radial velocity of
359: the primary. We then estimated the range of possible secondary
360: velocities at that phase, corresponding to \q{} ranging from \qmin{}
361: to 1, with some allowance for the uncertainty in the primary mass
362: estimate (\S\ref{sample}). We analyzed each target with two or three
363: templates that matched the known characteristics of the primary and a
364: range of four to eight plausible secondary templates, while leaving
365: the flux ratio unconstrained. This resulted in sets of measured
366: velocities and flux ratios for each combination of templates, which we
367: averaged to obtain the final measured velocities reported in
368: Table~\ref{table:obslog}. We did not detect the companion for seven of
369: the binaries in our sample, and for three others were successful for
370: only part of our observations. We indicate these observations in
371: Table~\ref{table:obslog} as missing data, and address these systems in
372: detail in \S\ref{sb2nondetections}.
373:
374: We estimated the uncertainties of both the primary and secondary
375: velocity measurements as a combination of two factors: (1) the
376: velocity uncertainty of the templates and (2) the uncertainty in
377: measuring the center of the correlation peak due to noise in the
378: target spectrum. We took the contribution from the templates simply
379: as the variance of the velocities measured over the set of template
380: pairs. We measured the contribution from noise in each target
381: spectrum as follows. First, we created a model binary from a pair of
382: templates used in the target spectrum analysis, with the same velocity
383: separation and flux ratio as measured in the target. Then, we added
384: random noise to the model and analyzed it using the correlation
385: algorithm with the same pair of templates. We adjusted the amplitude
386: of the noise until the peak correlation from the model equaled the
387: peak correlation measured in the target spectrum. We then generated
388: 100 copies of this model, each using a unique noise vector at the
389: prescribed amplitude. Analyzing these models resulted in
390: distributions of primary and secondary velocities, which we fit
391: as normal distributions. We repeated this with four different
392: template pairs, and took the average of the distribution widths to be
393: the uncertainty contributed by noise in that target spectrum. By
394: combining this average in quadrature with the uncertainty due to the
395: templates, we arrived at our best estimate of the uncertainty for an
396: individual velocity measurement. We used this procedure to
397: empirically determine the uncertainties on both our primary and
398: secondary velocity measurements for each of our observed target
399: spectra.
400:
401: The relative contribution to the total uncertainties from (1) and (2)
402: varied for each target spectrum. Templates with later spectral type
403: have a worse velocity precision that those with an earlier spectral
404: type \citep{bender2006}. So, for example, an analysis using M-star
405: templates would have a large portion of the total uncertainty
406: contributed by the templates. Conversely, a target spectrum with low
407: S/N, often the case for the fainter binaries in our sample, would
408: derive most of its total uncertainty from the measurement of the
409: correlation peak. An additional source of noise that has effected
410: previous correlation analyses \citep[e.g.,][]{bender2005} comes from a
411: mismatch between the target primary and the template primary. If
412: these spectra have different physical properties, particularly the
413: metallicity of various species, then the precision of both the
414: measured velocities and flux ratio is effected. We examined this on
415: several of our target spectra where the velocity uncertainties
416: obtained using the above procedure seemed inadequate (see
417: \S\ref{sb2solutions}). We reanalyzed the model binaries from (2)
418: using alternate template spectra of similar spectral type, thereby
419: simulating potential mismatch between the templates and the target
420: spectra. We found that the increase the velocity uncertainty over
421: that obtained in (2) was negligible. This is likely due to the small
422: spectral range of our CSHELL templates, which limits the possibility
423: of metallicity mismatch. Consequently, the velocity uncertainties
424: reported in Table~\ref{table:obslog} do not include any contribution
425: from this effect.
426:
427: To verify that our visible and infrared velocity reference frames were
428: in good agreement, we compared the primary velocities measured in the
429: infrared spectra with those predicted from the visible light SB1
430: solutions. Figure~\ref{fig:vonediff} shows the distribution of the
431: difference between the predicted velocities and the measured
432: velocities. The distribution has a mean of $\sim0.3\kps$ and is fit
433: by a Gaussian with a width of $\sim0.9\kps$. This difference is
434: smaller than our infrared velocity precision \citep{simon2006} and
435: demonstrates that the two reference frames are indeed consistent to
436: within the measurement uncertainties. The samples in
437: Figure~\ref{fig:vonediff} with a velocity difference larger than
438: $\sim5\kps$ are attributable to infrared spectra with a low S/N.
439:
440: \subsection{\sc Rapid Rotators\label{irrapidrotators}}
441:
442: The targets vB~8, vB~30, vB~68, vB~77, and BD+02~1102 have F-type
443: primary stars that are rapidly rotating, with \vrotsini{} from
444: $\sim40- 100\kps$, and so the spectral lines of these stars are
445: strongly rotationally broadened. The limited spectral range of the
446: CSHELL spectra did not contain enough strong features to measure the
447: primary velocities in the infrared spectra of these binaries. We
448: considered, however, that lower mass companions will have spun down
449: and might therefore be sensitive to a correlation analysis. To
450: examine this we modified our correlation analysis to use an artificial
451: primary template comprised of a featureless, flat spectrum. We
452: analyzed each target spectrum with a range of plausible secondary
453: templates, allowing the flux ratio to vary, to measure the secondary
454: velocity. This procedure was successful for vB~68, vB~77, and
455: BD+02~1102, and the velocities we measured for these systems are
456: included in Table~\ref{table:obslog}, along with a note indicating the
457: altered analysis. The associated uncertainties were modeled using the
458: procedure described in \S\ref{irccorr} and the artificial primary
459: template described above. We did not detect the secondaries for vB~8
460: or vB~30; we discuss both systems in \S\ref{sb2nondetections}.
461:
462: \subsection{\sc Triple Systems\label{irtriples}}
463:
464:
465: Four binaries in our infrared sample, L20, vB~102, vB~151, and vB~40,
466: are the inner pair of hierarchical triple systems. Speckle imaging
467: from \citet{patience1998} identified the wide companions in these
468: systems with orbital periods from a few tens to a few hundreds of
469: years, assuming circular orbits. We briefly describe how the presence
470: of a third spectrum in our observations affected the analysis.
471:
472: The wide companion to L20 has similar brightness to the primary of the
473: inner binary. Its spectrum is clearly apparent in our infrared
474: observations, with a radial velocity of $\sim32\kps$. When left
475: unaccounted for, this contribution limited the precision of our radial
476: velocity and flux ratio measurements for the inner binary. To correct
477: for this, we used a one-dimensional correlation to determine that the
478: wide companion spectrum was well matched with a K5 type template and
479: contributed about half of the total flux. We then used the template
480: spectrum to subtract out this contribution prior to the normal
481: two-dimensional cross-correlation step. In this manner, we increased
482: the precision of our inner binary velocity measurements and decreased
483: the uncertainty on \Ktwo{} by a factor of two over that obtained when
484: not accounting for the wide companion.
485:
486: Using the component masses derived by \citet{patience1998} and the
487: \citet[][BCAH]{baraffe1998} stellar models, we estimate that the wide
488: companion to vB~102 contributes only $\sim10\%$ of the total flux at
489: 1.6\um{}. Additionally, its position angle \citep{patience1998}
490: placed it near the edge or outside of the CSHELL slit during our
491: observations. If the outer binary is in a circular orbit, its period
492: is $\sim30$ years, and the velocity separation from the inner binary
493: \g-velocity is only a few \kps. Additionally, the radial velocity of
494: the inner binary primary was only a few \kps{} from the \g-velocity
495: during our observations. Consequently, any contamination in our
496: spectra from the outer companion was masked by the primary and we were
497: unable to detect it; we therefore solved vB~102 as a normal SB2.
498:
499: The wide companions of vB~151 and vB~40 have large angular separations
500: and were at position angles such that they fell outside of the CSHELL
501: slit during our observations. Even had they fallen within the slit,
502: their contributions to the total flux are small at 1.6\um, $\sim10\%$
503: and $\sim2\%$, respectively. We did not detect any contribution from
504: the wide companion in either system, and concluded that our SB2
505: correlation analyses of the inner binaries were unaffected.
506:
507:
508: \section{\sc Infrared SB2 Solutions\label{sb2solutions}}
509:
510: \subsection{\sc C\rm{}f\sc{}A SB1 Parameters}
511: With the permission of RPS and DWL, we list in columns 2--7 of
512: Table~\ref{table:orbitparams} the CfA orbital parameters for the 25
513: SB1s that we succeeded in turning into SB2s with infrared detections;
514: the seven sample members for which we did not detect the secondary
515: (\S\ref{irccorr}) are not included. The CfA parameters are based on
516: preliminary orbital solutions that may change slightly when the final
517: results are published, but these changes are expected to be
518: insignificant for our present purposes because the uncertainties in
519: our final mass ratios are dominated by the infrared velocities for the
520: secondaries.
521:
522: We have from one to three infrared spectra for most our binaries, and
523: none were observed on more than five occasions. This contrasts with
524: the several tens or more visible light observations for each system.
525: Consequently, the primary velocities that we measured in the infrared
526: do not further improve the precision of the SB1 parameters. To solve
527: each system as an SB2, we took, without modification, the SB1
528: parameters from Table~\ref{table:orbitparams}, and used a
529: least-squares fitting routine to solve the infrared \Vtwo{}
530: measurements for \Ktwo. For several of our binaries (vB 62, vB 69,
531: H532, vB102, vB 142, vB 121, and vB 151), this procedure yielded
532: reduced chi-squared, $\chi^2_{\nu}$, much greater than one, indicating
533: that the corresponding \Vtwo{} uncertainties (\S3.3) are
534: underestimated. Assuming that the missing uncertainty contribution in
535: \Vtwo{} is normally distributed, we account for it by scaling the
536: measured \Ktwo{} uncertainty by $\sqrt{\chi^2_{\nu}}$. Because we do
537: not understand the source of this additional velocity uncertainty, we
538: choose to retain in Table~\ref{table:obslog} the uncertainties derived
539: in \S\ref{irccorr}. To maintain consistent results throughout our
540: sample, we applied this correction to all of the binaries; column 8 of
541: Table~\ref{table:orbitparams} lists the derived \Ktwo{} along with the
542: adjusted uncertainties.
543:
544: We list in column 9 of Table~\ref{table:orbitparams} the mass ratio
545: for each system, calculated from \Kone{} and \Ktwo{} as
546: $\q=\Kone/\Ktwo$. We verified \q{} for the seven SB2s with large
547: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ using the technique of \citet{wilson1941}; in each
548: case, these results agree to within $1\sigma$ of those from the
549: least-squares fitting. The uncertainty we report for \q{} includes
550: the unlisted uncertainty on \Kone{} from the preliminary CfA SB1
551: solution. This contribution, however, is generally negligible when
552: compared with the large uncertainties on \Ktwo. For example, \Kone{}
553: for vB~9 is determined to $\sim6\%$, which contributes only $\sim10\%$
554: of the total uncertainty on \q; most of the infrared sample members
555: have \Kone{} determined much more precisely. L20 has \Ktwo{}
556: determined to better than $\sim4\%$ and is one of our most precisely
557: measured infrared systems; \Kone{} here contributes only $\sim1\%$ to
558: the total uncertainty on \q. Columns 10--13 in
559: Table~\ref{table:orbitparams} give the semi-major axes and component
560: masses, combined with the unknown $\sin i$.
561:
562: Figures~\ref{fig:sb2plots1} and \ref{fig:sb2plots2} show the SB2
563: velocity curves and measured secondary velocities, plotted against
564: orbital phase for the binaries in Table~\ref{table:orbitparams}. The
565: primary velocity curves shown come directly from the SB1 solutions,
566: while the only free parameter in the secondary velocity curve is
567: \Ktwo. We show the secondary velocity uncertainties listed in
568: Table~\ref{table:obslog}, without the scaling correction described
569: earlier, because these values represent our best understanding of the
570: measurements. As a consequence, some of the velocities are shown with
571: underestimated uncertainties. Figure~\ref{fig:qhist} shows two
572: different representations of the mass ratio distribution for these
573: binaries: (\emph{a}) shows the case where each \q{} is determined with
574: equal precision; (\emph{b}) distributes each measured \q{} over its
575: corresponding uncertainty. The similarity of the distributions,
576: within the reported $\sqrt{N}$ uncertainties, suggests that our
577: underestimate of the \Vtwo{} uncertainties has a small effect on the
578: overall distribution. These distributions are obviously not complete
579: for the cluster, most importantly because it does not include the
580: large sample of binaries with $\q > 0.6$ that are detected as SB2s in
581: the CfA visible light spectroscopy. Figure~\ref{fig:qhist} does,
582: however, clearly demonstrate the applicability of infrared
583: observations to binaries with small mass-ratios.
584:
585:
586: \subsection{\sc Alternate SB1 Parameters}
587: Alternate SB1 orbits are available in the literature for nine of our
588: infrared binaries: eight by R.\ F.\ Griffin and colleagues
589: \citep{griffin1978,griffin1981,griffin1985} and one by
590: \citet{sanford1921}. The parameters published by these authors
591: provide additional verification of our assertion that the
592: uncertainties we report for \Ktwo{} and \q{} are dominated by our
593: infrared measurements of \Vtwo. For each of these nine systems we
594: used the alternate SB1 parameters without modification to derive
595: \Ktwo{} and \q{}, following exactly the procedure describe above for
596: the CfA parameters. However, we did not attempt to reconcile the
597: various velocity zero points, which have small differences of order
598: $1\kps$ or less \citep[e.g.,][]{detweiler1984}.
599: Table~\ref{table:altorbits} lists these SB1 parameters, their
600: references, and our alternate SB2 results.
601:
602: The binaries L20, vB~43, vB~62, vB~69, vB~77, H509, and vB~121 have
603: \q{} listed in Tables~\ref{table:orbitparams} and
604: \ref{table:altorbits} that agree to $\sim1\sigma$ or better. The
605: parameters \Tknot{} and \w{} given for vB~40 by \citet{sanford1921}
606: have a $180^{\circ}$ phase difference from the CfA parameters, which
607: does not affect the derivation of \q. The slightly greater than
608: $1\sigma$ difference in the derived \q{} for this binary could result
609: from differences in the velocity zero point; alternatively, vB~40
610: is a triple, and orbital motion of the wide pair over the
611: $\sim90$\,years between Sanford's measurement and our own could
612: account for the discrepancy. The \q{} calculated for L57 using the
613: Griffin and CfA SB1 parameters demonstrate the importance of a
614: consistent velocity reference frame when combining SB1 and SB2
615: observations (\S\ref{irccorr}). Due to its long period, L57 has a
616: small \Kone, which amplifies the effect of any offset in the velocity
617: reference frames. Solving this system using the SB1 parameters of
618: \citet{griffin1985}, but with the CfA \g{}, yields $\q=0.85\pm0.24$,
619: nearly identical to the result in Table~\ref{table:orbitparams}. This
620: issue is independent of the large uncertainties we report on \q{} for
621: L57, which result from our observing it only once in the infrared.
622:
623: The results shown in Table~\ref{table:altorbits} confirm that the
624: uncertainties in our reported SB2 parameters originate primarily from
625: our infrared measurements, not from the underlying SB1 orbits. The
626: unpublished CfA orbits provided a sample of SB1s that is
627: approximately three times larger than that available in the
628: literature, and that has a velocity reference frame which is not only
629: self-consistent, but also consistent with our infrared frame.
630:
631:
632: \section{\sc Discussion\label{discussion}}
633:
634: \subsection{\sc Validation of SB2 Solutions\label{sb2validation}}
635:
636: Four of the SB2 solutions shown in Figures~\ref{fig:sb2plots1} and
637: \ref{fig:sb2plots2} depend on a single measurement of the secondary
638: velocity, and another nine on only two measurements. Consequently,
639: many of the derived \Ktwo's, and the resulting \q's, have large
640: uncertainties. Figure~\ref{fig:qvsqmin} plots \qmin{} against the
641: measured \q's to evaluate the plausibility of the measured values. As
642: expected, \q{} is greater than or within $1\sigma$ of \qmin{} for all
643: of the binaries, except vB~59 and H382 which are consistent with \qmin
644: to better than $2\sigma$. Both vB~59 and H382 have long periods and
645: were observed at orbital phases where the velocity separation was
646: small, resulting in low precision measurements of \Ktwo. However, we
647: have two observations of each system at slightly different phases and
648: the measured secondary velocities are consistent. Therefore, we are
649: confident that we are detecting the secondary in both of these
650: systems. Observations of vB~59 in $\sim2012$ and of H382 as soon as
651: $\sim2009$, when the orbital phases will have changed significantly,
652: would further improve the SB2 solutions for these systems.
653:
654: The flux ratio, $\alpha$, measured by our cross-correlation routine
655: offers an additional validation of each SB2 solution.
656: Figure~\ref{fig:qvsalpha} plots the $\alpha$ measured for each binary,
657: averaged over all observations, against the measured mass ratio. Also
658: shown are theoretical \emph{H}-band curves calculated from BCAH for
659: binaries with primary masses from 0.6\msun{} to 1.2\msun. Two factors
660: complicate a direct comparison between our measured flux ratios and
661: the theoretical values. First, the small wavelength range of CSHELL
662: spectra severely limits our ability to measure precise flux ratios
663: because individual spectral lines vary only a small amount relative to
664: each other with changing spectral type. Considerably more accurate
665: flux ratios can be measured with spectra covering a larger wavelength
666: range, and thereby having many more spectral lines with differing
667: dependencies on spectral type. Second, the theoretical curves
668: represent the integrated flux over the entire \emph{H}-band, of which
669: our CSHELL spectra only sample $\sim1.5\%$. Nonetheless, our measured
670: values are well grouped along the curves. The two obvious outliers
671: are L79 and vB~142. We have only a single, low S/N observation of the
672: long period binary L79. Our measured flux ratio is poorly
673: constrained, varying significantly depending on the exact pair of
674: templates used; the uncertainty shown in the figure probably
675: underestimates the actual uncertainty. However, our measured
676: secondary velocity is well constrained, independent of the template
677: pair, and we are confident that the secondary detection is real.
678: vB~142 has a very small mass ratio, making the measurement of the
679: companion particularly difficult; \S\ref{vb142} addresses this system
680: in detail.
681:
682:
683: \subsection{\sc Infrared Non-Detections\label{sb2nondetections}}
684:
685: Our infrared observations failed to detect the secondary in seven
686: systems: vB~8, vB~30, vB~39, H411, L77, L90, and vB~114.
687: Figure~\ref{fig:qminhist} shows the distribution of \qmin{} for the
688: infrared sample binaries; the systems not detected as SB2s are
689: indicated by the hashed region. We expected that our sensitivity to
690: binary companions would be incomplete for systems with the smallest
691: mass ratios because these systems also have small flux ratios.
692: However, several of the systems for which we did not detect the
693: secondary have large \qmin{}. For three additional systems, vB~43,
694: L57, and H509, we did not detect the secondary in a subset of our
695: observations. We address each of these ten systems below.
696:
697: vB~8 and vB~30 have rapidly rotating F-type primary stars and both
698: have small \qmin{}, 0.15 and 0.19, respectively. We observed both
699: spectra in the infrared at multiple epochs, with orbital phases where
700: the predicted velocity separation was large. We propose two possible
701: explanations for our failure to detected these companions. The true
702: value of \q{} may actually be close to \qmin. For a given mass ratio,
703: the \emph{H}-band flux ratio of a binary decreases as the mass of the
704: primary increases. Because vB~8 and vB~30 have primaries more massive
705: than those of a typical binary in our sample, their flux ratio's may
706: be too small to detect the secondaries at the S/N of our spectra.
707: Alternatively, if the companions are also rotating rapidly, their
708: spectral lines would be too broad to measure with CSHELL's limited
709: wavelength coverage, even with high S/N observations.
710:
711: vB~114 and vB~39 have orbital periods of 4578 days and 5083 days,
712: respectively. Our observations of both systems occurred at orbital
713: phases such that the primary velocities were near \g, and the
714: predicted velocity separations were only a few \kps. Velocity
715: measurements under such conditions are inherently difficult, and even
716: had we detected the secondary components, the resulting \Ktwo's would
717: be poorly constrained. vB~114 will have a more favorable orbital
718: phase in $\sim$2010; the phase of vB~39 will not improve until
719: $\sim$2013. Both have moderate \qmin{}, 0.44 for vB~39 and 0.29 for
720: vB~114, so the flux ratios should not impede in detecting these
721: secondaries.
722:
723: H411, L77, and L90 fall towards the faint edge of the distribution
724: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hmag}, and our observations of these targets
725: have S/N insufficient to detect their secondaries. H411 has a small
726: \qmin, $\sim0.18$, which corresponds to a minimum H-band flux ratio of
727: only a few percent, and is at the limit of our best observation of
728: this binary, with S/N$\sim$50. Because H411 is faint, obtaining a
729: spectrum with CSHELL that has better S/N would require many hours of
730: integration; such an observation could be carried out with a high
731: resolution spectrometer at an $8-10$ m telescope in a relatively small
732: amount of time. L77 has a large \qmin{} of $\sim0.61$ and we expected
733: to be sensitive to its secondary. However, our single observation of
734: L77 has S/N$\sim$25, and occurred at an orbital phase when the
735: velocity separation was small. The orbit of this system is such that
736: even had we detected the secondary, the resulting SB2 orbit would be
737: largely unconstrained. L77 will be at a more favorable orbital phase
738: in 2009. L90 has $\qmin\sim0.32$; we observed it on two occasions,
739: each with S/N$\sim$50. However, its long period and current orbital
740: phase indicate a small velocity separation. This system will not be
741: at a more favorable orbital phase until $\sim$2011.
742:
743: We did not detect a companion in our observations of vB~43 on 2005 Sep
744: 30, L57 on 2005 Nov 25 and 2006 Feb 2, and H509 on 2005 Oct 2. Each
745: of these observations were carried out at orbital phases corresponding
746: to primary velocities near \g. The observation of vB~43 was
747: compromised further by a low S/N, relative to our other observations
748: of it. L57 has small \Kone{} and \Ktwo{}, which when combined with
749: it's K2 primary spectral type make it a difficult target to observe
750: with CSHELL: future observations would benefit from higher spectral
751: resolution or a larger free spectral range.
752:
753: \subsection{\sc vB~142\label{vb142}}
754:
755: Our four infrared observations of vB~142 provided good phase coverage,
756: and included measurements near the maximum velocity separation and on
757: both sides of the \g-velocity. Despite this, the SB2 solution that we
758: derive is poorly determined and the residuals,
759: $V_2(fit)-V_2(measured)$, are large. We do not fully understand the
760: reasons behind this poor solution, but we include it here for
761: the following reasons.
762:
763: Our observations, except for that on 2005 November 28, return
764: plausible velocities for the companion, albeit with large
765: uncertainties. The 2005 November 28 observation occurred at phase
766: $\sim0.40$, and with small velocity separation, so our inability to
767: accurately measure the secondary in this spectrum is not surprising.
768: The average $\alpha$ that we measure for all of the observations,
769: $\sim0.04$, is, however, much larger than that predicted by BCAH
770: (Figure~\ref{fig:qvsalpha}). To investigate this discrepancy we used
771: our M-type template LHS2351 to introduce an additional spectrum into
772: our observed vB~142 spectra from 2004 October 1 and 2005 February 22.
773: We added in this component with a ``true'' flux ratio,
774: $\alpha_{true}$, ranging from 0.05 to 0.0001, and, to avoid confusion
775: with the actual vB~142 companion, at a radial velocity of $-20\kps$. We
776: then attempted to recover this signal with our correlation procedure
777: and the set of templates used in the original vB~142 analyses,
778: excluding LHS2351. We recovered the LHS2351 spectrum at the proper
779: velocity with $\alpha_{true}$ as small as 0.0005. However, the
780: uncertainty of the measured velocity increased as $\alpha_{true}$
781: decreased, and the measured flux ratio, $\alpha_{meas.}$ became
782: unreliable for $\alpha_{true}\la0.01$. Consider, for example, the
783: case of LHS2351 introduced into the 2005 February 22 spectrum with a
784: radial velocity of -20\kps{} and $\alpha_{true}=0.005$. Our
785: correlation routine recovered this signal with a velocity of
786: $-25.1\pm7.0\kps$ and $\alpha_{meas.}=0.019\pm0.005$. The larger than
787: expected $\alpha_{meas.}$ is consistent with the results obtained for
788: the vB~142 companion, and may arise because our primary templates do
789: not precisely match the vB~142 primary spectrum. For small flux
790: ratios, the correlation routine tries to correct for this mismatch by
791: scaling the primary using $\alpha$; we have previously reported this
792: behavior \citep{bender2005}.
793:
794: Our modeling with LHS2351 gives us confidence that we can detect a
795: companion with a very small flux ratio. The \q{} that we derive for
796: vB~142, $0.06\pm0.04$, is consistent with $\qmin\sim0.04$ from the SB1
797: solution. Whatever the true value of \q{} may be, our $3\sigma$ upper
798: limit of $\q\la0.18$ is very small. Our primary goal in this endeavor
799: is to measure the binary mass ratio distribution for the Hyades (\S1):
800: \q{} for vB~142 is sufficiently well determined for this purpose. Of
801: additional interest, the primary of vB~142 is a G5 star, and so a
802: companion with $\q=0.06\pm0.04$ could be a brown dwarf, which would be
803: an important discovery in the Hyades \citep{guenther2005}.
804:
805: \subsection{\sc Component Masses\label{componentmasses}}
806:
807: While spectroscopic observations of an SB2 yield its dynamical mass
808: ratio, they do not measure its orbital inclination and so alone they
809: cannot provide a dynamical measurement of the individual component
810: masses. Observations of the visual orbit measure the inclination and
811: the total mass, and when combined with the mass ratio result in the
812: individual masses. All of the binaries in our sample have components
813: with a small angular separation and their visual orbits are not
814: currently available. Those with periods longer than a few hundred
815: days are resolvable with adaptive optics imaging at a large aperture
816: telescope.
817:
818: In the absence of visual orbits, we can still obtain good estimates of
819: the individual masses if the distance is known. \emph{Hipparcos}
820: measured the parallax of most of our sample binaries
821: \citep{perryman1998}, and all have precise photometric measurements of
822: their total flux from 2MASS at J, H, and K. We combined these with
823: our measured mass ratios and a theoretical mass-luminosity isochrone
824: from BCAH to calculate the individual component masses. We chose the
825: BCAH models for several reasons: they show a good, albeit not perfect,
826: agreement with measured dynamical masses \citep{hillenbrand2004}; they
827: include the effects of atmospheres, which are important in the low
828: mass regime that applies to most of our secondaries; and lastly, they
829: are provided in a convenient form that specifies magnitudes in the
830: standard photometric bands used by observers. We used the 625 Myr
831: isochrone, while noting that at such an old age the mass-luminosity
832: relationship is mostly insensitive to age.
833: Table~\ref{table:componentmasses} lists the calculated component
834: masses.
835:
836: The uncertainties given in Table~\ref{table:componentmasses} include
837: contributions from the parallax, photometry, and mass ratio; they do
838: not include any uncertainties from the BCAH models. All of the 2MASS
839: J, H, and K photometric uncertainties are small, $\sim0.02-0.03$ mag.
840: Because our binaries have small flux ratios, the precision with which
841: we determine the primary masses is mostly dependent on the precision
842: of the parallax measurements. The uncertainty for the secondaries
843: strongly depends on the precision of the mass ratios. Most of the
844: primaries have masses determined to better than 10\%, while some of
845: the secondaries approach this level. \emph{Hipparcos} did not measure
846: the parallax of vB~59 or L57, so for these systems we used values
847: reported in the Tycho catalog, and the resulting uncertainties on both
848: the primary and secondary masses are large. The parallaxes of H69,
849: H441, and L79 have not been measured, so we estimated their primary
850: masses directly from their spectral type and assumed an uncertainty of
851: $\sim0.1\msun$. The secondary masses then follow directly from our
852: measured mass ratios. Finally, the primary of vB~68 is more massive
853: than the range covered by BCAH, so for this system only we used the
854: empirical isochrone determined by \citet{pinsonneault2004} and note
855: that the resulting masses are consistent with measured spectral types.
856:
857: \section{\sc Summary\label{summary}}
858:
859: We have obtained high resolution infrared spectroscopy of 32 SBs in
860: the Hyades, whose SB1 orbital parameters have been measured by RPS and
861: DWL at the CfA, in order to detect their companions and thereby study
862: the binary mass ratio distribution in this young cluster. We detected
863: the companion in 25 of these systems. For these, we combined our
864: results with the SB1 parameters to determine their solutions as SB2s.
865: Some of the SB2 solutions we report have low precision for \Ktwo{}.
866: However, obtaining precise orbital parameters for individual systems
867: was not our objective here. Instead, our intent was to constrain the
868: \emph{distribution} of mass ratios in binaries with low mass companions, and
869: our results are sufficient for this purpose. We also estimated the
870: primary and secondary masses of our sample binaries using 2MASS
871: photometry, \emph{Hipparcos} parallax measurements, and our measured
872: mass ratios. The mass ratios of the binaries with the most reliable
873: SB2 solutions span the range from $\q\sim0.1-0.8$, corresponding to
874: secondary masses as small as $\sim0.15\msun$. We also detect a very
875: low mass companion to vB~142. The solution for its mass ratio is not
876: yet reliable, but it appears to be $\q\la0.18$ at the $3\sigma$ level,
877: and may represent the detection of a brown dwarf companion.
878:
879: The precision of our derived primary masses is limited by the
880: uncertainties in the \emph{Hipparcos} parallax measurements. The
881: secondary mass measurements, however, can be improved significantly by
882: reducing the uncertainties on the measured mass ratios through
883: additional infrared observations. Direct observations of sample
884: members as visual binaries would measure their orbital inclinations
885: and total masses, and when combined with the spectroscopy would yield
886: dynamical component masses. By utilizing the \emph{Hipparcos}
887: distances, such measurements would contribute a test of the
888: theoretical mass-luminosity relationships \citep[e.g.,][]{mathieu2007}.
889: Improving the SB2 solutions or measuring the visual orbits of our
890: sample would require a significant commitment of observing time and
891: analysis resources. The visual orbit mapping may require
892: technological improvements in interferometry and adaptive optics
893: techniques.
894:
895: The results presented here are an initial step in a program to produce
896: distributions of mass-ratio and secondary mass for Hyades cluster
897: binaries with periods from a few days to a few thousand days. Future
898: papers in this series will combine our new determinations of mass
899: ratios with available orbital solutions from other Hyades binary
900: surveys, including the the spatially resolved systems studied by
901: \citet{patience1998}, to present the mass ratio and secondary mass
902: distributions for the cluster. We also intend to address more fully the
903: set of hierarchical triple systems, for which, when combined with the
904: speckle observations of \citet{patience1998}, we have information on
905: both the inner and outer orbits.
906:
907:
908: \acknowledgments
909:
910: We are grateful to DWL and RPS for providing the CfA SB1 parameters
911: and for numerous discussions that improved the manuscript. We also
912: thank the referee for several educational suggestions concerning the
913: secondary velocity precision. We thank L. Prato for providing the
914: NIRSPEC observations, T. Mazeh for suggesting the procedure used to
915: estimate the velocity uncertainties, and the telescope operators and staff
916: at the IRTF for their support during our many observing runs. The
917: authors are visiting astronomers at the Infrared Telescope Facility,
918: which is operated by the University of Hawaii under Cooperative
919: Agreement no.\ NCC 5-538 with the National Aeronautics and Space
920: Administration, Science Mission Directorate, Planetary Astronomy
921: Program. CB is supported by an NRC Research Associateship Award at
922: NRL. Basic research in infrared astronomy at NRL is supported by 6.1
923: base funding. The authors were supported at Stony Brook in part by
924: NSF grants 02-05427 and 06-07612. Data presented herein were obtained
925: at the W.M.\ Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific
926: partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the
927: University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space
928: Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
929: financial support of the W.M.\ Keck Foundation. This research made
930: use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, data
931: products from 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University of
932: Massachusetts and IPAC at the California Institute of Technology,
933: funded by NASA and NSF, and the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA
934: SP-1200. The authors wish to extend special thanks to those of
935: Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain we are privileged to be
936: guests.
937:
938: {\it Facilities:} \facility{IRTF ()},\facility{Keck:II ()}
939:
940:
941: \begin{thebibliography}{}
942:
943: \bibitem[Ballesteros-Paredes et al.(2007)]{ballesteros2007}
944: Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R. S., Mac Low, M., \&
945: V\'azquez-Semadeni, E. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B.
946: Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Univ.\ Arizona Press), 63
947:
948: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(1998)]{baraffe1998} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G.,
949: Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, \aap, 337, 403
950:
951: \bibitem[Bender et al.(2005)]{bender2005} Bender, C., Simon, M.,
952: Prato, L, Mazeh, T., \& Zucker, S. 2005, \aj, 129, 402
953:
954: \bibitem[Bender (2006)]{bender2006} Bender, C. 2006, Ph.D Thesis,
955: Stony Brook University
956:
957: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2003)]{bonnell2003} Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M.
958: R., \& Vine, S. G. 2003, \mnras, 343, 413
959:
960: \bibitem[Carney et al.(1994)]{carney1994} Carney, B. W., Latham, D.
961: W., Laird, J. B., \& Aguilar, L. A. 1994, \aj, 107, 2240
962:
963: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{claret2000} Claret, A. 2000, \aap, 363, 1081
964:
965: \bibitem[Clarke(2001)]{clarke2001} Clarke, C. J. 2001, in IAU
966: Symposium 200, ed. H. Zinnecker \& R. Mathieu (ASP), 346
967:
968: \bibitem[de Bruijne et al.(2001)]{debruijne2001} de Bruijne, J. H.,
969: Hoogerwerf, R., \& de Zeeuw, P. T. 2001, \aap, 367, 111
970:
971: \bibitem[Detweiler et al.(1984)]{detweiler1984} Detweiler, H. L.,
972: Yoss, K. M., Radick, R. R., \& Becker, S. A. 1984, \aj, 89, 1038
973:
974: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor(1991)]{duquennoy1991} Duquennoy, A. \&
975: Mayor, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
976:
977: \bibitem[Goldberg et al.(2003)]{goldberg2003} Goldberg, D., Mazeh, T.,
978: \& Latham, D. W. 2003, \apj, 591, 397
979:
980: \bibitem[Goodwin et al.(2007)]{goodwin2007} Goodwin, S. P., Kroupa,
981: P., Goodman, A., \& Burkert, A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V,
982: ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Univ.\ Arizona Press), 133
983:
984: \bibitem[Gray(1992)]{gray1992} Gray, D. F. 1992, The Observations and
985: Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, (2nd ed.; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
986: University Press)
987:
988: \bibitem[Greene et al.(1993)]{greene1993} Greene, T., Tokunaga, A.,
989: Toomey, D., \& Carr, J. 1993, \procspie, 1946, 313
990:
991: \bibitem[Griffin \& Gunn(1978)]{griffin1978} Griffin, R. F., \& Gunn,
992: J. E. 1978, \aj, 83, 1114
993:
994: \bibitem[Griffin \& Gunn(1981)]{griffin1981} Griffin, R. F., \& Gunn,
995: J. E. 1981, \aj, 86, 588
996:
997: \bibitem[Griffin et al.(1985)]{griffin1985} Griffin, R. F., Gunn,
998: J. E., Zimmerman, B. A., \& Griffin, R. E. M. 1985, \aj, 90, 609
999:
1000: \bibitem[Griffin et al.(1988)]{griffin1988} Griffin, R. F., Gunn, J.
1001: E., Zimmerman, B. A. 1988, \& Griffin, R. E. M. 1988, \aj, 96, 172
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Guenther et al.(2005)]{guenther2005} Guenther, E. W.,
1004: Paulson, D. B., Cochran, W. D., Patience, J., Hatzes, A. P., \&
1005: Macintosh, B. 2005, \aap, 442, 1031
1006:
1007: \bibitem[Hanson(1975)]{hanson1975} Hanson, R. B. 1975, \aj, 80, 379
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Hillenbrand(2004)]{hillenbrand2004} Hillenbrand, L. A., \&
1010: White, R. J. 2004, \apj, 604, 741
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Kraft(1965)]{kraft1965} Kraft, R. P. 1965, \apj, 142, 681
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Latham \& Stefanik(1982)]{latham1982} Latham, D. W. and
1015: Stefanik, R. P. 1982, \baas, 14, 612
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Lebreton et al.(2001)]{lebreton2001} Lebreton, Y., Fernandes,
1018: J., \& Lejeune, T. 2001, \aap, 374, 540
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Lucy(2006)]{lucy2006} Lucy, L. B. 2006, \aap, 457, 629
1021:
1022: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.(2007)]{mathieu2007} Mathieu, R. D., Baraffe,
1023: I., Simon, M., Stassun, K. G., \& White, R. 2007, in Protostars and
1024: Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Univ.\ Arizona
1025: Press), 411
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Mazeh \& Goldberg(1992)]{mazeh1992} Mazeh, T., \& Goldberg,
1028: D. 1992, \apj, 394, 592
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2002)]{mazeh2002} Mazeh, T., Prato, L., Simon,
1031: M., Goldberg, E., Norman, D., \& Zucker, S. 2002, \apj, 564, 1007
1032:
1033: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2003)]{mazeh2003} Mazeh, T., Simon, M., Prato,
1034: L., Markus, B., \& Zucker, S. 2003, \apj, 599, 1344
1035:
1036: \bibitem[McLean et al.(2000)]{mclean2000} McLean, I. S., Graham, J.
1037: R., Becklin, E. E., Figer, D. F., Larkin, J. E., Levenson, N. A., \&
1038: Teplitz, H. I. 2000, \procspie, 4008, 1048
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Nidever et al.(2002)]{nidever2002} Nidever, D. L., Marcy, G.
1041: W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D. A., \& Voigt, S. S. 2002, \apjs, 141,
1042: 503
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Patience et al.(1998)]{patience1998} Patience, J., Ghez, A.
1045: M., Reid, I. N., Weinberger, A. J., \& Matthews, K. 1998, \aj, 115,
1046: 1972
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1998)]{perryman1998} Perryman, M. A. et al.
1049: 1998, \aap, 331, 81
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(2004)]{pinsonneault2004} Pinsonneault, M.
1052: H, Terndrup, D. M., Hanson, R. B., \& Stauffer, J. R. 2004, \apj,
1053: 600, 946.
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Piskunov \& Valenti(2002)]{piskunov2002} Piskunov, N. E., \&
1056: Valenti, J. A. 2002, \aap, 385, 1095
1057:
1058: \bibitem[Prato et al.(2002)]{prato2002} Prato, L., Simon, M., Mazeh,
1059: T., McLean, I. S., Norman, D., \& Zucker, S. 2002, \apj, 569, 863
1060:
1061: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press1992} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S.
1062: A., Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in
1063: Fortran 77, (2nd ed.; New York:Cambridge University Press)
1064:
1065: \bibitem[Reid(1992)]{reid1992} Reid, N. 1992, \mnras, 257, 257
1066:
1067: \bibitem[Rousselot et al.(2000)]{rousselot2000} Rousselot, P., Lidman,
1068: C., Cuby, J.-G., Moreels, G., \& Monnet, G. 2000, \aap, 354, 1134
1069:
1070: \bibitem[Sanford(1921)]{sanford1921} Sanford, R. F. 1921, \apj, 53,
1071: 201
1072:
1073: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2006)]{simon2006} Simon, M., Bender, C., \&
1074: Prato, L. 2006, \apj, 644, 1183
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(1987)]{stauffer1987} Stauffer, J. R.,
1077: Hartmann, L. W., \& Latham, D. W. 1987, \apj, 320, L51
1078:
1079: \bibitem[Stefanik \& Latham(1985)]{stefanik1985} Stefanik, R. P., \&
1080: Latham, D. W. 1985, in Proc. IAU, 88, ed. A. G. D. Philip \&
1081: D. W. Latham, 213
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Tohline(2002)]{tohline2002} Tohline, J. E. 2002, \araa, 40, 349
1084:
1085: \bibitem[van Altena(1969)]{vanaltena1969} van Altena, W. F. 1969, \aj,
1086: 74, 2
1087:
1088: \bibitem[van Bueren(1952)]{vanbueren1952} van Bueren, H. G. 1952,
1089: \bain, 11,385
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Whitworth et al.(2007)]{whitworth2007} Whitworth, A., Bate,
1092: M. R., Nordlund, \AA, Reipurth, B., Zinnecker, H. 2007, in
1093: Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil
1094: (Univ.\ Arizona Press), 459
1095:
1096: \bibitem[Wilson(1941)]{wilson1941} Wilson, O. C. 1941, \apj, 93, 29
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Wilson(1948)]{wilson1948} Wilson, R. E. 1948, \apj, 107, 119
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(1994)]{zucker1994} Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T.
1101: 1994, \apj, 420, 806
1102:
1103:
1104: \end{thebibliography}
1105:
1106:
1107: %tables
1108:
1109: \clearpage
1110: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1111: \tablecaption{Hyades Infrared Sample\label{table:irsample}}
1112: \tablewidth{0pt}
1113: \tablecolumns{7}
1114: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1115: \tablehead{
1116: % \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Dec.} &
1117: % \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} \\%&
1118: %\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mathrm{N_{obs}}$}\\
1119: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{HD} & \colhead{R.A. (J2000)} &
1120: \colhead{Dec. (J2000)} & \colhead{Sp. Type} & \colhead{\emph{V}} &
1121: \colhead{\emph{H}} }%& \colhead{Visible} & \colhead{IR} }
1122: \startdata
1123: vB 8 & \phn25102 & 03 59 40.49 & +10 19 49.4 & F5 & \phn6.4 & 5.4 \\
1124: vB 9 & \nodata & 04 00 39.54 & +20 22 49.5 & G4 & \phn8.7 & 7.0 \\
1125: L20 & 284163 & 04 11 56.22 & +23 38 10.8 & K0 & \phn9.4 & 6.6 \\
1126: H69 & \nodata & 04 12 21.44 & +16 15 03.5 & M1 & 14.0 & 9.1 \\
1127: vB 30 & \phn27397 & 04 19 57.70 & +14 02 06.7 & F0 & \phn5.6 & 4.9 \\
1128: L33 & 286770 & 04 22 25.69 & +11 18 20.6 & K8 & \phn9.8 & 7.1 \\
1129: vB 40 & \phn27691 & 04 22 44.17 & +15 03 21.9 & G0 & \phn7.0 & 5.6 \\
1130: vB 39 & \phn27685 & 04 22 44.78 & +16 47 27.7 & G4 & \phn7.8 & 6.3 \\
1131: vB 43 & 284414 & 04 23 22.85 & +19 39 31.2 & K2 & \phn9.4 & 7.3 \\
1132: vB 59 & \phn28034 & 04 26 05.86 & +15 31 27.6 & G8 & \phn7.5 & 6.2 \\
1133: vB 62 & \phn28033 & 04 26 18.50 & +21 28 13.6 & F8 & \phn7.4 & 6.1 \\
1134: H382 & \phn28068 & 04 26 24.61 & +16 51 12.0 & G1 & \phn8.0 & 6.6 \\
1135: H411 & 285828 & 04 27 25.34 & +14 15 38.5 & K2 & 10.3 & 7.8 \\
1136: L57 & 285766 & 04 27 58.96 & +18 30 00.9 & K2 & 10.2 & 7.7 \\
1137: vB 68 & \phn28294 & 04 28 23.40 & +14 44 27.5 & F0 & \phn5.9 & 5.1 \\
1138: vB 69 & \phn28291 & 04 28 37.21 & +19 44 26.5 & G5 & \phn8.6 & 7.0 \\
1139: H441 & 285806 & 04 28 50.81 & +16 17 20.3 & K7 & 10.7 & 7.6 \\
1140: vB 77 & \phn28394 & 04 29 20.55 & +17 32 41.8 & F7 & \phn7.0 & 5.8 \\
1141: H509 & \phn28634 & 04 31 37.10 & +17 42 35.2 & K2 & \phn9.5 & 7.3 \\
1142: H532 & 286839 & 04 32 25.65 & +13 06 47.6 & K0 & 11.0 & 7.8 \\
1143: vB 96 & 285931 & 04 33 58.54 & +15 09 49.0 & K0 & \phn8.5 & 6.6 \\
1144: L79 & \nodata & 04 34 10.73 & +11 33 29.6 & K7 & 11.7 & 8.3 \\
1145: L77 & \nodata & 04 34 49.76 & +20 23 41.6 & K7 & 11.1 & 8.0 \\
1146: vB 102 & \phn29310 & 04 37 31.98 & +15 08 47.2 & G1 & \phn7.5 & 6.1 \\
1147: L90 & \phn29896 & 04 43 15.70 & +17 04 08.8 & K0 & \phn9.9 & 7.5 \\
1148: vB 142 & \phn30246 & 04 46 30.39 & +15 28 19.4 & G5 & \phn8.3 & 6.8 \\
1149: vB 113 & \phn30311 & 04 46 45.58 & +09 01 02.7 & F5 & \phn7.2 & 5.9 \\
1150: vB 114 & \phn30355 & 04 47 37.57 & +18 15 31.4 & G0 & \phn8.5 & 6.9 \\
1151: vB 115 & 284787 & 04 48 42.12 & +21 06 03.6 & G5 & \phn9.1 & 7.2 \\
1152: vB 121 & \phn30738 & 04 50 48.54 & +16 12 37.6 & F8 & \phn7.3 & 6.2 \\
1153: vB 151 & 240692 & 05 05 40.38 & +06 27 54.6 & K2 & \phn9.9 & 7.6 \\
1154: BD+02 1102 & \phn40512 & 05 59 29.92 & +02 28 34.2 & F5 & \phn7.8 & 6.7 \\
1155: \enddata
1156: \end{deluxetable}
1157:
1158: \begin{deluxetable}{llccc}
1159: \tablecaption{Log of Infrared Observations\label{table:obslog}}
1160: \tablewidth{0pt}
1161: \tablecolumns{5}
1162: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1163: \tablehead{
1164: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{\Vtwo} \\
1165: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{UT Date} & \colhead{JD-2400000} &
1166: \colhead{Instrument} & \colhead{(\kps)}}
1167: \startdata
1168: vB 8 & 2004 Oct 4 & 53282.967 & C & \nodata \\
1169: & 2005 Sep 30 & 53643.982 & C & \nodata \\
1170: vB 9 & 2004 Oct 2 & 53280.978 & C & $\phnp31.8\pm\phn2.1$ \\
1171: & 2004 Oct 4 & 53282.993 & C & $\phnp32.9\pm\phn1.8$ \\
1172: L20 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53279.959 & C & $\php133.9\pm\phn4.0$ \\
1173: & 2004 Oct 2 & 53280.950 & C & $\phn-53.6\pm\phn3.6$ \\
1174: & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.148 & C & $\php115.6\pm\phn4.3$ \\
1175: & 2005 Oct 10 & 53645.985 & C & $\phnp84.6\pm\phn9.7$ \\
1176: & 2005 Oct 3 & 53647.112 & C & $\phnn-6.9\pm\phn6.5$ \\
1177: H69 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.999 & C & $\phnp60.4\pm\phn2.6$ \\
1178: & 2005 Feb 22 & 53423.715 & N & $\phnp53.9\pm\phn4.3$ \\
1179: & 2006 Feb 3 & 53769.734 & C & $\phnp45.7\pm\phn6.8$ \\
1180: vB 30 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.035 & C & \nodata \\
1181: & 2004 Oct 4 & 53283.036 & C & \nodata \\
1182: L33 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53281.959 & C & $\phnp32.1\pm\phn1.3$ \\
1183: & 2005 Oct 2 & 53646.018 & C & $\phnp42.5\pm\phn2.6$ \\
1184: & 2005 Nov 26 & 53700.826 & C & $\phnp44.5\pm\phn2.2$ \\
1185: vB 40 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.012 & C & $\phn-45.5\pm\phn1.9$ \\
1186: & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.123 & C & $\php132.9\pm\phn3.0$ \\
1187: & 2005 Oct 2 & 53645.958 & C & $\php117.7\pm\phn5.8$ \\
1188: & 2005 Oct 3 & 53647.020 & C & $\phnp52.9\pm\phn4.6$ \\
1189: vB 39 & 2005 Nov 26 & 53700.897 & C & \nodata \\
1190: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.727 & C & \nodata \\
1191: vB 43 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.052 & C & $\phnp42.2\pm\phn2.5$ \\
1192: & 2005 Feb 22 & 53423.754 & N & $\phnp48.0\pm\phn2.0$ \\
1193: & 2005 Sep 30 & 53644.008 & C & \nodata \\
1194: & 2005 Nov 27 & 53701.755 & C & $\phnp35.0\pm\phn2.2$ \\
1195: vB 59 & 2005 Nov 27 & 53701.813 & C & $\phnp34.2\pm\phn4.4$ \\
1196: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.812 & C & $\phnp36.9\pm\phn2.9$ \\
1197: vB 62 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.052 & C & $\phnp85.1\pm\phn4.6$ \\
1198: & 2005 Nov 25 & 53699.778 & C & $\phnp89.6\pm10.9$ \\
1199: & 2005 Nov 28 & 53702.758 & C & $\phn-21.4\pm\phn3.2$ \\
1200: H382 & 2005 Nov 28 & 53702.801 & C & $\phnp53.2\pm\phn4.0$ \\
1201: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.746 & C & $\phnp50.9\pm\phn1.2$ \\
1202: H411 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.078 & C & \nodata \\
1203: & 2005 Oct 2 & 53646.060 & C & \nodata \\
1204: L57 & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.104 & C & $\phnp46.7\pm\phn2.0$ \\
1205: & 2005 Nov 25 & 53699.828 & C & \nodata \\
1206: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.889 & C & \nodata \\
1207: vB 68\tablenotemark{a}& 2005 Oct 3 & 53657.074 & C & $\phnp22.8\pm\phn1.1$ \\
1208: vB 69 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.082 & C & $\phnn-4.1\pm\phn2.0$ \\
1209: & 2005 Sep 30 & 53644.039 & C & $\phnp48.1\pm\phn3.1$ \\
1210: & 2005 Nov 27 & 53701.787 & C & $\phnp17.7\pm\phn5.2$ \\
1211: H441 & 2005 Nov 28 & 53702.851 & C & $\phnp31.7\pm\phn3.9$ \\
1212: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.845 & C & $\phnp32.7\pm\phn2.6$ \\
1213: vB 77\tablenotemark{a}& 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.010 & C & $\phnp22.7\pm\phn4.9$ \\
1214: & 2005 Nov 30 & 53644.122 & C & $\phnp45.2\pm\phn1.9$ \\
1215: H509 & 2004 Oct 2 & 53281.117 & C & $\phnp51.5\pm\phn2.8$ \\
1216: & 2005 Oct 2 & 53646.099 & C & \nodata \\
1217: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.786 & C & $\phnp27.0\pm\phn2.0$ \\
1218: H532 & 2004 Oct 2 & 53281.015 & C & $\phn-61.9\pm\phn5.3$ \\
1219: & 2004 Oct 4 & 53283.055 & C & $\phnp67.5\pm\phn7.5$ \\
1220: & 2005 Nov 26 & 53700.916 & C & $\phnp24.9\pm10.2$ \\
1221: vB 96 & 2006 Feb 3 & 53769.922 & C & $\phnp44.6\pm\phn1.6$ \\
1222: L79 & 2006 Feb 3 & 53769.792 & C & $\phnp45.9\pm\phn2.8$ \\
1223: L77 & 2006 Feb 3 & 53769.840 & C & \nodata \\
1224: vB 102 & 2004 Oct 2 & 53281.041 & C & $\phnp46.8\pm\phn2.7$ \\
1225: & 2005 Sep 30 & 53644.068 & C & $\phnp26.2\pm\phn3.4$ \\
1226: & 2006 Feb 2 & 53768.921 & C & $\phnp12.5\pm\phn3.4$ \\
1227: L90 & 2005 Nov 25 & 53699.881 & C & \nodata \\
1228: & 2006 Feb 3 & 53769.889 & C & \nodata \\
1229: vB 142 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.118 & C & $\phnp54.2\pm\phn2.1$ \\
1230: & 2005 Feb 22 & 53423.860 & N & $\phnp17.2\pm\phn6.4$ \\
1231: & 2005 Oct 1 & 53645.099 & C & $\phnp29.0\pm\phn3.5$ \\
1232: & 2005 Nov 28 & 53702.910 & C & $\phnp20.2\pm\phn1.8$ \\
1233: vB 113 & 2004 Oct 2 & 53281.066 & C & $\phnp50.7\pm\phn1.4$ \\
1234: & 2005 Oct 1 & 53645.061 & C & $\phnp51.5\pm\phn3.4$ \\
1235: vB 114 & 2005 Nov 27 & 53701.930 & C & \nodata \\
1236: vB 115 & 2004 Oct 4 & 53283.082 & C & $\phnp51.0\pm\phn1.8$ \\
1237: & 2005 Nov 27 & 53701.894 & C & $\phnp34.3\pm\phn1.8$ \\
1238: vB 121 & 2004 Oct 1 & 53280.135 & C & $\phn-52.2\pm\phn3.4$ \\
1239: & 2004 Oct 3 & 53282.134 & C & $\php143.2\pm\phn6.2$ \\
1240: & 2005 Nov 28 & 53702.941 & C & $\phnp70.6\pm12.7$ \\
1241: vB 151 & 2004 Oct 4 & 53283.112 & C & $\phnp28.7\pm\phn3.3$ \\
1242: & 2005 Oct 2 & 53646.135 & C & $\phnp51.9\pm\phn1.9$ \\
1243: & 2005 Nov 25 & 53699.929 & C & $\phnp54.9\pm\phn3.5$ \\
1244: BD+02 1102\tablenotemark{a}& 2004 Oct 4 & 53283.136 & C & $\phnp24.5\pm\phn4.8$ \\
1245: & 2005 Oct 1 & 53645.135 & C & $\phnp32.3\pm\phn6.2$ \\
1246: \enddata
1247: \tablenotetext{a}{Indicates a rapidly rotating primary. See
1248: \S\ref{irrapidrotators} for a discussion.}
1249: \end{deluxetable}
1250:
1251:
1252: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
1253: \tablecaption{Orbital Solutions\label{table:orbitparams}}
1254: \tablewidth{0pt}
1255: \tablecolumns{13}
1256: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1257: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.025in}
1258: \rotate
1259: \tablehead{
1260: \colhead{} &
1261: \colhead{\period} &
1262: \colhead{} &
1263: \colhead{\w} &
1264: \colhead{\Tknot} &
1265: \colhead{\g} &
1266: \colhead{\Kone} &
1267: \colhead{\Ktwo} &
1268: \colhead{} &
1269: \colhead{$a_1\sin i$} &
1270: \colhead{$a_2\sin i$} &
1271: \colhead{$M_1\sin^3i$} &
1272: \colhead{$M_2\sin^3i$} \\
1273:
1274: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{\e} &
1275: \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(JD-2400000)} & \colhead{(\kps)} &
1276: \colhead{(\kps)} & \colhead{(\kps)} & \colhead{\q} &
1277: \colhead{(Gm)} &
1278: \colhead{(Gm)} &
1279: \colhead{(\msun)} &
1280: \colhead{(\msun)}}
1281: \startdata
1282: vB 9 & 5070\phdnnnnnn & 0.22\phnn & 107\phdn & 48747\phdnnn & 36.87\phn & \phn2.74 & $\phnn7.50\pm\phn0.92$ & $0.36\pm0.05$ & $186\phdnnnn\pm23\phdnnnn$ & $\phn510\phdnn\pm\phn84\phdnn$ & $0.38\phn\pm0.13\phn$ & $0.140\phn\pm0.034\phn$\\
1283: L20 & \phnnn2.394358 & 0.053\phn & 286.4 & 50553.507 & 40.86\phn & 66.96 & $\phn98.2\phn\pm\phn3.6\phn$ & $0.68\pm0.03$ & $\phnn2.202\phn\pm\phn0.014\phn$ & $\phnnn3.23\pm\phnn0.12$ & $0.661\pm0.053$ & $0.451\phn\pm0.020\phn$\\
1284: H69 & \phn128.114\phnnn & 0.062\phn & 337\phdn & 49110.9\phnn & 37.96\phn & 13.80 & $\phn22.9\phn\pm\phn1.2\phn$ & $0.60\pm0.03$ & $\phn24.26\phnn\pm\phn0.56\phnn$ & $\phnn40.3\phn\pm\phnn2.1\phn$ & $0.407\pm0.048$ & $0.245\phn\pm0.019\phn$\\
1285: L33 & 1044.9\phnnnnn & 0.250\phn & 295.5 & 48902\phdnnn & 40.11\phn & \phn5.67 & $\phnn8.16\pm\phn0.58$ & $0.69\pm0.05$ & $\phn78.9\phnn\pm\phn2.6\phnnn$ & $\phn113.5\phn\pm\phnn8.1\phn$ & $0.153\pm0.024$ & $0.106\phn\pm0.011\phn$\\
1286: vB 40 & \phnnn4.000177 & 0.0043 & 118\phdn & 48353.24\phn & 37.920 & 39.88 & $\phn87.5\phn\pm\phn2.7\phn$ & $0.46\pm0.02$ & $\phnn2.1934\pm\phn0.0042$ & $\phnnn4.81\pm\phnn0.15$ & $0.588\pm0.043$ & $0.268\phn\pm0.011\phn$\\
1287: vB 43 & \phn589.76\phnnnn & 0.619\phn & 304.7 & 50002.65\phn & 38.925 & \phn9.61 & $\phn14.5\phn\pm\phn1.2\phn$ & $0.66\pm0.05$ & $\phn61.23\phnn\pm\phn0.78\phnn$ & $\phnn92.4\phn\pm\phnn7.4\phn$ & $0.249\pm0.046$ & $0.165\phn\pm0.017\phn$\\
1288: vB 59 & 5724\phdnnnnnn & 0.975\phn & 224.2 & 51385\phdnnn & 39.349 & 15.1\phn & $\phn84\phdnn\pm28\phdnn$ & $0.18\pm0.06$ & $264\phdnnnn\pm28\phdnnnn$ & $1460\phdnn\pm490\phdnn$ & $5.4\phnn\pm4.8\phnn$ & $0.96\phnn\pm0.56\phnn$\\
1289: vB 62 & \phnnn8.550647 & 0.212\phn & \phn41.0 & 49925.248 & 38.247 & 16.73 & $\phn72.6\phn\pm\phn8.8\phn$ & $0.23\pm0.03$ & $\phnn1.923\phn\pm\phn0.017\phn$ & $\phnnn8.3\phn\pm\phnn1.0\phn$ & $0.48\phn\pm0.15\phn$ & $0.110\phn\pm0.022\phn$\\
1290: H382 & 2657\phdnnnnnn & 0.682\phn & 248.4 & 48884.7\phnn & 38.73\phn & \phn7.79 & $\phn21.1\phn\pm\phn2.4\phn$ & $0.37\pm0.05$ & $208\phdnnnn\pm11\phdnnnn$ & $\phn563\phdnn\pm\phn66\phdnn$ & $1.90\phn\pm0.55\phn$ & $0.70\phnn\pm0.14\phnn$\\
1291: L57 & 1911.3\phnnnnn & 0.486\phn & \phn94.1 & 49211.6\phnn & 39.124 & \phn6.63 & $\phnn7.7\phn\pm\phn2.1\phn$ & $0.86\pm0.23$ & $152.2\phnnn\pm\phn2.6\phnnn$ & $\phn177\phdnn\pm\phn48\phdnn$ & $0.21\phn\pm0.21\phn$ & $0.180\phn\pm0.053\phn$\\
1292: vB 68 & \phn331.66\phnnnn & 0.288\phn & 319\phdn & 50290.4\phnn & 40.00\phn & 11.19 & $\phn16.1\phn\pm\phn2.4\phn$ & $0.70\pm0.11$ & $\phn48.9\phnnn\pm\phn2.5\phnnn$ & $\phnn70\phdnn\pm\phn11\phdnn$ & $0.36\phn\pm0.12\phn$ & $0.251\phn\pm0.051\phn$\\
1293: vB 69 & \phnn41.6729\phnn & 0.643\phn & 328.4 & 49443.176 & 38.993 & \phn7.03 & $\phn44.0\phn\pm\phn5.9\phn$ & $0.16\pm0.02$ & $\phnn3.08\phnn\pm\phn0.11\phnn$ & $\phnn19.3\phn\pm\phnn2.6\phn$ & $0.222\pm0.082$ & $0.0355\pm0.0085$ \\
1294: H441 & 7494\phdnnnnnn & 0.186\phn & 324\phdn & 52730\phdnnn & 40.44\phn & \phn3.62 & $\phnn8.0\phn\pm\phn0.3\phn$ & $0.45\pm0.03$ & $366\phdnnnn\pm17\phdnnnn$ & $\phn807\phdnn\pm\phn36\phdnn$ & $0.796\pm0.073$ & $0.360\phn\pm0.033\phn$\\
1295: vB 77 & \phn238.86\phnnnn & 0.200\phn & 132\phdn & 48557.3\phnn & 39.22\phn & \phn6.58 & $\phn20.0\phn\pm\phn1.8\phn$ & $0.33\pm0.03$ & $\phn21.18\phnn\pm\phn0.91\phnn$ & $\phnn64.3\phn\pm\phnn5.7\phn$ & $0.329\pm0.075$ & $0.108\phn\pm0.016\phn$\\
1296: H509 & \phn849.95\phnnnn & 0.174\phn & 316.9 & 48643\phdnnn & 39.553 & \phn6.35 & $\phn13.7\phn\pm\phn4.0\phn$ & $0.46\pm0.14$ & $\phn73.0\phnnn\pm\phn1.5\phnnn$ & $\phn157\phdnn\pm\phn46\phdnn$ & $0.46\phn\pm0.32\phn$ & $0.215\phn\pm0.086\phn$\\
1297: H532 & \phnnn1.484698 & 0.0035 & 267\phdn & 48170.37\phn & 40.31\phn & 68.94 & $\phn94\phdnn\pm15\phdnn$ & $0.73\pm0.12$ & $\phnn1.4075\pm\phn0.0044$ & $\phnnn1.92\pm\phnn0.30$ & $0.38\phn\pm0.13\phn$ & $0.281\phn\pm0.052\phn$\\
1298: vB 96 & 5100\phdnnnnnn & 0.664\phn & 310.4 & 50106\phdnnn & 41.14\phn & \phn4.77 & $\phnn9.6\phn\pm\phn3.5\phn$ & $0.50\pm0.18$ & $249.8\phnnn\pm\phn8.1\phnnn$ & $\phn500\phdnn\pm180\phdnn$ & $0.44\phn\pm0.37\phn$ & $0.22\phnn\pm0.11\phnn$\\
1299: L79 & 3688\phdnnnnnn & 0.765\phn & 341.8 & 48662.1\phnn & 41.454 & \phn4.31 & $\phn27\phdnn\pm19\phdnn$ & $0.16\pm0.11$ & $140.8\phnnn\pm\phn7.9\phnnn$ & $\phn890\phdnn\pm620\phdnn$ & $2.7\phnn\pm5.2\phnn$ & $0.43\phnn\pm0.53\phnn$\\
1300: vB 102 & \phn734.79\phnnnn & 0.513\phn & 337.2 & 50015.8\phnn & 40.192 & \phn3.92 & $\phn31.1\phn\pm\phn5.9\phn$ & $0.13\pm0.02$ & $\phn34.0\phnnn\pm\phn1.4\phnnn$ & $\phn270\phdnn\pm\phn51\phdnn$ & $1.84\phn\pm0.97\phn$ & $0.231\phn\pm0.080\phn$\\
1301: vB 142 & \phn975.7\phnnnnn & 0.675\phn & 271.9 & 50383.6\phnn & 41.684 & \phn1.19 & $\phn21\phdnn\pm14\phdnn$ & $0.06\pm0.04$ & $\phn11.8\phnnn\pm\phn1.3\phnnn$ & $\phn220\phdnn\pm140\phdnn$ & $0.42\phn\pm0.82\phn$ & $0.024\phn\pm0.031\phn$\\
1302: vB 113 & 2429\phdnnnnnn & 0.327\phn & 294.1 & 51404\phdnnn & 41.544 & \phn3.36 & $\phn11.1\phn\pm\phn2.9\phn$ & $0.30\pm0.08$ & $106.1\phnnn\pm\phn4.3\phnnn$ & $\phn350\phdnn\pm\phn91\phdnn$ & $0.49\phn\pm0.32\phn$ & $0.150\phn\pm0.060\phn$\\
1303: vB 115 & 1208.2\phnnnnn & 0.480\phn & 129.1 & 50731.6\phnn & 40.730 & \phn5.65 & $\phn10.9\phn\pm\phn3.7\phn$ & $0.52\pm0.18$ & $\phn82.3\phnnn\pm\phn1.5\phnnn$ & $\phn158\phdnn\pm\phn54\phdnn$ & $0.25\phn\pm0.20\phn$ & $0.131\phn\pm0.059\phn$\\
1304: vB 121 & \phnnn5.750872 & 0.361\phn & \phn42.0 & 49743.257 & 41.28\phn & 20.11 & $122.4\phn\pm\phn9.2\phn$ & $0.16\pm0.02$ & $\phnn1.483\phn\pm\phn0.015\phn$ & $\phnnn9.03\pm\phnn0.68$ & $1.20\phn\pm0.25\phn$ & $0.197\phn\pm0.026\phn$\\
1305: vB 151 & \phn629.37\phnnnn & 0.297\phn & 203.8 & 50544.0\phnn & 42.167 & \phn5.22 & $\phnn9.8\phn\pm\phn2.2\phn$ & $0.53\pm0.12$ & $\phn43.14\phnn\pm\phn0.89\phnn$ & $\phnn81\phdnn\pm\phn18\phdnn$ & $0.125\pm0.065$ & $0.067\phn\pm0.020\phn$\\
1306: BD+02 1102 & \phnn32.5121\phnn & 0.344\phn & 228.7 & 51056.33\phn & 47.60\phn & 21.31 & $\phn53\phdnn\pm21\phdnn$ & $0.40\pm0.15$ & $\phnn8.94\phnn\pm\phn0.21\phnn$ & $\phnn22.4\phn\pm\phnn8.6\phn$ & $0.82\phn\pm0.78\phn$ & $0.33\phnn\pm0.19\phnn$\\
1307: \enddata
1308: \end{deluxetable}
1309:
1310:
1311: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
1312: \tablecaption{Alternate Orbital Solutions\label{table:altorbits}}
1313: \tablewidth{0pt}
1314: \tablecolumns{10}
1315: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1316: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.025in}
1317: \tablehead{
1318: \colhead{} &
1319: \colhead{\period} &
1320: \colhead{} &
1321: \colhead{\w} &
1322: \colhead{\Tknot} &
1323: \colhead{\g} &
1324: \colhead{\Kone} &
1325: \colhead{\Ktwo} &
1326: \colhead{} &
1327: \colhead{} \\
1328:
1329: \colhead{Target} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{\e} &
1330: \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(JD-2400000)} & \colhead{(\kps)} &
1331: \colhead{(\kps)} & \colhead{(\kps)} & \colhead{\q} & \colhead{SB1 Ref.}}
1332: \startdata
1333: L20 & \phnnn2.394357 & 0.057 & 279.2 & 43892.36 & 36.76 & 66.2\phn & $\phn98.8\pm\phn2.7$ & $0.67\pm0.02$ & G81 \\
1334: vB 40 & \phnnn4.00050\phn & 0.060 & \phn13\phdn & 22274.81 & 37.4\phn & 36.1\phn & $\phn88.2\pm\phn2.7$ & $0.41\pm0.02$ & S21 \\
1335: vB 43 & \phn590.6\phnnnnn & 0.638 & 303.1 & 43512.9\phn & 39.81 & \phn9.91 & $\phn14.1\pm\phn1.3$ & $0.70\pm0.07$ & G85 \\
1336: vB 62 & \phnnn8.55089\phn & 0.233 & \phn38.0 & 42588.22 & 38.77 & 16.46 & $\phn87\phdn\pm30\phdn$ & $0.19\pm0.06$ & G78 \\
1337: L57 & 1907\phd\phnnnnnn & 0.485 & \phn95\phdn & 43470.5\phn & 40.23 & \phn6.83 & $\phnn6.8\pm\phn2.2$ & $1.00\pm0.32$ & G85 \\
1338: vB 69 & \phnn41.6625\phnn & 0.662 & 326.9 & 43650.67 & 39.81 & \phn7.28 & $\phn69\phdn\pm17\phdn$ & $0.10\pm0.03$ & G85 \\
1339: vB 77 & \phn238.87\phnnnn & 0.242 & 127\phdn & 43298\phdnn & 39.81 & \phn6.53 & $\phn20.1\pm\phn1.9$ & $0.32\pm0.03$ & G85 \\
1340: H509 & \phn844.6\phnnnnn & 0.148 & 325\phdn & 44413\phdnn & 40.32 & \phn6.20 & $\phn12.6\pm\phn1.6$ & $0.49\pm0.06$ & G85 \\
1341: vB 121 & \phnnn5.75096\phn & 0.354 & \phn54.9 & 42192.06 & 42.74 & 19.70 & $126.8\pm\phn8.1$ & $0.16\pm0.01$ & G78 \\
1342: \enddata
1343: \tablerefs{G78 -- \citet{griffin1978}; G81 -- \citet{griffin1981}; G85 -- \citet{griffin1985}; S21 -- \citet{sanford1921}}
1344: \end{deluxetable}
1345:
1346:
1347: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1348: \tablecaption{SB2 Component Masses\label{table:componentmasses}}
1349: \tablewidth{0pt}
1350: \tablecolumns{3}
1351: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1352: \tablehead{\colhead{Target} & \colhead{\Mone (\msun)} & \colhead{\Mtwo (\msun)}}
1353: \startdata
1354: vB 9 & $1.15\pm0.05$ & $0.41\pm0.06$ \\
1355: L20 & $0.88\pm0.04$ & $0.60\pm0.04$ \\
1356: H69\tablenotemark{a} & $0.45\pm0.10$ & $0.27\pm0.06$ \\
1357: L33 & $0.93\pm0.05$ & $0.64\pm0.06$ \\
1358: vB 40 & $1.38\pm0.10$ & $0.63\pm0.05$ \\
1359: vB 43 & $1.01\pm0.06$ & $0.67\pm0.06$ \\
1360: vB 59\tablenotemark{b} & $0.95\pm0.08$ & $0.17\pm0.06$ \\
1361: vB 62 & $1.23\pm0.03$ & $0.28\pm0.04$ \\
1362: H382 & $1.09\pm0.04$ & $0.40\pm0.06$ \\
1363: L57\tablenotemark{b} & $0.77\pm0.09$ & $0.66\pm0.19$ \\
1364: vB 68\tablenotemark{c} & $1.70\pm0.08$ & $1.19\pm0.20$ \\
1365: vB 69 & $1.03\pm0.04$ & $0.16\pm0.02$ \\
1366: H441\tablenotemark{a} & $0.61\pm0.10$ & $0.27\pm0.05$ \\
1367: vB 77 & $1.29\pm0.03$ & $0.43\pm0.04$ \\
1368: H509 & $0.83\pm0.04$ & $0.38\pm0.12$ \\
1369: H532 & $0.79\pm0.08$ & $0.58\pm0.15$ \\
1370: vB 96 & $1.00\pm0.05$ & $0.49\pm0.18$ \\
1371: L79\tablenotemark{a} & $0.61\pm0.10$ & $0.10\pm0.07$ \\
1372: vB 102 & $1.19\pm0.04$ & $0.15\pm0.04$ \\
1373: vB 142 & $1.10\pm0.04$ & $0.07\pm0.04$ \\
1374: vB 113 & $1.17\pm0.03$ & $0.32\pm0.12$ \\
1375: vB 115 & $0.97\pm0.05$ & $0.50\pm0.18$ \\
1376: vB 121 & $1.31\pm0.04$ & $0.21\pm0.03$ \\
1377: vB 151 & $1.03\pm0.09$ & $0.55\pm0.13$ \\
1378: BD+02 1102& $1.29\pm0.05$ & $0.52\pm0.20$ \\
1379: \enddata
1380: \tablenotetext{a}{Estimated from primary spectral type}
1381: \tablenotetext{b}{Tycho parallax}
1382: \tablenotetext{c}{\citet{pinsonneault2004} isochrone}
1383: \end{deluxetable}
1384:
1385: \clearpage
1386:
1387: \begin{figure}
1388: \epsscale{1.0}
1389: \plotone{f1.eps}
1390: \caption{The distribution of 2MASS \emph{H}-magnitudes for the
1391: infrared sample binaries. The \emph{hashed} region indicates
1392: binaries for which we did not detected a companion
1393: (\S\ref{sb2nondetections}).}
1394: \label{fig:hmag}
1395: \end{figure}
1396:
1397: \begin{figure}
1398: \epsscale{1.0}
1399: \plotone{f2.eps}
1400: \caption{The distribution of the difference between the primary
1401: velocity predicted from the visible SB1 solutions and that
1402: measured from the infrared spectra. The outlying measurements with
1403: large velocity difference are attributable to spectra with low
1404: S/N. The distribution has a mean value of $\sim0.3\kps$, and is
1405: fit by a Gaussian with with $\sim0.9\kps$, indicating that the two
1406: reference frames agree to better than the infrared measurement
1407: uncertainties.}
1408: \label{fig:vonediff}
1409: \end{figure}
1410:
1411: \begin{figure}
1412: \epsscale{0.8}
1413: \plotone{f3.eps}
1414: \caption{Double-lined velocity versus phase curves for the Hyades
1415: infrared sample, from R.A. $4^h00^m$ to $4^h31^m$. The circles
1416: indicate the secondary velocities and associated uncertainties
1417: measured in the infrared. For each binary, the dashed curve shows
1418: the CfA SB1 solution; the solid curve shows the SB2 solution.}
1419: \label{fig:sb2plots1}
1420: \end{figure}
1421:
1422: \begin{figure}
1423: \epsscale{0.8}
1424: \plotone{f4.eps}
1425: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:sb2plots1}, from R.A. $4^h32^m$ to
1426: $5^h59^m$.}
1427: \label{fig:sb2plots2}
1428: \end{figure}
1429:
1430: \begin{figure}
1431: \epsscale{0.8}
1432: \plotone{f5.eps}
1433: \caption{(\emph{a}) The distribution of mass ratios measured in the
1434: infrared for the SB2s in Table~\ref{table:orbitparams}. (\emph{b})
1435: Same as (\emph{a}), but includes the large variation in the
1436: uncertainties of our measured mass ratios. We distributed each
1437: mass ratio over a Gaussian with width equal to the $1\sigma$
1438: measurement uncertainty, clipped at
1439: $\q=\qmin-2\times\sigma_{\qmin}$ and $\q=1$, and normalized to
1440: unity. The uncertainties shown for both (\emph{a}) and (\emph{b})
1441: are $\sqrt{N}$.}
1442: \label{fig:qhist}
1443: \end{figure}
1444:
1445:
1446: \begin{figure}
1447: \epsscale{1.0}
1448: \plotone{f6.eps}
1449: \caption{The minimum mass ratio, determined from \fmass, plotted
1450: against the measured mass ratio. The dotted line indicates $\qmin
1451: = \q$.}
1452: \label{fig:qvsqmin}
1453: \end{figure}
1454:
1455: \begin{figure}
1456: \epsscale{1.0}
1457: \plotone{f7.eps}
1458: \caption{The measured flux ratio plotted against the measured mass
1459: ratio. The curves show the theoretical \emph{H}-band flux ratios
1460: from \citet{baraffe1998} for 625 Myr old binaries with primary
1461: masses of 0.6\msun{} (\emph{solid}), 0.8\msun{} (\emph{dotted}),
1462: 1.0\msun{} (\emph{dashed}), and 1.2\msun (\emph{dot-dashed}).}
1463: \label{fig:qvsalpha}
1464: \end{figure}
1465:
1466: \begin{figure}
1467: \epsscale{1.0}
1468: \plotone{f8.eps}
1469: \caption{The distribution of \qmin{} for the systems detected
1470: (\emph{open}) and not detected (\emph{hashed}) as SB2s in the
1471: infrared.}
1472: \label{fig:qminhist}
1473: \end{figure}
1474:
1475:
1476: \end{document}
1477:
1478: