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

2: 

3: \documentclass{emulateapj}

4: \usepackage{lscape}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

7: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

8: 

9: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}

10: 

11: %\slugcomment{********* Draft Version \today\ *********}

12: 

13: \shortauthors{Torres et al.}

14: \shorttitle{CV~Boo}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: 

18: \journalinfo{Accepted for publication in The Astronomical Journal}

19: 

20: \title{Absolute Properties of the Spotted Eclipsing Binary Star

21: CV~Bo\"otis}

22: 

23: \author{

24: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{1},

25: Luiz Paulo R.\ Vaz\altaffilmark{2}, and

26: Claud H.\ Sandberg Lacy\altaffilmark{3}

27: }

28: 

29: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

30: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, e-mail: gtorres@cfa.harvard.edu}

31: 

32: \altaffiltext{2}{Depto. de F\'{\i}sica, ICEx-UFMG, C.P. 702,

33: 30.123-970 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, e-mail: lpv@fisica.ufmg.br}

34: 

35: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of Arkansas,

36: Fayetteville, AR 72701, e-mail: clacy@uark.edu}

37: 

38: \begin{abstract}

39: We present new $V$-band differential brightness measurements as well

40: as new radial-velocity measurements of the detached, circular,

41: 0.84-day period, double-lined eclipsing binary system CV~Boo. These

42: data along with other observations from the literature are combined to

43: derive improved absolute dimensions of the stars for the purpose of

44: testing various aspects of theoretical modeling. Despite complications

45: from intrinsic variability we detect in the system, and despite the

46: rapid rotation of the components, we are able to determine the

47: absolute masses and radii to better than 1.3\% and 2\%, respectively.

48: We obtain $M_{\rm A} = 1.032 \pm 0.013$\,M$_{\sun}$ and $R_{\rm B} =

49: 1.262 \pm 0.023$\,R$_{\sun}$ for the hotter, larger, and more massive

50: primary (star A), and $M_{\rm B} = 0.968 \pm 0.012$\,M$_{\sun}$ and

51: $R_{\rm B} = 1.173 \pm 0.023$\,R$_{\sun}$ for the secondary. The

52: estimated effective temperatures are $5760 \pm 150$\,K and $5670 \pm

53: 150$\,K. The intrinsic variability with a period $\sim$1\% shorter

54: than the orbital period is interpreted as being due to modulation by

55: spots on one or both components. This implies that the spotted star(s)

56: must be rotating faster than the synchronous rate, which disagrees

57: with predictions from current tidal evolution models according to

58: which both stars should be synchronized.  We also find that the radius

59: of the secondary is larger than expected from stellar evolution

60: calculations by $\sim$10\%, a discrepancy also seen in other (mostly

61: lower-mass and active) eclipsing binaries. We estimate the age of the

62: system to be approximately 9~Gyr. Both components are near the end of

63: their main-sequence phase, and the primary may have started the shell

64: hydrogen-burning stage.

65: \end{abstract}

66: 

67: \keywords{

68: binaries: eclipsing --- 

69: stars: evolution --- 

70: stars: fundamental parameters ---

71: stars: individual (CV~Boo) ---

72: stars: spots

73: }

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: 

77: CV~Boo (= BD~+37~2641 = GSC~2570~0843; $\alpha = 15^{\rm h}\,26^{\rm

78: m}\,19\fs54$, $\delta = +36\arcdeg\,58\arcmin\,53\farcs4$, J2000.0; $V

79: \approx 10.8$, SpT = G3V) was discovered as a possible eclipsing

80: binary star by \cite{peniche85}. \cite{busch85} confirmed it as an

81: eclipsing binary of type EA and found its period to be 0.8469935 days.

82: In his last published paper, a study of 4 lower main sequence

83: binaries, \cite{Popper:00} determined a spectroscopic orbit for

84: CV~Boo.  Popper was pessimistic about the prospects for determining

85: accurate absolute properties of them because ``It appears unlikely

86: that definitive photometry will be obtained for these stars, partly

87: because of intrinsic variability.''  Recently, a light curve and

88: radial velocity study of the system were done by \cite{Nelson:04b},

89: resulting in the first estimates of its absolute properties.

90: 

91: The parameters of CV~Boo make it potentially interesting as the most

92: evolved system among the well-studied double-lined eclipsing binaries

93: with components near 1~M$_{\sun}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:other_mr}), a

94: regime where some discrepancies with theoretical models have been

95: pointed out.  We describe in the following our extensive new

96: photometric and spectroscopic observations of the object intended to

97: improve our knowledge of the system. The presence of starspots does in

98: fact limit somewhat our ability to determine highly accurate absolute

99: properties for this binary star, but the results are still accurate

100: enough for meaningful tests of current stellar models.  As we describe

101: here, CV~Boo contributes significantly to the body of evidence

102: concerning the differences with theory mentioned above.

103: 

104: \begin{figure}

105: \epsscale{1.35}

106: \vskip -0.3in

107: {\hskip -0.2in\plotone{f1.eps}}

108: \vskip -0.3in

109: \caption{Main-sequence eclipsing binaries in mass range of CV~Boo with

110: accurate determinations of their absolute properties (masses and radii

111: good to better than $\sim$2\%). Data are taken from \cite{Andersen:91}

112: and updates from the literature. Primary and secondary components are

113: connected with solid lines. CV~Boo is represented with open

114: circles. The dashed line shows the solar-metallicity zero-age main

115: sequence from the models by \cite{Yi:01}, for

116: reference.\label{fig:other_mr}}

117: \end{figure}

118: 

119: \section{Observations and reductions}

120: 

121: \subsection{Differential and absolute photometry} 

122: \label{sec:photometry}

123: 

124: New differential brightness measurements of CV~Boo were obtained with

125: the facilities available at the Kimpel Observatory (ursa.uark.edu).

126: They consist of a Meade 10-inch f/6.3 LX-200 telescope with a Santa

127: Barbara Instruments Group ST8 CCD camera (binned 2$\times$2 to produce

128: 765$\times$510 pixel images with 2.3 arcsec square pixels) inside a

129: Technical Innovations Robo-Dome, controlled automatically by an Apple

130: Macintosh G4 computer.  The observatory is located on top of Kimpel

131: Hall on the Fayetteville campus of the University of Arkansas, with

132: the control room directly beneath the observatory inside the building.

133: Sixty-second exposures through a Bessell $V$ filter (2.0\,mm of GG 495

134: and 3.0\,mm of BG 39) were read out and downloaded by ImageGrabber

135: (camera control software written by J.\ Sabby) to the control computer

136: over a 30-second interval, and then the next exposure was begun.  The

137: observing cadence was therefore about 90\,s per observation.  The

138: variable star would frequently be monitored continuously for 4--8

139: hours.  CV~Boo was observed on 89 nights during parts of two observing

140: seasons from 2001 December 1 to 2003 June 9.

141: 

142: The images were analyzed by a virtual measuring engine application

143: written by Lacy that flat-fielded the images, automatically located

144: the variable and comparison stars in the image, measured their

145: brightnesses, subtracted the corresponding sky brightness, and

146: corrected for the differences in airmass between the stars.

147: Extinction coefficients were determined nightly from the comparison

148: star measurements.  They averaged 0.20 mag/airmass.  CV~Boo is also

149: known as GSC~2570~0843. The comparison stars were GSC~2570~0511

150: (``comp'', $V=10.26$, as listed in the Tycho Catalogue), and

151: GSC~2570~0423 (``ck'').  Both comparison stars are within 8 arcmin of

152: the variable star (``var'').  The comparison star magnitude

153: differences $\langle$comp$-$ck$\rangle$ were constant at the level of

154: 0.013 mag (standard deviation within a night), and 0.007 mag for the

155: standard deviation of the nightly mean magnitude difference.  The

156: differential magnitude $\langle$var$-$comp$\rangle$ of the variable

157: star was referenced only to the magnitude of the comparison star,

158: comp.  The resulting 6500 $V$-band magnitude differences

159: $\langle$var$-$comp$\rangle$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:vphot} and

160: plotted in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}.  The typical precision of the

161: variable star differential magnitudes is about 0.013 mag per

162: measurement.

163: 

164: In addition to our own, differential photometry of CV~Boo was obtained

165: by \cite{Nelson:04b} in $V$ and Cousins $I$ between 2003 March and

166: June (253 and 265 measurements, respectively). The comparison star was

167: GSC~2570~0869, and the check star was GSC~2570~0511, which is the same

168: star we used as the comparison. These observations are incorporated

169: into our analysis below.

170: 

171: Absolute photometry of CV~Boo is available in the literature from

172: several sources, and color indices can be used to estimate a mean

173: effective temperature for the combined light of the system (assuming

174: no interstellar reddening).  The results are collected in

175: Table~\ref{tab:teff}.  We used the color/temperature calibrations of

176: \cite{ramirezmelendez05} for dwarf stars for all but the Sloan

177: $g\!-\!r$ index; for that color we used the calibration of

178: \cite{girardi2004}.  In all cases we assumed solar metallicity.  The

179: value of Johnson $V$ is that listed in the Tycho Catalogue with no

180: uncertainty given there. We have assumed a conservative error of 0.10

181: mag for $V$. The temperature estimate from the Johnson $B\!-\!V$ index

182: uses the value of that index as listed in the Tycho Catalogue, with

183: its listed error.  The temperature values estimated in these ways

184: agree quite well, except for the estimates from $B\!-\!V$ and $B_{\rm

185: T}\!-\!V_{\rm T}$, which happen to have the largest formal errors. The

186: weighted average of the 7 estimates is $5706 \pm 60$\,K, where the

187: uncertainty does not account for possible systematic errors in the

188: various calibrations.  This color-index-based temperature is quite

189: consistent with spectroscopic estimates discussed below, and this

190: suggests that the interstellar reddening value, if any, is very small.

191: 

192: \begin{figure}

193: \epsscale{1.1}

194: \plotone{f2.eps}

195: \vskip -0.1in

196: \caption{The top panel shows our $V$-band light curve of CV~Boo ($+$

197: symbols), consisting of 6500 points, together with the $V$ ($\times$)

198: and $I$ ($\bullet$) light curves from \cite{Nelson:04b}, marked

199: ``$\Delta V$n'' and ``$\Delta I$n''.  Nelson's light curves are

200: shifted as indicated, for clarity.  Our theoretical solution without

201: spots is overplotted (continuous grey lines; \S\,\ref{sec:nospot}).

202: The lower panels show the $O\!-\!C$ residuals from these fits, and in

203: the upper left corner, the standard deviation for a single

204: measurement.

205: \label{lcnospot}}

206: \end{figure}

207: 

208: CV~Boo is identified as a strong X-ray source in the ROSAT catalog

209: \citep{voges2000}. This is presumably due to an active

210: chromosphere/corona associated with its spot activity (see below).

211: 

212: \subsection{Ephemeris}

213: \label{sec:ephemeris}

214: 

215: Photoelectric or CCD times of minimum light for CV~Boo carried out

216: over the past decade have been reported by a number of authors

217: \citep{Agerer:02, Agerer:03, Bakis:03, Diethelm:01, Dogru:06,

218: Hubscher:05a, Hubscher:05b, Hubscher:06, Kim:06, Lacy:02, Lacy:03,

219: Maciejewski:04, Nelson:00, Nelson:02, Nelson:04a}. Additional times of

220: eclipse including older visual and photographic measurements reaching

221: back to 1957 were kindly provided by J.\ M.\ Kreiner

222: \citep[see][]{Kreiner:00} or taken from the literature

223: \citep{Locher:05, Molik:07}. Separate least-squares fits to the 98

224: available primary and 50 secondary minima yielded ephemerides with

225: virtually the same period within the errors.  A simultaneous fit to

226: all minima was then performed assuming a circular orbit.

227: Uncertainties were initially adopted as published, or assigned by

228: iterations and by type of observation so as to achieve a reduced

229: $\chi^2$ of unity. The resulting linear ephemeris is

230: %

231: \begin{equation}

232: \label{eq:ephemeris}

233: {\rm Min~I~(HJD)} = 2,\!452,\!321.845322(50) + 0.846993420(69) E.

234: \end{equation}

235: %

236: where the figures in parentheses represent the uncertainty in units of

237: the last decimal place.  No significant trends indicative of period

238: changes are seen in the $O\!-\!C$ residuals.  A test solving for

239: separate primary and secondary epochs with a common period yielded a

240: phase difference between the eclipses of $\Delta\phi = 0.49991 \pm

241: 0.00013$. This is consistent with 0.5, supporting our earlier

242: assumption of a circular orbit.

243: 

244: \subsection{Spectroscopy}

245: \label{sec:spectroscopy}

246: 

247: CV~Boo was observed spectroscopically with an echelle instrument on

248: the 1.5m Tillinghast reflector at the F.\ L.\ Whipple Observatory

249: (Mt.\ Hopkins, Arizona). A total of 66 spectra were gathered from 1991

250: June to 2005 April, each of which covers a single echelle order

251: (45~\AA) centered at 5188.5~\AA\ and was recorded using an intensified

252: photon-counting Reticon detector. The strongest lines in this window

253: are those of the \ion{Mg}{1}~$b$ triplet. The resolving power of this

254: setup is $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \approx 35,\!000$, and the

255: observations have signal-to-noise ratios ranging from 13 to 36 per

256: resolution element of 8.5~\kms.

257: 

258: Radial velocities were obtained using the two-dimensional

259: cross-correlation algorithm TODCOR \citep{Zucker:94}. Templates for

260: the cross correlations were selected from an extensive library of

261: calculated spectra based on model atmospheres by R.\ L.\

262: Kurucz\footnote{Available at {\tt http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu}.}

263: \citep[see also][]{Nordstrom:94, Latham:02}. These calculated spectra

264: cover a wide range of effective temperatures ($T_{\rm eff}$),

265: rotational velocities ($v \sin i$ when seen in projection), surface

266: gravities ($\log g$), and metallicities. Experience has shown that

267: radial velocities are largely insensitive to the surface gravity and

268: metallicity adopted for the templates, as long as the temperature is

269: chosen properly.  Consequently, the optimum template for each star was

270: determined from extensive grids of cross-correlations varying the

271: temperature and the rotational velocity, seeking to maximize the

272: average correlation weighted by the strength of each exposure. Solar

273: metallicity was assumed. The results, interpolated to surface

274: gravities of $\log g = 4.25$ for both stars (see

275: \S\,\ref{sec:LCanalysis}), are $T_{\rm eff} = 5800$~K and $v \sin i =

276: 73$~\kms\ for the primary star, and $T_{\rm eff} = 5650$~K and $v \sin

277: i = 67$~\kms\ for the secondary. Estimated uncertainties are 200~K and

278: 10~\kms\ for the temperatures and projected rotational velocities,

279: respectively. Template parameters near these values were selected for

280: deriving the radial velocities. Typical uncertainties for the

281: velocities are 5.6~\kms\ for the primary and 5.9~\kms\ for the

282: secondary, which are considerably worse than usual with this

283: instrument because of the significant rotational broadening of both

284: stars.

285: 

286: The stability of the zero-point of our velocity system was monitored

287: by means of exposures of the dusk and dawn sky, and small run-to-run

288: corrections were applied in the manner described by \cite{Latham:92}.

289: Additional corrections for systematics were applied to the velocities

290: as described by \cite{Latham:96} and \cite{Torres:97} to account for

291: residual blending effects and the limited wavelength coverage of our

292: spectra. These corrections are based on simulations with artificial

293: composite spectra processed with TODCOR in the same way as the real

294: spectra. The final heliocentric velocities are listed in

295: Table~\ref{tab:RVcfa}.

296: 

297: The light ratio between the components was estimated directly from the

298: spectra following \cite{Zucker:94}. After corrections for systematics

299: analogous to those described above, we obtain $\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm

300: A} = 0.71 \pm 0.04$ at the mean wavelength of our observations

301: (5188.5~\AA), where we refer to star A as the more massive one (the

302: primary) and to the other as star B. This value is in reasonable

303: agreement with estimates by \cite{Popper:00} based on the relative

304: strength of the \ion{Na}{1} D lines in CV~Boo. Given that the stars

305: have slightly different temperatures (see below), a small correction

306: to the visual band was determined from synthetic spectra integrated

307: over the $V$ passband and the spectral window of our observations. The

308: corrected value is ($\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm A})_V = 0.73 \pm 0.04$.

309: 

310: Radial velocities for CV~Boo have been reported previously also by

311: \cite{Popper:00}, who observed the star as part of his program

312: focusing on binary systems of spectral type F to K. His 45

313: measurements from 1988 February to 1997 June with the Hamilton

314: spectrometer at the Lick Observatory partially overlap in time with

315: ours, and are of excellent quality. However, they require a number of

316: adjustments before they can be combined with ours. One of these

317: adjustments has to do with corrections he applied to his raw

318: velocities. The raw velocities (which he referred to as ``Observed'')

319: were reported for CV~Boo alongside ``Orbital'' velocities which differ

320: from the raw ones by the application of two corrections. The first is

321: analogous to the corrections for systematic effects we applied to our

322: own velocities, and was derived in a similar manner using synthetic

323: binary spectra \citep[for details see][]{Popper:94}. The second

324: correction accounts for distortions and mutual irradiation in the

325: close orbit, and was computed by \cite{Popper:00} using the formalism

326: developed by \cite{Wilson:90} as implemented in the Wilson-Devinney

327: (WD) program that we also use below, and added to the

328: velocities. Given our plan to use the WD program to combine the light

329: curves with the velocity measurements in a simultaneous solution, the

330: latter corrections in the data by \cite{Popper:00} need to be removed

331: prior to use or they would be applied twice. We estimated these

332: corrections from a preliminary solution with WD (presumably emulating

333: Popper's procedure), and applied them with the opposite sign to the

334: ``Orbital'' velocities. These corrections are no larger than 1~\kms,

335: which is smaller than the formal uncertainties in the velocities

336: (2.7~\kms\ for the primary and 2.1~\kms\ for the secondary, from the

337: residuals of preliminary fits).

338: 

339: A second adjustment we found necessary to apply to Popper's

340: measurements is to correct for an offset of 1.60~\kms\ between his

341: primary and secondary velocities, as indicated by preliminary

342: sine-curve fits \citep[see Table~6 by][where the offset he finds is

343: similar]{Popper:00}. Effectively the two stars yield different

344: center-of-mass velocities. We found no such offset in our own

345: measurements, but experience indicates it can sometimes appear when

346: there is a significant mismatch between the adopted templates and the

347: real stars, and if not corrected it can bias the semi-amplitudes when

348: enforcing a common center of mass in the fit. We have thus added

349: $-1.60$~\kms\ to Popper's secondary velocities. Finally, a third

350: adjustment is to bring Popper's overall velocity zero point into

351: agreement with ours. From trial orbital fits we found this required a

352: shift of +0.37~\kms\ to his velocities.\footnote{While in principle

353: the latter two adjustments (offsets) could be accounted for in our

354: combined photometric and radial velocity solution described below by

355: simply adding free parameters to the fit, limitations in the current

356: version of the WD code do not allow this, so we have applied the

357: offsets externally.}  Popper's corrected velocities are listed in

358: Table~\ref{tab:RVpopper}.  Separate fits to his data and ours give

359: similar values for the semi-amplitudes, and yield masses that differ

360: by less than twice their combined uncertainties. We therefore proceed

361: to merge the two data sets below.

362: 

363: A third set of radial velocities for CV~Boo was reported by

364: \cite{Nelson:04b}, but they were obtained at lower resolution, they

365: are few in number (12), and show a much larger scatter than the two

366: other data sets ($\sim$15~\kms) so they are of little use for our

367: purposes.

368: 

369: \section{Modeling of the photometric observations} 

370: \label{sec:LCanalysis}

371: 

372: The overall shape of CV~Boo's light curves (Figure~\ref{lcnospot})

373: shows rather moderate proximity effects despite the system's

374: relatively short period of slightly more than 20 hours, with the

375: curvature between the minima being mostly due to the deformation of

376: the components and, to a smaller degree, to the mutual illumination. A

377: number of small-scale features are obvious to the eye that are

378: possibly due to spots, other intrinsic variability, or even

379: instrumental effects, especially in the smaller data sets of

380: \cite{Nelson:04b}.  Other features described below are revealed

381: through a more detailed examination, and introduce some complications

382: into the analysis.

383: 

384: \subsection{Initial solutions without spots} 

385: \label{sec:nospot}

386: 

387: To begin with, we chose to model all the observations together in

388: order to obtain a baseline solution against which to compare more

389: complex solutions that attempt to account for the features mentioned

390: above. We used a version of the Wilson-Devinney (WD) modeling program

391: \citep{wd1971, wilson1979, wilson1993} with extensive modifications as

392: described in \cite{uoph} and references given therein.  The

393: modifications pertinent to CV~Boo include the capability to use model

394: atmospheres (now also available in the distributed versions of WD),

395: consistency checks between various parameters, and the ability to use

396: the downhill simplex algorithm \citep{Nelder:65} instead of

397: differential corrections.  We combined our own $V$-band light curve

398: with the sparser $V$ and $I$ light curves of \cite{Nelson:04b} in

399: order to improve the constraint on the effective temperature ratio,

400: and with our radial velocities from \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy} as well

401: as those of \cite{Popper:00}.  Thus we solved simultaneously 3 light

402: curves and 4 radial-velocity curves.  The parameters adjusted were the

403: orbital inclination $i$, the secondary $T_{\rm eff}$ (flux-weighted

404: mean surface temperature), the bandpass-specific primary luminosity

405: \citep[see][]{wilson1993}, both stellar surface gravitational

406: pseudo-potentials $\Omega$ (related to the stellar radii), the

407: center-of-mass radial velocity $\gamma$, the mass ratio $q \equiv

408: M_{\rm B}/M_{\rm A}$, and an arbitrary phase shift.  The similar

409: depths of the two minima in both $V$ and $I$ (Figure~\ref{lcnospot})

410: imply that the components must have rather similar temperatures,

411: consistent with indications from spectroscopy.  The primary

412: temperature was held fixed at a value determined from our results

413: based on photometry and spectroscopy, as follows. A photometric

414: estimate of the primary temperature was derived from the mean system

415: temperature (\S\,\ref{sec:photometry}) using approximate values for

416: the radius ratio and temperature ratio from preliminary light-curve

417: solutions. The result, $5755 \pm 60$~K, was then combined with the

418: spectroscopic value of the primary temperature

419: (\S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}), giving a weighted average for Star~A of

420: $5760 \pm 150$~K, which we adopt.

421: 

422: The reflection albedos for both components were held fixed at the

423: value 0.5, appropriate for stars with convective envelopes, and the

424: gravity-brightening exponents $\beta$ were computed internally in WD

425: using the local value of $T_{\rm eff}$ for each point on the stellar

426: surface taking into account mutual illumination, following

427: \cite{alencarvaz1997} and \cite{alencaretal1999}. The flux from each

428: of the components is represented by NextGen atmosphere models based on

429: the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere code \citep{allardhauschildt1995,

430: allardetal1997, hauschildtetal1997a, hauschildtetal1997b}. The

431: luminosity of the secondary is calculated by the program from its size

432: and $T_{\rm eff}$.  The limb-darkening coefficients for both

433: components, $x_{\rm A}$ and $x_{\rm B}$, were taken from the tables by

434: \cite{claret2000}, and interpolated using a bi-linear scheme for the

435: current values of $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ at each iteration.  We

436: have only considered the linear law here in view of the distortions in

437: the light curve, which will tend to overwhelm the rather subtle effect

438: of limb-darkening. Although we have no evidence of another star in the

439: system, the possibility of third light ($\ell_3$) was explored

440: carefully for its potential influence on the geometric parameters,

441: particularly in the solutions described below in

442: \S\,\ref{sec:LCspots}, which include spots.  Achieving convergence

443: when solving for third light was found to be very difficult due to the

444: intrinsic variability and the large number of free parameters, even

445: when considering multiple parameter subsets \citep{Wilson:76}. We

446: found that the solution was not improved, and $\ell_3$ was not

447: considered further. We estimate a conservative upper limit to $\ell_3$

448: of $\sim$1\%, which does not produce significant changes in the

449: geometric parameters. A circular orbit has been assumed in the

450: following, based on our investigation of the eclipse timings in

451: \S\,\ref{sec:ephemeris}, and the lack of any indication in the light

452: curves of a displacement of the secondary minimum from phase 0.5. This

453: is consistent with expectations from tidal theory for an orbit with

454: such a short period (see \S\,\ref{sec:tidal}). We have also assumed

455: here tidal forces have synchronized the components' rotation with the

456: orbital motion of CV~Boo.  In these initial calculations we applied

457: both least-squares differential corrections and/or the simplex method

458: between successive iterations.  The limb-darkening coefficients,

459: normalization magnitudes, surface gravities, and individual velocity

460: amplitudes were all updated between consecutive runs to correspond to

461: the solution from the previous iteration.

462: 

463: \begin{figure}

464: \epsscale{1.0}

465: \plotone{f3.eps}

466: \vskip -0.1in

467: \caption{Primary ($\times$) and secondary ($+$) radial velocity

468: measurements collected at CfA (Table~\ref{tab:RVcfa}) along with the

469: theoretical curves obtained with WD and no spots (top panel).

470: Velocities are shifted so that the center-of-mass velocity $\gamma$ is

471: at zero (dashed line). The large deviation from Keplerian motion in

472: the predicted velocity around both conjunctions is due to the

473: Rossiter-McLaughlin effect \citep[see][]{schlesinger1, schlesinger2,

474: rossiter, McLaughlin:24}, caused by partial eclipses of the rotating

475: stellar surfaces (an effect built into the WD model). The $O\!-\!C$

476: residuals are shown at the bottom. The standard deviation of the

477: unweighted residuals is $\sigma_{\rm rv}=6.09$~\kms\ for both

478: components and is shown in the upper left corner. The reduced $\chi^2$

479: values were 1.000 and 0.998, respectively.

480: \label{rvcfa}}

481: \end{figure}

482: 

483: The solutions are shown in Figures~\ref{lcnospot}, \ref{rvcfa} and

484: \ref{rvpopper}, with the corresponding residuals.  The residuals from

485: the radial velocity fits match the quality of the observations.  The

486: photometry is reasonably well represented on average by the

487: theoretical curves, but the residuals for our $V$-band observations

488: show an \emph{rms} scatter of 0.0196~mag that is much larger than the

489: mean internal error ($\sim$0.013~mag). This immediately suggests there

490: may be unmodeled effects.  The intrinsic errors of Nelson's

491: observations were not reported in the original publication.

492: 

493: \begin{figure}

494: \epsscale{1.0}

495: \plotone{f4.eps}

496: \vskip -0.1in

497: \caption{Primary ($\times$) and secondary ($+$) radial velocity data

498: from \cite{Popper:00}, with the same limits on the vertical axes as

499: in Figure~\ref{rvcfa}.  The standard deviations of the unweighted

500: residuals are $\sigma_{\rm rv,A}= 3.14$~\kms\ and $\sigma_{\rm

501: rv,B}=2.14$~\kms\ for the primary and secondary velocities,

502: respectively (shown in the upper left corner of the lower panels). The

503: reduced $\chi^2$ values were 1.005 and 1.002.

504: \label{rvpopper}}

505: \end{figure}

506: 

507: \subsubsection{Study of the light-curve residuals} 

508: \label{sec:LCresid}

509: 

510: Part of the extra scatter is no doubt due to features in the light

511: curve alluded to earlier that are seen in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}, such

512: as changes in the light level from night to night at the same orbital

513: phase (e.g., near phase 0.1), or other short-term deviations (e.g.,

514: near phase 0.8), both in our data and in Nelson's.  We investigated

515: the residuals of our more numerous $V$-band photometry further to

516: search for periodic signals that might additionally contribute to the

517: excess scatter. Our initial exploration of possible signals near the

518: orbital period using the \cite{lafler} method revealed several similar

519: periodicities that appear significant. We then extended the search to

520: a much wider range of frequencies by computing the Lomb-Scargle

521: periodogram, and found other signals. This is shown in the top panel

522: of Figure~\ref{fig:clean_ps}. We refer to this as the ``dirty'' power

523: spectrum, since it is affected by the particular time sampling of the

524: observations (window function). The highest peak corresponds to a

525: period of $\sim$0.837~days, which is shorter than the orbital period

526: of 0.846993420~days. The two next highest peaks (indicated with

527: arrows) turn out to be 1-day aliases. To illustrate this, we have

528: applied the CLEAN algorithm as implemented by \cite{Roberts:87} to

529: remove the effects of the window function. The second panel of

530: Figure~\ref{fig:clean_ps} shows that only the 0.837-day peak survives

531: this process, suggesting it is a real signal. In the third panel an

532: enlargement of the dirty power spectrum in the vicinity of the main

533: peak reveals fine structure that was also seen with the \cite{lafler}

534: method. However, none of these peaks agree with the frequency

535: corresponding to the orbital period, which is represented for

536: reference with a dotted line. The two main sidelobes indicated with

537: arrows are 1-year aliases of the main peak. Once again they disappear

538: after application of CLEAN, as seen in the bottom panel, supporting

539: the reality of the remaining signal. The statistical significance of

540: this signal was estimated by numerical simulation. We generated

541: $100,\!000$ artificial data sets using the actual times of observation

542: and the variance of the original residuals assuming a Gaussian

543: distribution of errors, and computed the Lomb-Scargle power spectrum

544: for these data sets over the same frequency interval considered above.

545: We then selecting the highest peak in each case. None of them came

546: close to the height of the peak we see in the real data, indicating a

547: false alarm probability smaller than $10^{-5}$.

548: 

549: \begin{figure}

550: \vskip 0.1in

551: \epsscale{1.2}

552: \plotone{f5.eps}

553: \vskip 0.6in

554: 

555: \caption{(a) Lomb-Scargle power spectrum of the residuals of our

556: $V$-band Kimpel Observatory observations of CV~Boo from the no-spot

557: solution described in the text. The arrows indicate 1-day aliases of

558: the central peak; (b) CLEANed power spectrum of the same measurements

559: using the algorithm of \cite{Roberts:87} to remove the effects of the

560: time sampling; (c) Enlargement of panel (a), with the 1-year aliases

561: of the main peak indicated with arrows. The dotted line represents the

562: orbital frequency; (d) Enlargement of panel (b). The period

563: corresponding to the signal is $0.83748 \pm 0.00052$ days.

564: \label{fig:clean_ps}}

565: \end{figure}

566: 

567: The precise frequency of this signal was measured in the CLEANed

568: spectrum, and its uncertainty was estimated from the half width at

569: half maximum of the peak. The corresponding period is $0.83748 \pm

570: 0.00052$ days, which is different from the orbital period at the

571: 18$\sigma$ level. A plot of the photometric residuals folded with this

572: period is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:residplot}, and indicates a

573: peak-to-peak amplitude of about 0.04--0.05~mag.

574: 

575: \begin{figure}

576: \vskip -0.2in

577: \epsscale{1.25}

578: {\hskip -0.15in\plotone{f6.eps}}

579: \vskip -0.15in

580: 

581: \caption{Residuals of our $V$-band Kimpel Observatory observations of

582: CV~Boo shown as a function of phase, using the period of 0.83748 days

583: inferred from the power spectrum analysis (see

584: Figure~\ref{fig:clean_ps}). The time origin has been set arbitrarily

585: to HJD $2,\!450,\!000$.

586: \label{fig:residplot}}

587: \end{figure}

588: 

589: The Kimpel Observatory data cover two observing seasons. Separate

590: Lomb-Scargle power spectra show that the same signal is present in

591: both seasons, along with the 1-day aliases, indicating the phenomenon

592: is persistent from one year to the next. It is not seen as clearly,

593: however, in the residuals from our baseline fit of the observations of

594: \cite{Nelson:04b}, which are much sparser than ours (and span only 71

595: days instead of 549 days). His $V$-band data show a hint of the main

596: peak and its 1-day aliases, but not the $I$-band data, which have a

597: larger scatter.

598: 

599: We carried out a similar power spectrum analysis of the

600: $\langle$comp$-$ck$\rangle$ differential magnitudes from Kimpel

601: Observatory, to explore the possibility that either the comparison or

602: the check star might be the source of this variation. No significant

603: periodicity was seen. Thus, the phenomenon is intrinsic to CV~Boo.

604: Possible explanations for this variation include stellar pulsation,

605: and star spots on one or both components. Neither of the stars appear

606: to be in an evolutionary state that favors pulsational instability.

607: For example, the absolute dimensions derived below place both

608: components well outside the Cepheid or $\delta$~Sct instability strips

609: in the H-R diagram indicated by \cite{kjaergaard83}. On the other

610: hand, CV~Boo is a known strong X-ray source detected by ROSAT

611: \citep{voges2000}, with an X-ray luminosity of $\log L_{\rm X} =

612: 30.65$\footnote{$L_{\rm X}$ is in units of erg~s$^{-1}$, and was

613: determined from the ROSAT count rates and hardness ratios, the

614: distance estimate in \S\,\ref{sec:dimensions}, and the energy

615: conversion factor of \cite{Fleming:95}.} that is some 4000 times

616: stronger than the Sun. In terms of its bolometric luminosity CV~Boo

617: has $\log L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol} = -3.39$, which is near the high end

618: for active binaries. Thus it seems likely that the underlying reason

619: for the 0.837-day periodicity is related to spots on the surface of

620: one or both components, and we proceed under this assumption. It is

621: interesting to note that these features on CV~Boo seem to have lasted

622: for an unusually long time (1.5 years in our case), at least compared

623: to sunspots, although even more extreme examples have been documented

624: in the literature. One is the well-known active binary HR~1099

625: \citep{Vogt:99}, with surface features persisting for at least 11

626: years.

627: 

628: An important implication of this spot hypothesis is that the component

629: having spots would appear to be rotating slightly \emph{more rapidly}

630: than synchronously with the motion in the circular orbit, which is

631: unexpected for such a short-period binary. We discuss this in more

632: detail below.

633: 

634: \subsection{Solutions with spots} 

635: \label{sec:LCspots}

636: 

637: An accurate measurement of the $v \sin i$ values for both components

638: would allow for a direct test of our hypothesis of non-synchronous

639: rotation, and could even distinguish which of the stars is the culprit

640: (or if both are). Unfortunately, however, the quality of our

641: spectroscopic material is insufficient for that purpose. In principle,

642: modern light-curve models such as WD enable the user to solve for

643: various parameters that describe the spots. However, with only

644: photometric data at our disposal for CV~Boo, and most of it in a

645: single passband, it is essentially impossible to tell which star has

646: the spots, or whether both components have them. This is a well-known

647: difficulty in light-curve modeling. Other inversion techniques such as

648: Doppler imaging are much better suited to mapping surface

649: inhomogeneities, although even they are not without their limitations.

650: Moreover, even if we knew which star has the spots, the determination

651: of their parameters from light curves alone is a notoriously ill-posed

652: problem, on which there is abundant literature discussing issues of

653: indeterminacy and non-uniqueness in the presence of limited data

654: quality \citep[see, e.g.,][and numerous references therein]{Eker:96,

655: Eker:99}. Having photometry in multiple passbands may aleviate the

656: problem somewhat, but it doesn't solve it and strong degeneracies are

657: likely to remain with other subtle effects in the light-curves.

658: Therefore, while we cannot hope to obtain an accurate picture of the

659: distribution of any surface features here, the consequences of spots

660: on the light curve are fairly clear in CV~Boo (to the extent that our

661: hypothesis is true), and we make an effort in the following to at

662: least remove some of those distortions and study their influence on

663: the geometric parameters of the system, which are of more immediate

664: interest.

665: 

666: In order to permit the numerical treatment of surface features in this

667: case, we introduced modifications in the WD code to allow for a

668: precise tracking of the spot position at a period different than the

669: orbital one. In this scheme, we specify the spot properties at a

670: certain Julian date and, through the specified intrinsic rotation

671: rate, the code keeps track of the spot motion, with its longitude

672: following the component's rotation, and its co-latitude, size, and

673: effective temperature remaining otherwise constant. In view of the

674: ambiguities mentioned above regarding the location of spots in CV~Boo,

675: and our inability to tell if there might even be multiple spots on one

676: or both stars, we have taken our light-curve fit from

677: \S\,\ref{sec:nospot} as our starting point and investigated the

678: following three simple cases separately: (a) a single spot on the

679: primary; (b) a single spot on the secondary; and (c) one spot on each

680: component. More complex configurations become increasingly difficult

681: to study due to convergence problems in the solutions, and it is not

682: clear they are justified with the data available.

683: 

684: The influence of spots on the radial velocity curves is very small

685: compared to our errors, so that those data are not of very helpful for

686: studying surface features.  We use only our more extensive $V$-band

687: photometry in the study of these three cases, although the solutions

688: were checked using Nelson's $V$ and $I$ light curves. As the

689: photometric coverage does not necessarily overlap with the radial

690: velocity coverage, we have adopted for the spotted cases the mass

691: ratio $q$ obtained from a no-spot fit similar to that in

692: \S\,\ref{sec:nospot} that assumes asynchronous rotation (see below),

693: and held it fixed.  For lack of other physical constraints, and given

694: that the stars are quite similar in all their properties, we assumed

695: that \emph{both} components rotate slightly super-synchronously, at a

696: rate given by the ratio between the orbital period and the residual

697: period found in the previous section, equal to 1.0114.

698: 

699: Cases (a) and (b) converged quite rapidly to similar configurations,

700: in which the co-latitude, size, and the effective temperatures of the

701: spots are comparable, while their longitudes are such that the spots

702: present always the same position relative to the center of the spotted

703: component and the observer. This can be seen in

704: Table~\ref{tab:spotparams}, where the longitudes of the spots in cases

705: (a) and (b) are separated by nearly 180$\degr$. Another similarity is

706: that both spots cover the components' polar regions. Although

707: attempted, no solution could be obtained for ``hot'' spots (i.e., with

708: temperature factors larger than unity; see below).

709: 

710: Solution (c) with one spot on each component did not converge as

711: easily. When the parameters of both spots were left free to be

712: adjusted, one of the spots (usually the one on the primary) tended to

713: become very small and cold, with the temperature factor $T_{\rm

714: factor}$ (ratio between the spot temperature and the photospheric

715: temperature) becoming smaller than allowed by the NextGen atmosphere

716: tables we used. The solution we present was achieved by first

717: adjusting some of the spot parameters while holding others fixed, and

718: then alternating and iterating until convergence.

719: 

720: The maximum amplitude of the influence of the spots on the light curve

721: is $\sim$0.08\,mag, and occurs for the one-spot solutions, as shown in

722: Figure~\ref{spmnosp}. This figure corresponds to the first orbital

723: cycle of our observations and, since the spots follow the components'

724: non-synchronous rotation, the dips change place at each orbiting

725: cycle. The two-spot solution of case (c) gives a slightly smaller

726: peak-to-peak amplitude ($\sim$0.06~mag) that seems marginally larger

727: than indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:residplot}, suggesting that perhaps

728: a more complex spot configuration may be needed.

729: 

730: \begin{figure}

731: \vskip 0.1in

732: \epsscale{1.0}

733: \plotone{f7.eps}

734: \caption{Difference between the light curves with spots and those

735: without spots (shown in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}), for the first

736: cycle of our observations. The thin horizontal line shows the

737: normalization level of the theoretical light curves (phase 0.25, first

738: orbiting cycle).

739: \label{spmnosp}}

740: \end{figure}

741: 

742: We report in Table~\ref{tab:LCparams} the model parameters we obtain

743: for the solution with no spots and for cases (a), (b), and (c),

744: together with the radii of the components in terms of the orbital

745: separation. For the reasons described above, the solution without

746: spots was performed by solving simultaneously three light curves and 4

747: radial velocity curves, whereas the spotted fits are based only on our

748: $V$-band light curve. The main difference in the parameter values is

749: seen in the inclination angle, which is approximately one degree

750: higher for the solution without spots. Other parameters such as the

751: secondary effective temperature and the sizes of the components tend

752: to differ less between the spotted and unspotted solutions. 

753: 

754: Figure~\ref{stars} gives a representation of the spot configuration

755: resulting from case (c) with the components' size and separation

756: rendered to scale, and seen from the observer's viewpoint at six

757: different orbital phases.  The stars are well detached from the

758: corresponding Roche lobes, with fill-out factors \citep{Mochnacki:84}

759: that are 0.7693 and 0.7501 for the primary and secondary,

760: respectively. We noted above that our fits yield polar spots, as has

761: often been found (also from Doppler imaging techniques) for other

762: active binaries such as the RS~CVn systems.  There is considerable

763: theoretical support for this preference for high-latitude surface

764: features in rapidly-rotating active systems \citep[see,

765: e.g.,][]{Schussler:92, Granzer:00, Isik:07}. A curious result from our

766: fits is that the spots happen to be positioned so as to avoid

767: eclipses, although the reality of this configuration is difficult to

768: assess. It is nevertheless an indication that the phenomenon

769: responsible for the periodic behavior of the residuals in the

770: unspotted solution does not lead to strong discontinuities, such as

771: those resulting from the eclipses.

772: 

773: \begin{figure}

774: \vskip 0.1in

775: \epsscale{1.0}

776: \vskip -0.1in

777: \plotone{f8.eps}

778: \caption{Representation of the components of CV~Boo at different

779: orbital phases as indicated on the left, shown to scale with their

780: high-latitude spots as modeled here. These spots resulting from our

781: solution (c) are positioned in such a way that they practically avoid

782: being eclipsed. This is an indication of a rather sinusoidal behavior

783: of the disturbing phenomenon causing periodic variations in the

784: residuals of the unspotted solution (see text).

785: \label{stars}}

786: \end{figure}

787: 

788: Although the \emph{rms} residual is marginally smaller for the

789: solution obtained in case (c), as indicated in

790: Table~\ref{tab:LCparams}, this fit as well as the other two spotted

791: solutions are visually indistinguishable from the solution without

792: spots shown in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}.  The residuals for case (c) are

793: displayed in Figure~\ref{lc2spots} for our $V$-band light curve as

794: well as for the $V$ and $I$ light curves of \cite{Nelson:04b}.  The

795: patterns clearly visible in these $O\!-\!C$ diagrams are not very

796: different from those in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}, which may give the

797: impression that not much progress has been made.\footnote{Note,

798: however, that those patterns are most obvious in Nelson's data, which

799: do not actually enter into the final solution adopted in

800: \S\,\ref{sec:dimensions}.} They certainly indicate that there are

801: still features of the brightness variation that are not completely or

802: correctly modeled, possibly due to a more complex spot configuration

803: than we have assumed, or even some combination of spots and

804: multi-modal pulsations. Problems of an instrumental nature in the

805: photometry cannot entirely be ruled out either. However, what is not

806: immediately obvious to the eye is that no significant periodicities

807: that we can detect remain in these residuals. This is illustrated in

808: Figure~\ref{lk}, in which the top curve shows our Lafler-Kinman period

809: study of the Kimpel Observatory $V$-band residuals from the no-spot

810: solution, and the lower curve shows the same study for the residuals

811: from case (c). Note the common vertical axis for both sets of

812: residuals, indicating the improvement in the overall variance.

813: 

814: \begin{figure} 

815: \epsscale{1.15} 

816: \plotone{f9.eps}

817: \caption{$O\!-\!C$ residuals from the solution with one spot on each

818: component, based on the fit to our $V$-band light curve.  The model

819: used to compute the residuals for the $V$ and $I$ light curves of

820: \cite{Nelson:04b} in the top panels is based on the same light-curve

821: parameters as our $V$-band fit, except for the magnitude at quadrature

822: and the wavelength of the observations.  The standard deviation of a

823: single observation for each residual curve is shown in the upper left

824: corner of each panel.\label{lc2spots}}

825: \end{figure}

826: 

827: \begin{figure}

828: \epsscale{1.2}

829: {\hskip -0.15in\plotone{f10.eps}}

830: \caption{The variance versus trial period in days

831: \citep[following][]{lafler} for the Kimpel Observatory $V$-band

832: residuals of the no-spot solution (top curve, corresponding to the fit

833: shown in Figure~\ref{lcnospot}), and for the solution with two spots

834: (bottom curve; see text). The dotted line marks the most significant

835: period found for the $O\!-\!C$ of the solution with no spots, while

836: the dashed line indicates the orbital period.

837: \label{lk}}

838: \end{figure}

839: 

840: \section{Absolute dimensions and physical properties} 

841: \label{sec:dimensions}

842: 

843: Examination of Table~\ref{tab:LCparams} shows that key geometric

844: parameters such as the relative radii ($r_{\rm A,vol}$, $r_{\rm

845: B,vol}$) vary by as much as 3--4\% between the three spotted

846: solutions, with solution (c) generally giving intermediate results. As

847: indicated earlier, this is the fit that provides formally the smallest

848: \emph{rms} residual, although the difference compared to the other two

849: spotted solutions is marginal.  In all four solutions the mean light

850: ratio outside of eclipse accounting for spots, $(\ell_{\rm

851: B}/\ell_{\rm A})_V$, is quite similar to the spectroscopically

852: determined value of $0.73 \pm 0.04$ (\S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}). From

853: the effective temperatures of CV~Boo A and B the convective turnover

854: time for both stars is estimated to be $\sim$25 days, following

855: \cite{Hall:94}. The Rossby number (ratio between the rotation period

856: and the convective turnover time) is then $R_0 \approx 0.033$, which

857: places \emph{both} components in the regime where stars usually

858: display significant light variations due to spots

859: \cite[see][Figure~6]{Hall:94}. On the basis of the above we adopt fit

860: (c) with one spot on each component as the best compromise for CV~Boo,

861: but we reiterate that this model is still probably only a crude

862: approximation to the true spot configuration in the system, assuming

863: that spots are the underlying reason for the periodic signal found in

864: the light-curve residuals.  For calculating the absolute dimensions of

865: the two stars we have chosen to use more conservative uncertainties

866: than the formal errors listed in Table~\ref{tab:LCparams}, to account

867: for the spread among the three spotted solutions given the

868: uncertainties in the modeling: we have combined the internal errors

869: quadratically with half of the maximum range in each parameter. The

870: values adopted are $i = 86\fdg24 \pm 0\fdg33$, $a = 4.748 \pm

871: 0.019$~R$_{\sun}$, $q = 0.9378 \pm 0.0070$, $r_{\rm A,vol} = 0.2658

872: \pm 0.0047$, and $r_{\rm B,vol} = 0.2470 \pm 0.0048$, and are based

873: only on the Kimpel Observatory measurements.  The final results are

874: presented in Table~\ref{tab:dimensions}, where the uncertainties were

875: obtained by propagating all observational errors in the usual way.

876: 

877: The stars in CV~Boo depart somewhat from the spherical shape due to

878: tidal and rotational distortions. The relative difference between the

879: polar radius and the radius toward the inner Lagrangian point is 5.5\%

880: for the primary and 4.8\% for the secondary. The system is

881: nevertheless well detached: the sizes of the stars represent fractions

882: of 70\% and 66\% of their respective mean Roche lobe sizes. The

883: temperature for the secondary from the light-curve solution is in

884: excellent agreement with the spectroscopic value

885: (\S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}).

886: 

887: Included in Table~\ref{tab:dimensions} are the predicted projected

888: rotational velocities ($v_{\rm async} \sin i$) computed with the

889: adopted rotation period for the stars ($P_{\rm rot} = 0.83748$~days $=

890: P_{\rm orb}/1.0114$; see \S\,\ref{sec:LCresid}), as well as the

891: synchronous values ($v_{\rm sync} \sin i$), for reference. These may

892: be compared with the measured $v \sin i$ values from spectroscopy

893: (\S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}). The stellar radii used for these

894: calculations are those presented to the observer at quadrature (which

895: are 2.7\% and 2.4\% larger than the volume radii; see

896: Table~\ref{tab:LCparams}), since that is the phase at which the

897: spectroscopic observations are concentrated.  As a proxy for the

898: radius at quadrature we use the average of $r_{\rm point}$ and $r_{\rm

899: back}$.

900: 

901: Finally, for computing the absolute visual magnitude $M_V$ and

902: distance we have relied on the apparent $V$ magnitude listed in the

903: Tycho Catalog, and ignored extinction. CV~Boo was not observed by

904: the {\it Hipparcos\/} mission \citep{Perryman:97}, so no direct

905: parallax measurement is available.

906: 

907: \section{Comparison with stellar evolution theory}

908: \label{sec:evolution}

909: 

910: In this section we compare the absolute dimensions of CV~Boo with

911: current stellar evolution models from the Yonsei-Yale series by

912: \cite{Yi:01}, incorporating an updated prescription for convective

913: core overshooting as described by \cite{Demarque:04}. These models

914: adopt a mixing length parameter of $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.7432$,

915: calibrated against the Sun.  In Figure~\ref{fig:yale} we show

916: evolutionary tracks computed for the exact masses we derive for each

917: star (see Table~\ref{tab:dimensions}), for a heavy-element abundance

918: equal to that of the Sun (which is $Z_{\sun} = 0.01812$ in these

919: models; dotted lines). The uncertainty in the location of the tracks

920: that comes from our mass errors is indicated with the error bar in the

921: lower left. The tracks show excellent agreement with the observations,

922: suggesting the composition is near solar. The measured temperature

923: difference between the components is quite close to what the models

924: predict. A marginally better match is achieved with a slightly higher

925: abundance of $Z = 0.01955$ (corresponding to [Fe/H] $= +0.04$,

926: assuming no enhancement of the $\alpha$ elements), shown as solid

927: lines in the figure. The models indicate the primary is beginning its

928: shell hydrogen-burning phase, and the secondary is near the end of its

929: main-sequence phase.  The age that best fits both components in this

930: $\log g$--$T_{\rm eff}$ diagram is $9.0 \pm 1.8$ Gyr, and the

931: corresponding isochrone is shown as a dashed line.

932: 

933: \begin{figure}

934: \epsscale{1.35}

935: \vskip -0.4in

936: {\hskip -0.35in\plotone{f11.eps}}

937: \vskip -0.3in

938: \caption{Absolute dimensions for CV~Boo compared with evolutionary

939: models from the series by \cite{Yi:01}. The error bars for $\log g$

940: are smaller than the size of the symbols. Mass tracks for the exact

941: masses we measure are indicated with solid curves for the best-fitting

942: metallicity of $Z = 0.01955$ (where $Z_{\sun} = 0.01812$ for these

943: models). Solar metallicity tracks are shown for reference (dotted

944: curves). The isochrone producing the best simultaneous match to both

945: components is shown with the short-dash line, and corresponds to an

946: age of 9.0~Gyr.  The long-dash lines represent small sections of the

947: two isochrones corresponding to the maximum and minimum age allowed by

948: the errors ($9.0 \pm 1.8$~Gyr).  The uncertainty in the location of

949: the mass tracks is indicated with the error bar below the tracks for

950: the primary, and is much smaller than the temperature uncertainty.

951: \label{fig:yale}}

952: \end{figure}

953: 

954: We have also considered a second set of models, from the series by

955: \cite{Claret:04}. The physics in these calculations is similar though

956: not exactly the same as the previous ones.  For example, the solar

957: composition in this case is taken to be $Z_{\sun} = 0.020$, and the

958: mixing length parameter that best reproduces the observed properties

959: of the Sun is $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.68$. The comparison with the

960: observations for CV~Boo is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:claret1}.

961: Although the Claret models match the measured properties very well, we

962: find as with the Yonsei-Yale models that a slightly higher metallicity

963: ($Z = 0.0225$, or [Fe/H] = $+0.05$) provides an even better fit.  This

964: is shown by the solid lines in Figure~\ref{fig:claret1}. The age of

965: the system from these calculations is 9.8~Gyr, consistent with the

966: previous estimate.  Experiments changing the mixing length parameter

967: show the sensitivity of the best-fit composition to $\alpha_{\rm

968: ML}$. In Figure~\ref{fig:claret2} we compare the observations with

969: tracks computed for a lower value of $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.50$, which

970: has the effect of yielding lower temperature predictions.

971: Solar-metallicity models are indicated with the dotted lines. In this

972: case we find that the best-fit metallicity ($Z = 0.0185$, or [Fe/H] $=

973: -0.03$) is slightly \emph{lower} than solar (solid lines).

974: 

975: \begin{figure}

976: \vskip 0.1in

977: \epsscale{1.15}

978: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f12.eps}}

979: \vskip -0.1in

980: \caption{Absolute dimensions for CV~Boo compared with evolutionary

981: models from the series by \cite{Claret:04} with a value of the

982: mixing-length parameter of $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.68$.  Mass tracks for

983: the exact masses we measure and for solar composition ($Z = 0.020$, $X

984: = 0.70$, in these models) are indicated with dotted curves. The solid

985: curves giving a somewhat better fit correspond to models with a

986: slightly higher metallicity of $Z = 0.023$. An isochrone for $\log$

987: age = 9.99 is shown for reference (dashed line).  The uncertainty in

988: the location of the mass tracks is indicated with the error bar below

989: the tracks for the primary, and is much smaller than the temperature

990: uncertainty.

991: \label{fig:claret1}}

992: \end{figure}

993: 

994: The preceding comparisons may give the impression that the

995: observations for CV~Boo are very well matched by the predictions from

996: theory, that stellar physics is well understood, and that therefore

997: there is no reason for concern. However, a more careful examination

998: indicates that this is not necessarily true.  Of the three basic

999: parameters typically determined in eclipsing binaries ($M$, $R$,

1000: $T_{\rm eff}$), the temperature is usually the weakest since it often

1001: relies on external calibrations. Figure~\ref{fig:mr} displays the

1002: measurements for CV~Boo in a different diagram, the mass-radius plane,

1003: along with isochrones from the Yonsei-Yale series for the same two

1004: metallicities discussed in Figure~\ref{fig:yale}. No single model

1005: matches both components within the errors, and the secondary appears

1006: nominally older than the primary, the difference in age being

1007: $\sim$25\%. This is the same phenomenon pointed out by

1008: \cite{Popper:97} for several other systems including FL~Lyr, RT~And,

1009: UV~Psc, and $\alpha$~Cen. Another way of interpreting this is that the

1010: secondaries in all these binaries are too large for their masses,

1011: compared to theory or compared to the primaries. For CV~Boo the offset

1012: in the secondary radius is $\sim$10\%, which represents a very

1013: significant 5$\sigma$ deviation.  Similar radius discrepancies have

1014: been described recently by others \citep[e.g.,][]{Clausen:99a,

1015: Torres:02, Ribas:03, Lopez-Morales:05, Torres:07}, although early

1016: indications go as far back as the work of \cite{Hoxie:73} and

1017: \cite{Lacy:77}. The prevailing explanation seems to be that the

1018: enlarged radii of the secondaries, which are typically well under a

1019: solar mass, are caused by strong magnetic fields and/or spots commonly

1020: associated with chromospheric activity in these systems \citep[see,

1021: e.g.,][for the theoretical context]{Mullan:01, Chabrier:07}. The signs

1022: of activity in CV~Boo are fairly obvious (spottedness, X-ray

1023: emission), and are no doubt associated with the rapid rotation of the

1024: components.

1025: 

1026: \begin{figure}

1027: \vskip 0.1in

1028: \epsscale{1.15}

1029: {\hskip -0.1in\plotone{f13.eps}}

1030: \vskip -0.1in

1031: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:claret1}, but for a mixing-length

1032: parameter of $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.50$.  Mass tracks for the measured

1033: masses and for solar composition ($Z = 0.020$, $X = 0.70$) are

1034: indicated with dotted curves.  The somewhat better-fitting solid

1035: curves correspond to a slightly lower metallicity of $Z = 0.0185$ in

1036: this case, showing the influence of the $\alpha_{\rm ML}$ parameter in

1037: the determination of the composition of CV~Boo.

1038: \label{fig:claret2}}

1039: \end{figure}

1040: 

1041: \begin{figure}

1042: \vskip -0.55in

1043: \epsscale{1.35}

1044: {\hskip -0.3in\plotone{f14.eps}}

1045: \vskip -0.3in

1046: \caption{Mass-radius diagram for CV~Boo, showing the measurements

1047: against isochrones from the Yonsei-Yale series for the same two

1048: metallicities displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:yale}. Ages are indicated

1049: along the top.\label{fig:mr}}

1050: \end{figure}

1051: 

1052: \section{Comparison with tidal theory}

1053: \label{sec:tidal}

1054: 

1055: The predictions of tidal theory were compared with the observations by

1056: computing the time of circularization and synchronization for CV~Boo

1057: using the radiative damping formalism of \cite{Zahn:77} and

1058: \cite{Zahn:89}, as well as the hydrodynamical mechanism of

1059: \cite{Tassoul:97}, and references therein. The procedure follows

1060: closely that described by \cite{Claret:95} and \cite{Claret:97}. Both

1061: theories predict that synchronization and circularization are achieved

1062: very quickly in this system by virtue of the short orbital period, at

1063: an age of merely 157~Myr ($\log t = 8.197$, or less than 2\% of the

1064: evolutionary age). The fact that we measure the orbit to be circular

1065: is therefore not surprising. On the other hand, the evidence from our

1066: photometric observations (\S\,\ref{sec:LCresid}) suggesting the

1067: rotation may be slightly super-synchronous for at least one of the

1068: components is more interesting, as it is \emph{not} predicted by

1069: theory. Given the nature of the system, an activity-related

1070: explanation to this discrepancy is certainly possible.  More precise

1071: measurements of the projected rotational velocities $v \sin i$ for the

1072: components would be very helpful.

1073: 

1074: \section{Discussion and conclusions} 

1075: \label{sec:discussion}

1076: 

1077: Despite the system's intrinsic variability, the absolute dimensions

1078: for the components of CV~Boo have now been established quite

1079: precisely. The relative errors are better than 1.3\% in the masses and

1080: 2\% in the radii. The object can now be counted among the group of

1081: eclipsing binaries with well-known parameters. Under different

1082: circumstances the large number and high quality of the photometric

1083: observations we have collected might have permitted a more detailed

1084: study of the limb darkening laws and a comparison with theoretically

1085: predicted coefficients, but this possibility was thwarted here by the

1086: intrinsic variability. This phenomenon is not itself without interest.

1087: If interpreted as due to the presence of spots, as we have done here,

1088: it implies that at least one of the stars is rotating about 1\% more

1089: rapidly than the synchronous rate, a result that was unexpected for a

1090: close but well detached system such as this.  We conclude that our

1091: current understanding of tidal evolution is still incomplete, or that

1092: other processes are at play in this system that theory does not

1093: account for. One interesting possibility is differential rotation. The

1094: interpretation of measurements of the rotation period of a star made

1095: by photometric means, as we have implicitly done here, usually relies

1096: on the assumption of solid-body rotation. More often than not, spots

1097: are located at intermediate latitudes rather than on the equator, or

1098: at high latitudes in more active stars, and differential rotation is

1099: such that the stellar surface revolves more slowly at higher

1100: latitudes, at least in the Sun. This will tend to bias photometric

1101: rotation measurements towards \emph{longer} periods, if differential

1102: rotation is significant enough. In CV~Boo we see the opposite: the

1103: period is \emph{shorter} than the equatorial rate, assuming that

1104: synchronization holds. Thus differential rotation can only explain the

1105: signal we have detected if it is ``anti-solar'', with the polar

1106: regions rotating more rapidly. A handful of stars do indeed show

1107: evidence of weak anti-solar differential rotation \citep[e.g., IL~Hya,

1108: HD~31933, $\sigma$~Gem, UZ~Lib;][]{Weber:03, Strassmeier:03,

1109: Kovari:07, Vida:07}. They all happen to be very active (some of them

1110: with high-latitude spots, as in CV~Boo), although they tend to be

1111: giants or subgiants rather than dwarfs. It is thought that this

1112: phenomenon may result from fast meridional flows \citep[see,

1113: e.g.,][]{Kitchatinov:04}. Further progress in understanding the

1114: rotation of the CV~Boo components could be made with additional

1115: differential photometric observations in several passbands, along with

1116: simultaneous high-resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopy

1117: over a full orbital cycle.

1118: 

1119: Another significant discrepancy we find with theory is in the radius

1120: of the secondary, which appears to be some 10\% too large compared

1121: with predictions from stellar evolution models. This difference is in

1122: the same direction as seen for a number of other low-mass eclipsing

1123: binaries, as mentioned in \S\,\ref{sec:evolution}.  In those cases one

1124: of the explanations most often proposed is that the strong magnetic

1125: fields associated with activity (which is common in rapidly-rotating K

1126: and M dwarfs in close binaries) tend to inhibit convective motions,

1127: and the structure of the star adjusts by increasing its size to allow

1128: the surface to radiate the same amount of energy.  At the same time,

1129: the effective temperature tends to decrease in order to preserve the

1130: total luminosity. Spot coverage can produce similar effects.

1131: Theoretical and observational evidence for the conservation of the

1132: luminosity in these systems has been presented by \cite{Delfosse:00},

1133: \cite{Mullan:01}, \cite{Torres:02}, \cite{Ribas:06}, \cite{Torres:06},

1134: \cite{Chabrier:07}, and others \citep[see also][]{Morales:08}. We do

1135: not see any obvious discrepancy in the temperature of CV~Boo~B

1136: compared to models, although our uncertainties are large enough that

1137: the effect may be masked.

1138: 

1139: If we restrict ourselves to well studied double-lined eclipsing

1140: binaries in which the mass and radius determinations are the most

1141: reliable, deviations from theory such as those described above have

1142: usually been seen in stars that are considerably less massive than the

1143: Sun, which have deep convective envelopes. However, the recent study

1144: by \cite{Torres:06} pointed out that the problem is not confined to

1145: the lower mass stars, but extends to active objects approaching

1146: 1~M$_{\sun}$, such as V1061~Cyg~Ab, with $M = 0.93$~M$_{\sun}$.

1147: CV~Boo~B has an even larger mass of 0.968~M$_{\sun}$, and also appears

1148: to be oversized.  Similarly with the virtually identical active star

1149: FL~Lyr~B ($M = 0.960$~M$_{\sun}$). The convective envelopes of these

1150: objects are considerably thinner than in K and M dwarfs and represent

1151: only a few percent of the total mass, yet they appear sufficient for

1152: magnetic fields to take hold and alter the global properties of the

1153: star, if that is the cause of the discrepancies.  These examples show

1154: once again that our understanding of stellar evolution theory is

1155: incomplete, even for stars near the mass of the Sun.

1156: 

1157: \acknowledgments

1158: 

1159: The spectroscopic observations of CV~Boo used in this paper were

1160: obtained with the generous help of P.\ Berlind, M.\ Calkins, R.\ J.\

1161: Davis, E.\ Horine, D.\ W.\ Latham, J.\ Peters, and R.\ P.\

1162: Stefanik. R.\ J.\ Davis is also thanked for maintaining the CfA

1163: echelle database. We are grateful as well to J.\ M.\ Kreiner for

1164: providing unpublished times of eclipse for CV~Boo, to A.\ Claret, for

1165: calculating specific models for the stars studied here, and to the

1166: referee for helpful comments. GT acknowledges partial support for this

1167: work from NSF grant AST-0708229.  LPRV gratefully acknowledges partial

1168: support from the Brazilian agencies CNPq, FAPEMIG and CAPES.  Summer

1169: 2004 Arkansas REU student S.\ L.\ Walters is thanked by CHSL for her

1170: preliminary analysis of the absolute properties of this binary star

1171: \citep{walterlacy04}.  This research has made use of the SIMBAD

1172: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, of NASA's Astrophysics

1173: Data System Abstract Service, and of data products from the Two Micron

1174: All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of

1175: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis

1176: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and the NSF.

1177: 

1178: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Agerer \& H\"ubscher(2002)]{Agerer:02}

1181:  Agerer, F., \& H\"ubscher, J. 2002, IBVS No.\ 5296

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[Agerer \& H\"ubscher(2003)]{Agerer:03}

1184:  Agerer, F., \& H\"ubscher, J. 2003, IBVS No.\ 5484

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[Alencar \& Vaz(1997)]{alencarvaz1997}

1187:  Alencar, S.\ H.\ P., \& Vaz, L.\ P.\ R. 1997, \aap, 326, 257

1188: 

1189: \bibitem[Alencar et al.(1999)]{alencaretal1999}

1190:  Alencar, S.\ H.\ P., Vaz, L.\ P.\ R., \& Nordlund, {\AA}. 1999,

1191: \aap, 346, 556

1192: 

1193: \bibitem[Allard \& Hauschildt(1995)]{allardhauschildt1995}

1194:  Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.\ H. 1995, \apj, 445, 433

1195: 

1196: \bibitem[Allard et al.(1997)]{allardetal1997}

1197:  Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.\ H., Alexander, D.\ R., \& Starrfield, S.

1198: 1997, \araa, 35, 137

1199: 

1200: \bibitem[Andersen(1991)]{Andersen:91}

1201:  Andersen, J. 1991, \aapr, 3, 91

1202: 

1203: \bibitem[Bakis et al.(2003)]{Bakis:03}

1204:  Bakis, V., Bakis, H., Erdem, A., \c{C}i\c{c}ek, C., \& Demircan, O.,

1205: \& Budding, E. 2003, IBVS No.\ 5464

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[Busch(1985)]{busch85}

1208:  Busch, H. 1985, IBVS, No.\ 2788

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2007)]{Chabrier:07}

1211:  Chabrier, G., Gallardo, J., \& Baraffe, I. 2007, \aap, 472, L17

1212: 

1213: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{claret2000}

1214:  Claret, A. 2000, \aap, 363, 1081

1215: 

1216: \bibitem[Claret(2004)]{Claret:04}

1217:  Claret, A. 2004, \aap, 424, 919

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[Claret et al.(1995)]{Claret:95}

1220:  Claret, A., Gim\'enez, A., \& Cunha, N.\ C.\ S. 1995, \aap, 299, 724

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Claret \& Cunha(1997)]{Claret:97}

1223:  Claret, A., Cunha, N.\ C.\ S. 1997, \aap, 318, 187

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[Clausen et al.(1999a)]{Clausen:99a}

1226:  Clausen, J.\ V., Baraffe, I., Claret, A., \& VandenBerg, D.\

1227: A. 1999a, in Theory and Tests of Convection in Stellar Structure,

1228: eds.\ A.\ Gim\'enez, E.\ F.\ Guinan, \& B.\ Montesinos, ASP Conf.\

1229: Ser. 173 (San Francisco: ASP), 265

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(2003)]{cutri2003}

1232:  Cutri, R.\ M.\ et al.\ 2003, ``2MASS All Sky Catalog of Point

1233: Sources'', NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive

1234: 

1235: \bibitem[Delfosse et al.(2000)]{Delfosse:00}

1236:  Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., S\'egransan, D., Beuzit, J.-L., Udry,

1237: S., Perrier, C., \& Mayor, M. 2000, \aap, 364, 217

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{Demarque:04}

1240:  Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.\ K. 2004, \apjs, 155,

1241: 667

1242: 

1243: \bibitem[Diethelm(2001)]{Diethelm:01}

1244:  Diethelm, R. 2001, IBVS No.\ 5027

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[Dogru et al.(2006)]{Dogru:06}

1247:  Dogru, S.\ S., Dogru, D., Erdem, A., \c{C}i\c{c}ek, C., \& Demircan,

1248: O. 2006, IBVS No.\ 5707

1249: 

1250: %\bibitem[Droege et al.(2006)]{Droege:06}

1251: % Droege, T.\ F., Richmond, M.\ W., \& Sallman, M. 2006, \pasp, 118,

1252: % 1666

1253: 

1254: \bibitem[Eker(1996)]{Eker:96}

1255:  Eker, Z. 1996, \apj, 473, 388

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[Eker(1999)]{Eker:99}

1258:  Eker, Z. 1999, \apj, 512, 386

1259: 

1260: \bibitem[Fleming et al.(1995)]{Fleming:95}

1261:  Fleming, T.\ A., Molendi, S., Maccacaro, T., \& Wolter, A. 1995,

1262:  \apjs, 99, 701

1263: 

1264: \bibitem[Flower(1996)]{Flower:96}

1265:  Flower, P.\ J. 1996, \apj, 469, 355

1266: 

1267: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2004)]{girardi2004}

1268:  Girardi, L., Grebel, E.\ K., Odenkirchen, M., \& Chiosi, C. 2004,

1269: \aap, 422, 205

1270: 

1271: \bibitem[Granzer et al.(2000)]{Granzer:00}

1272:  Granzer, Th., Sch\"ussler, M., Caligari, P., \& Strassmeier, K.\

1273:  G. 2000, \aap, 355, 1087

1274: 

1275: \bibitem[Hall(1994)]{Hall:94}

1276:  Hall, D.\ S. 1994, Mem.\ Soc.\ Astr.\ Italiana, 65, 73

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[Hauschildt et al.(1997a)]{hauschildtetal1997a}

1279:  Hauschildt, P.\ H., Baron, E., \& Allard, F. 1997a, \apj, 483, 390

1280: 

1281: \bibitem[Hauschildt et al.(1997b)]{hauschildtetal1997b}

1282:  Hauschildt, P.\ H., Allard, F., Alexander, D.\ R., \& Baron, E.

1283: 1997b, \apj, 488, 428

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{hog2000}

1286:  H{\o}g, E., Fabricus, C., Makarov, V.\ V., Urban, S., Corbin, T.,

1287: Wycoff, G., Bastian, U., Schwekendick, P., \& Wicenec, A. 2000, \aap,

1288: 355, 27

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[Hoxie(1973)]{Hoxie:73}

1291:  Hoxie, D.\ T. 1973, \aap, 26, 437

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[H\"ubscher(2005)]{Hubscher:05a}

1294:  H\"ubscher, J. 2005, IBVS No.\ 5643

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[H\"ubscher et al.(2005)]{Hubscher:05b}

1297:  H\"ubscher, J., Paschke, A., \& Walter, F. 2005, IBVS No.\ 5657

1298: 

1299: \bibitem[H\"ubscher et al.(2006)]{Hubscher:06}

1300:  H\"ubscher, J., Paschke, A., \& Walter, F. 2006, IBVS No.\ 5731

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[I\c{s}ik et al.(2007)]{Isik:07}

1303:  I\c{s}ik, E., Sch\"ussler, M., \& Solanki, S.\ K. 2007, \aap, 464, 1049

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2006)]{Kim:06}

1306:  Kim, C.-H., Lee, C.-U., Yoon, Y.-N., Park, S.-S., Kin, D.\ H., Cha,

1307:  S.-M., \& Won, J.-H. 2006, IBVS No.\ 5694

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[Kitchatinov \& R\"udiger(2004)]{Kitchatinov:04}

1310:  Kitchatinov, L.\ L., \& R\"udiger, G. 2004, AN, 325, 496

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[Kj{\ae}rgaard et al.(1983)]{kjaergaard83}

1313:  Kj{\ae}rgaard Andreasen, G., Hejlesen, P.\ M., Petersen, J.\ O. 1983,

1314: \aap, 121, 241

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[K\~ov\'ari et al.(2007)]{Kovari:07}

1317:  K\~ov\'ari, Zs., Bartus, J., Strassmeier, K.\ G., Vida, K.,

1318:  \v{S}anda, M., \& Ol\'ah, K. 2007, \aap, 474, 165

1319: 

1320: \bibitem[Kreiner, Kim \& Nha(2000)]{Kreiner:00}

1321:  Kreiner, J.\ M., Kim, C.\ H., \& Nha, I.\ S. 2000, An Atlas of

1322: $O\!-\!C$ diagrams of eclipsing binary stars, Wydawnctwo Naukowe Ap,

1323: Krakow

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[Lacy(1977)]{Lacy:77}

1326:  Lacy, C.\ H. 1977, \apjs, 34, 479

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[Lacy(2002)]{Lacy:02}

1329:  Lacy, C.\ H.\ S. 2002, IBVS No.\ 5357

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[Lacy(2003)]{Lacy:03}

1332:  Lacy, C.\ H.\ S. 2003, IBVS No.\ 5487

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[Lafler \& Kinman(1965)]{lafler}

1335:  Lafler, J., \& Kinman T.\ D. 1965, \apjs, 11, 216

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{Latham:92}

1338:  Latham, D.\ W. 1992, in IAU Coll.\ 135, Complementary Approaches to

1339: Double and Multiple Star Research, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 32, eds.\ H.\ A.\

1340: McAlister \& W.\ I.\ Hartkopf (San Francisco: ASP), 110

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Latham et al.(2002)]{Latham:02}

1343:  Latham, D.\ W., Stefanik, R.\ P., Torres, G., Davis, R.\ J., Mazeh,

1344: T., Carney, B.\ W., Laird, J.\ B., \& Morse, J.\ A. 2002, \aj, 124,

1345: 1144

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[Latham et al.(1996)]{Latham:96}

1348:  Latham, D.\ W., Nordstr\"om, B., Andersen, J., Torres, G., Stefanik,

1349: R.\ P., Thaller, M., \& Bester, M. 1996, \aap, 314, 864

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[Locher(2005)]{Locher:05}

1352:  Locher, K. 2005, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 3, 1

1353: 

1354: \bibitem[L\'opez-Morales \& Ribas(2005)]{Lopez-Morales:05}

1355:  L\'opez-Morales, M.\ \& Ribas, I. 2005, \apj, 631, 1120

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[Maciejewski \& Karska(2004)]{Maciejewski:04}

1358:  Maciejewski, G., \& Karska, A. 2004, IBVS No.\ 5494

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[McLaughlin(1924)]{McLaughlin:24}

1361:  McLaughlin, D .\ B. 1924, \apj, 60, 22

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[Mochnacki(1984)]{Mochnacki:84}

1364:  Mochnacki, S.\ W. 1984, \apjs, 55, 551

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[Molik(2007)]{Molik:07}

1367:  Molik, P. 2007, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 60, 1

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[Morales et al.(2008)]{Morales:08}

1370:  Morales, J.\ C., Ribas, I., \& Jordi, C. 2008, \aap, 478, 507

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[Mullan \& MacDonald(2001)]{Mullan:01}

1373:  Mullan, D.\ J., \& MacDonald, J. 2001, \apj, 559, 353

1374: 

1375: \bibitem[Nelder \& Mead(1965)]{Nelder:65}

1376:  Nelder, J.\ A., \& Mead, R. 1965, Computer Journal, Vol.\ 7, 308

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[Nelson(2000)]{Nelson:00}

1379:  Nelson, R.\ H. 2000, IBVS No.\ 4840

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[Nelson(2002)]{Nelson:02}

1382:  Nelson, R.\ H. 2002, IBVS No.\ 5224

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[Nelson(2004a)]{Nelson:04a}

1385:  Nelson, R.\ H. 2004a, IBVS No.\ 5493

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[Nelson(2004b)]{Nelson:04b}

1388:  Nelson, R.\ H. 2004b, IBVS No.\ 5535

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al.(1994)]{Nordstrom:94}

1391:  Nordstr\"om, B., Latham, D.\ W., Morse, J.\ A., Milone, A.\ A.\ E.,

1392: Kurucz, R.\ L., Andersen, J., \& Stefanik, R.\ P. 1994, \aap, 287, 338

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[Peniche et al.(1985)]{peniche85}

1395:  Peniche, R., Gonzalez, S.\ F., \& Pena, J.\ H. 1985, IBVS, No. 2690

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{Perryman:97}

1398:  Perryman, M.\ A.\ C., et al. 1997, The {\it Hipparcos\/} and {\it

1399: Tycho\/} Catalogues (ESA SP-1200; Noordwjik: ESA)

1400: 

1401: \bibitem[Popper(1980)]{Popper:80}

1402:  Popper, D.\ M. 1980, \araa, 18, 115

1403: 

1404: \bibitem[Popper(1997)]{Popper:97}

1405:  Popper, D.\ M. 1997, \aj, 114, 1195

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[Popper(2000)]{Popper:00}

1408:  Popper, D.\ M. 2000, \aj, 119, 2391

1409: 

1410: \bibitem[Popper \& Jeong(1994)]{Popper:94}

1411:  Popper, D.\ M., \& Jeong, Y.-C. 1994, \pasp, 106, 189

1412: 

1413: \bibitem[Ram\'\i rez \& Mel\'endez(2005)]{ramirezmelendez05}

1414:  Ram\'\i rez, I., \& Mel\'endez, J. 2005, \apj, 626, 465

1415: 

1416: \bibitem[Ribas(2003)]{Ribas:03}

1417:  Ribas, I. 2003, \aap, 398, 239

1418: 

1419: \bibitem[Ribas(2006)]{Ribas:06}

1420:  Ribas, I. 2006, \apss, 304, 89

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[Roberts et al.(1987)]{Roberts:87}

1423:  Roberts, D.\ H., Lehar, J., \& Dreher, J.\ W. 1987, \aj, 93, 968

1424: 

1425: \bibitem [Rossiter(1924)]{rossiter}

1426:  Rossiter, R.\ A. 1924, \apj, 60, 15

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{Schlegel:98}

1429:  Schlegel, D.\ J., Finkbeiner, D.\ P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500,

1430: 525

1431: 

1432: \bibitem [Schlesinger(1909a)]{schlesinger1}

1433:  Schlesinger, F. 1909a, Publ.\ Allegheny Obs., 1, 134

1434: 

1435: \bibitem [Schlesinger(1909b)]{schlesinger2}

1436:  Schlesinger, F. 1909b, Publ.\ Allegheny Obs., 3, 28

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[Sch\"ussler \& Solanki(1992)]{Schussler:92}

1439:  Sch\"ussler, M., \& Solanki, S.\ K. 1992, \aap, 264, L13

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[Strassmeier et al.(2003)]{Strassmeier:03}

1442:  Strassmeier, K.\ G., Kratzwald, L., \& Weber, M. 2003, \aap, 408,

1443:  1103

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[Tassoul \& Tassoul(1997)]{Tassoul:97}

1446:  Tassoul, M., \& Tassoul, J.-L. 1997, \apj, 481, 363

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[Torres \& Ribas(2002)]{Torres:02}

1449:  Torres, G., \& Ribas, I. 2002, \apj, 567, 1140

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1997)]{Torres:97}

1452:  Torres, G., Stefanik, R.\ P., Andersen, J., Nordstr\"om, B., Latham,

1453: D.\ W., \& Clausen, J.\ V. 1997, \aj, 114, 2764

1454: 

1455: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2006)]{Torres:06}

1456:  Torres, G., Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Marschall, L.\ A., Sheets, H.\ A., \&

1457:  Mader, J.\ A. 2006, \apj, 640, 1018

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[Torres(2007)]{Torres:07}

1460:  Torres, G. 2007, \apj, 671, L65

1461: 

1462: \bibitem[Vaz, Andersen \& Claret(2007)]{uoph}

1463:  Vaz, L.\ P.\ R., Andersen, J., \& Claret, A. 2007, A\&A, 469, 285

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[Vida et al.(2007)]{Vida:07}

1466:  Vida, K., K\~ov\'ari, Zs., \v{S}vanda, M., Ol\'ah, K., Strassmeier,

1467:  K.\ G., \& Bartus, J. 2007, AN, 328, 1078

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[Voges et al.(2000)]{voges2000}

1470:  Voges, W.\ et al.\ 2000 ``ROSAT All-Sky Survey Faint Source

1471: Catalog'', IAUC.7432R.1V

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1999)]{Vogt:99}

1474:  Vogt, S.\ S., Hatzes, A.\ P., \& Misch, A.\ A. 1999, \apjs, 121, 547

1475: 

1476: \bibitem[Walters \& Lacy(2004)]{walterlacy04}

1477:  Walters, S.\ L., \& Lacy, C.\ H.\ S. 2004, BAAS., 36, 1370

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[Weber et al.(2003)]{Weber:03}

1480:  Weber, M., Strassmeier, K.\ G., \& Washuettl, A. 2003, in Cool Stars,

1481:  Stellar Systems, and the Sun, eds.\ A.\ Brown, G.\ M.\ Harper, and

1482:  T.\ R.\ Ayres, (University of Colorado), p. 922

1483: 

1484: \bibitem[Wilson(1979)]{wilson1979}

1485:  Wilson, R.\ E. 1979, \apj, 234, 1054

1486: 

1487: \bibitem[Wilson(1990)]{Wilson:90}

1488:  Wilson, R.\ E. 1990, \apj, 356, 613

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[Wilson(1993)]{wilson1993}

1491:  Wilson, R.\ E. 1993, in: New Frontiers in Binary Star Research,

1492: eds.\ K.C.\ Leung abd L.-S.\ Nha, APS Conf.\ Series, 38, 91

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[Wilson \& Biermann(1976)]{Wilson:76}

1495:  Wilson, R.\ E., \& Biermann, P. 1976, \aap, 48, 349

1496: 

1497: \bibitem[Wilson \& Devinney(1971)]{wd1971}

1498:  Wilson, R.\ E., \& Devinney, E.\ J. 1971, \apj, 166, 605

1499: 

1500: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi:01}

1501:  Yi, S.\ K., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.\ H.,

1502:  Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[Zahn(1977)]{Zahn:77}

1505:  Zahn, J.-P. 1977, \aap, 57, 383

1506: 

1507: \bibitem[Zahn(1989)]{Zahn:89}

1508:  Zahn, J.-P. 1989, \aap, 220, 112

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(1994)]{Zucker:94}

1511:  Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T. 1994, \apj, 420, 806

1512: 

1513: \end{thebibliography}

1514: 

1515: \clearpage

1516: 

1517: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}

1518: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1519: \tablecaption{Differential $V$-band measurements of CV~Boo.

1520: \label{tab:vphot}}

1521: \tablewidth{0pt}

1522: \tablehead{

1523: \colhead{HJD$-2,\!400,\!000$} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{$\Delta V$}

1524: }

1525: \startdata

1526:  52250.99816 & 0.35467 &  +0.452 \\

1527:  52250.99907 & 0.35575 &  +0.416 \\

1528:  52251.00000 & 0.35685 &  +0.445 \\

1529:  52251.00091 & 0.35792 &  +0.508 \\

1530:  52251.00182 & 0.35900 &  +0.433 \\ [-1.5ex]

1531: \enddata

1532: \tablecomments{Table \ref{tab:vphot} is available in its entirety in the

1533: electronic edition of the {\it Astronomical Journal}.  A portion is

1534: shown here for guidance regarding its form and contents.}

1535: \end{deluxetable}

1536: 

1537: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}

1538: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1539: \tablecaption{Photometric indices and inferred mean effective temperature of CV~Boo.

1540: \label{tab:teff}}

1541: \tablewidth{0pt}

1542: \tablehead{

1543: \colhead{~~~~~~~Photometric Index~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$

1544: (K)} & \colhead{Ref.}  }

1545: \startdata

1546: Johnson $V$\dotfill                 & 10.75 $\pm$ 0.10\phn  & \nodata      & 1 \\

1547: Johnson $B\!-\!V$\dotfill           & 0.73 $\pm$ 0.11   & 5417 $\pm$ 350 & 1 \\

1548: Tycho-2 $B_{\rm T}-V_{\rm T}$\dotfill & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.13   & 5448 $\pm$ 329 & 1 \\

1549: Johnson/2MASS $V\!-\!J$\dotfill     & 1.18 $\pm$ 0.10 & 5693 $\pm$ 103 & 1,2 \\

1550: Johnson/2MASS $V\!-\!H$\dotfill     & 1.47 $\pm$ 0.10 & 5666 $\pm$ 155 & 1,2 \\

1551: Johnson/2MASS $V\!-\!K_s$\dotfill     & 1.55 $\pm$ 0.10 & 5692 $\pm$ 157 & 1,2 \\

1552: Tycho-2/2MASS $V_{\rm T}-K_s$\dotfill   & 1.629 $\pm$ 0.081 & 5679 $\pm$ 129 & 1,2 \\

1553: Sloan $g\!-\!r$\dotfill             & 0.473 $\pm$ 0.002 & 5760 $\pm$ 100 & 3 \\ [-1.5ex]

1554: \enddata

1555: \tablecomments{References: (1) \cite{hog2000}; (2) \cite{cutri2003};

1556: (3) Sloan Digital Sky Survey data.}

1557: \end{deluxetable}

1558: 

1559: \clearpage

1560: 

1561: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrr@{~~~}|@{~~~}ccrrrr}

1562: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1563: \tablecaption{New radial velocity measurements of CV~Boo.

1564: \label{tab:RVcfa}}

1565: \tablewidth{0pt}

1566: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.5\tabcolsep}

1567: \tablehead{

1568: \colhead{${{\mathrm{HJD}}\atop{-2\,440\,000}}$} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~A}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{A}}}$} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~B}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{B}}}$} &

1569: \colhead{${{\mathrm{HJD}}\atop{-2\,440\,000}}$} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~A}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{A}}}$} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~B}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{B}}}$} 

1570: }

1571: \startdata

1572:  48408.8881 & 0.1792 & $-$127.53 &  $-$2.12 & $+$144.05 & $+$13.68 &

1573:  52805.7304 & 0.2974 & $-$133.61 &  $-$1.12 & $+$134.43 &  $-$3.53 \\

1574:  48428.7637 & 0.6453 & $+$113.28 &  $+$6.33 & $-$121.89 &  $-$4.64 &

1575:  52807.6959 & 0.6180 &  $+$79.11 & $-$12.00 &  $-$96.25 &  $+$4.12 \\

1576:  48435.7679 & 0.9148 &  $+$70.53 &  $+$1.73 &  $-$80.45 &  $-$4.19 &

1577:  52808.6829 & 0.7833 & $+$141.29 &  $+$8.91 & $-$158.46 & $-$14.00 \\

1578:  52336.9667 & 0.8530 & $+$101.70 &  $-$6.29 & $-$121.62 &  $-$3.39 &

1579:  52828.6620 & 0.3715 & $-$116.79 & $-$16.14 & $+$112.11 &  $+$8.13 \\

1580:  52362.8251 & 0.3826 &  $-$96.29 &  $-$2.48 &  $+$97.00 &  $+$0.31 &

1581:  52830.7704 & 0.8608 & $+$104.81 &  $+$0.97 & $-$115.59 &  $-$1.81 \\

1582:  52391.8515 & 0.6526 & $+$115.23 &  $+$4.57 & $-$126.58 &  $-$5.38 &

1583:  52894.6202 & 0.2449 & $-$148.22 &  $-$9.80 & $+$145.71 &  $+$1.37 \\

1584:  52395.7780 & 0.2884 & $-$126.96 &  $+$7.58 & $+$131.35 &  $-$8.81 &

1585:  53011.0543 & 0.7124 & $+$138.93 &  $+$7.38 & $-$147.38 &  $-$3.84 \\

1586:  52419.8759 & 0.7395 & $+$133.04 &  $-$1.97 & $-$156.34 &  $-$9.07 &

1587:  53017.0656 & 0.8097 & $+$130.12 &  $+$4.16 & $-$144.86 &  $-$7.31 \\

1588:  52420.8446 & 0.8832 &  $+$80.62 &  $-$9.96 & $-$102.38 &  $-$2.82 &

1589:  53036.0482 & 0.2214 & $-$130.15 &  $+$6.19 & $+$149.26 &  $+$7.14 \\

1590:  52424.9263 & 0.7022 & $+$119.97 &  $-$9.29 & $-$137.99 &  $+$3.09 &

1591:  53045.0203 & 0.8143 & $+$110.06 & $-$14.40 & $-$137.98 &  $-$2.03 \\

1592:  52481.7239 & 0.7601 & $+$131.60 &  $-$3.44 & $-$147.89 &  $-$0.59 &

1593:  53047.9883 & 0.3184 & $-$133.81 &  $-$7.71 & $+$138.58 &  $+$7.46 \\

1594:  52537.6015 & 0.7319 & $+$145.12 & $+$10.69 & $-$153.73 &  $-$7.10 &

1595:  53072.0214 & 0.6931 & $+$120.32 &  $-$6.41 & $-$138.36 &  $+$0.02 \\

1596:  52657.0283 & 0.7327 & $+$136.61 &  $+$2.10 & $-$143.34 &  $+$3.38 &

1597:  53102.9332 & 0.1890 & $-$128.08 &  $+$0.67 & $+$140.61 &  $+$6.65 \\

1598:  52681.9996 & 0.2150 & $-$139.26 &  $-$3.99 & $+$149.89 &  $+$8.92 &

1599:  53124.9836 & 0.2227 & $-$148.22 & $-$11.69 & $+$142.32 &  $-$0.01 \\

1600:  52687.0564 & 0.1853 & $-$126.70 &  $+$0.86 & $+$125.61 &  $-$7.06 &

1601:  53125.8812 & 0.2825 & $-$135.40 &  $+$0.26 & $+$136.82 &  $-$4.54 \\

1602:  52688.0019 & 0.3016 & $-$136.00 &  $-$4.61 & $+$134.21 &  $-$2.57 &

1603:  53131.8024 & 0.2733 & $-$148.17 & $-$11.15 & $+$142.70 &  $-$0.12 \\

1604:  52690.9568 & 0.7903 & $+$137.79 &  $+$6.78 & $-$152.45 &  $-$9.46 &

1605:  53133.8280 & 0.6648 & $+$113.70 &  $-$2.64 & $-$125.78 &  $+$1.49 \\

1606:  52712.0278 & 0.6677 & $+$117.71 &  $+$0.12 & $-$132.03 &  $-$3.42 &

1607:  53134.8008 & 0.8134 & $+$123.52 &  $-$1.25 & $-$134.88 &  $+$1.40 \\

1608:  52718.9482 & 0.8383 & $+$103.39 & $-$11.69 & $-$126.31 &  $-$0.46 &

1609:  53155.9103 & 0.7362 & $+$135.62 &  $+$0.82 & $-$159.54 & $-$12.50 \\

1610:  52720.9903 & 0.2493 & $-$142.32 &  $-$3.84 & $+$135.44 &  $-$8.97 &

1611:  53156.8078 & 0.7959 & $+$124.95 &  $-$4.81 & $-$145.87 &  $-$4.23 \\

1612:  52721.8866 & 0.3075 & $-$131.97 &  $-$2.26 & $+$135.59 &  $+$0.61 &

1613:  53157.6883 & 0.8354 & $+$118.15 &  $+$1.81 & $-$128.87 &  $-$1.66 \\

1614:  52743.0017 & 0.2370 & $-$138.96 &  $-$0.91 & $+$141.72 &  $-$2.22 &

1615:  53158.8651 & 0.2248 & $-$132.66 &  $+$4.16 & $+$136.23 &  $-$6.41 \\

1616:  52743.8681 & 0.2599 & $-$138.48 &  $-$0.26 & $+$136.36 &  $-$7.76 &

1617:  53159.7571 & 0.2779 & $-$137.36 &  $-$0.97 & $+$141.77 &  $-$0.38 \\

1618:  52745.9296 & 0.6938 & $+$127.96 &  $+$1.02 & $-$152.37 & $-$13.76 &

1619:  53182.6826 & 0.3449 & $-$107.94 &  $+$7.08 & $+$117.19 &  $-$2.10 \\

1620:  52748.8870 & 0.1854 & $-$124.72 &  $+$2.87 & $+$133.76 &  $+$1.05 &

1621:  53183.7214 & 0.5713 &  $+$55.26 &  $-$2.71 &  $-$66.52 &  $+$2.40 \\

1622:  52751.9548 & 0.8074 & $+$122.44 &  $-$4.20 & $-$141.35 &  $-$3.07 &

1623:  53183.8170 & 0.6842 & $+$118.57 &  $-$5.32 & $-$136.77 &  $-$1.44 \\

1624:  52752.8104 & 0.8176 & $+$118.39 &  $-$4.95 & $-$137.92 &  $-$3.18 &

1625:  53184.7284 & 0.7602 & $+$139.79 &  $+$4.76 & $-$147.31 &  $-$0.01 \\

1626:  52769.7356 & 0.8003 & $+$123.65 &  $-$5.00 & $-$141.11 &  $-$0.66 &

1627:  53189.7763 & 0.7200 & $+$134.61 &  $+$1.70 & $-$150.90 &  $-$5.90 \\

1628:  52771.8062 & 0.2449 & $-$139.56 &  $-$1.14 & $+$137.19 &  $-$7.15 &

1629:  53190.6836 & 0.7912 & $+$129.10 &  $-$1.72 & $-$146.12 &  $-$3.34 \\

1630:  52773.8521 & 0.6604 & $+$103.84 & $-$10.53 & $-$124.10 &  $+$1.06 &

1631:  53192.6964 & 0.1676 & $-$123.51 &  $-$2.64 & $+$140.40 & $+$14.92 \\

1632:  52800.6851 & 0.3407 & $-$116.42 &  $+$0.57 & $+$128.81 &  $+$7.42 &

1633:  53217.6764 & 0.6602 & $+$113.85 &  $-$0.42 & $-$123.95 &  $+$1.11 \\

1634:  52802.6741 & 0.6890 & $+$120.03 &  $-$5.45 & $-$138.94 &  $-$1.90 &

1635:  53452.8782 & 0.3505 & $-$114.77 &  $-$2.51 & $+$115.01 &  $-$1.34 \\

1636:  52804.7941 & 0.1920 & $-$127.64 &  $+$2.03 & $+$145.25 & $+$10.30 &

1637:  53485.8782 & 0.3118 & $-$121.62 &  $+$6.74 & $+$125.58 &  $-$7.96 \\ [-1.0ex]

1638: \enddata

1639: \tablecomments{The $O\!-\!C$ residuals correspond to the solution described in

1640: \S\,\ref{sec:nospot}.}

1641: \end{deluxetable}

1642: 

1643: %\clearpage

1644: 

1645: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrr@{~~~}|@{~~~}ccrrrr}

1646: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1647: \tablecaption{Radial velocities for CV~Boo from \cite{Popper:00}.\label{tab:RVpopper}}

1648: \tablewidth{0pt}

1649: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.5\tabcolsep}

1650: \tablehead{

1651: \colhead{${{\mathrm{HJD}}\atop{-2\,440\,000}}$} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~A}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{A}}}$} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~B}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{B}}}$} &

1652: \colhead{${{\mathrm{HJD}}\atop{-2\,440\,000}}$} & \colhead{Phase} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~A}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{A}}}$} & \colhead{${{\displaystyle\mathrm{Star~B}}\atop{\mathrm{km/s}}}$} & \colhead{${{\mathrm{(O\!-\!C)}}\atop{\mathrm{B}}}$} 

1653: }

1654: \startdata

1655:  47198.0795 & 0.6418 & $+$100.59 & $-$4.51 & $-$112.85 & $+$2.43 &

1656:  49117.9386 & 0.3175 & $-$126.53 & $-$0.09 & $+$133.81 & $+$2.32 \\

1657:  47254.9417 & 0.7760 & $+$134.29 & $+$0.77 & $-$144.43 & $+$1.25 &

1658:  49202.6852 & 0.3733 & $-$102.13 & $-$2.52 & $+$101.37 & $-$1.49 \\

1659:  47397.6592 & 0.2749 & $-$137.69 & $-$0.88 & $+$142.48 & $-$0.12 &

1660:  49204.7213 & 0.7772 & $+$133.70 & $+$0.35 & $-$145.93 & $-$0.43 \\

1661:  47695.7285 & 0.1895 & $-$129.31 & $-$0.39 & $+$136.69 & $+$2.54 &

1662:  49204.7416 & 0.8012 & $+$126.62 & $-$1.79 & $-$140.09 & $+$0.10 \\

1663:  47696.7035 & 0.3407 & $-$112.58 & $+$4.42 & $+$121.75 & $+$0.35 &

1664:  49204.7623 & 0.8256 & $+$117.42 & $-$2.96 & $-$130.86 & $+$0.69 \\

1665:  48080.7574 & 0.7727 & $+$134.39 & $+$0.45 & $-$144.60 & $+$1.53 &

1666:  49496.9018 & 0.7392 & $+$135.56 & $+$0.57 & $-$147.61 & $-$0.36 \\

1667:  48081.6981 & 0.8833 &  $+$87.15 & $-$3.33 &  $-$98.55 & $+$0.90 &

1668:  49496.9163 & 0.7563 & $+$134.71 & $-$0.49 & $-$146.30 & $+$1.18 \\

1669:  48312.0038 & 0.7931 & $+$128.21 & $-$2.20 & $-$139.74 & $+$2.60 &

1670:  49583.6596 & 0.1695 & $-$126.79 & $-$5.13 & $+$126.42 & $+$0.08 \\

1671:  48344.9980 & 0.7476 & $+$131.13 & $-$4.16 & $-$144.15 & $+$3.42 &

1672:  49583.6807 & 0.1944 & $-$128.99 & $+$1.40 & $+$132.75 & $-$2.98 \\

1673:  48345.8895 & 0.8001 & $+$128.12 & $-$0.57 & $-$138.79 & $+$1.70 &

1674:  49907.6918 & 0.7371 & $+$136.77 & $+$1.91 & $-$148.30 & $-$1.19 \\

1675:  48345.9531 & 0.8752 &  $+$96.80 & $+$1.25 & $-$105.62 & $-$0.74 &

1676:  49907.7182 & 0.7683 & $+$139.29 & $+$4.87 & $-$148.07 & $-$1.43 \\

1677:  48819.6895 & 0.1906 & $-$137.81 & $-$8.56 & $+$137.28 & $+$2.78 &

1678:  49907.7666 & 0.8254 & $+$124.72 & $+$4.28 & $-$135.86 & $-$4.24 \\

1679:  48819.7122 & 0.2174 & $-$140.25 & $-$4.55 & $+$140.79 & $-$0.64 &

1680:  49907.7881 & 0.8508 & $+$108.25 & $-$0.84 & $-$121.30 & $-$1.88 \\

1681:  48819.7362 & 0.2457 & $-$143.18 & $-$4.74 & $+$141.52 & $-$2.85 &

1682:  50176.9827 & 0.6746 & $+$122.91 & $+$2.53 & $-$131.47 & $+$0.11 \\

1683:  48820.6789 & 0.3587 & $-$111.27 & $-$3.34 & $+$107.70 & $-$4.03 &

1684:  50177.0097 & 0.7065 & $+$133.62 & $+$3.34 & $-$140.19 & $+$1.99 \\

1685:  48820.7049 & 0.3894 &  $-$92.10 & $-$2.69 &  $+$92.66 & $+$0.66 &

1686:  50177.9325 & 0.7960 & $+$129.82 & $+$0.09 & $-$138.96 & $+$2.65 \\

1687:  48822.7202 & 0.7688 & $+$135.49 & $+$1.12 & $-$149.18 & $-$2.59 &

1688:  50177.9511 & 0.8179 & $+$124.78 & $+$1.57 & $-$131.51 & $+$3.09 \\

1689:  48822.8020 & 0.8654 &  $+$97.14 & $-$4.17 & $-$112.48 & $-$1.42 &

1690:  50177.9691 & 0.8392 & $+$112.79 & $-$1.87 & $-$120.04 & $+$5.37 \\

1691:  49116.9777 & 0.1830 & $-$131.43 & $-$4.67 & $+$132.23 & $+$0.41 &

1692:  50177.9891 & 0.8628 & $+$103.32 & $+$0.58 & $-$113.06 & $-$0.46 \\

1693:  49117.8084 & 0.1638 & $-$121.42 & $-$2.21 & $+$122.85 & $-$0.85 &

1694:  50178.0072 & 0.8842 &  $+$88.65 & $-$1.30 &  $-$99.35 & $-$0.46 \\

1695:  49117.8249 & 0.1832 & $-$133.33 & $-$6.49 & $+$135.33 & $+$3.42 &

1696:  50178.0259 & 0.9063 &  $+$77.68 & $+$0.27 &  $-$84.92 & $-$2.06 \\

1697:  49117.8549 & 0.2187 & $-$137.56 & $-$1.65 & $+$142.79 & $+$1.14 &

1698:  50616.7131 & 0.8409 & $+$113.60 & $-$0.27 & $-$121.75 & $+$2.80 \\

1699:  49117.8748 & 0.2421 & $-$140.97 & $-$2.64 & $+$145.24 & $+$0.99 &

1700:             &        &         &       &         &      \\ [-1.0ex]

1701: \enddata

1702: 

1703: \tablecomments{Small corrections to the published values have been

1704: applied as described in \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}. The $O\!-\!C$

1705: residuals correspond to the solution described in

1706: \S\,\ref{sec:nospot}.}

1707: 

1708: \end{deluxetable}

1709: 

1710: \clearpage

1711: 

1712: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrr}

1713: \tablecaption{Spot parameters for CV~Boo.\label{tab:spotparams}}

1714: \tablewidth{0pt}

1715: \tablehead{

1716: \colhead{}     & \colhead{}          & \colhead{Co-latitude} & \colhead{Longitude} & \colhead{Radius} & \colhead{} \\

1717: \colhead{Case} & \colhead{Component} & \colhead{(deg)}       & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(deg)}      & \colhead{$T_{\rm factor}$}

1718: }

1719: \startdata

1720: a & pri & $8. 062$ & $-5.47$ & $44.50$ &   0.82\\

1721:   &     &    $\pm 59$ &                $\pm 90$ &    $\pm 50$ & $\pm 5$\\ [+4pt]

1722: b & sec & $7.926$ &$170.212$ &$47.76$ &   0.775\\

1723:   &     &    $\pm 52$ &                $\pm 10$ &    $\pm 69$ & $\pm 19$\\ [+4pt]

1724: c & pri & $4.589$ &$13.058$ &$35.835$ & 0.5940 \\ 

1725:   &     &    $\pm 63$ &                $\pm 43$ &    $\pm 46$ &$\pm 55$\\ [+4pt]

1726: c & sec & $4.665$ &$151.43$ &  55 &   0.881 \\

1727:   &     &    $\pm 43$ &                $\pm 38$ &$\pm 1$ & $\pm 11$ \\ [-1.0ex]

1728: \enddata

1729: 

1730: \tablecomments{The spot co-latitude is measured from the pole visible

1731: to the observer, and the longitude is measured from the line joining

1732: the components' centers and increasing in the direction of orbital

1733: motion.  The radius is measured as seen from the center of each

1734: component, and the temperature factor is relative to the unspotted

1735: photosphere.  The uncertainties listed are in units of the last

1736: decimal place and correspond to the internal errors from the

1737: least-squares method.}

1738: \end{deluxetable}

1739: 

1740: %\clearpage

1741: 

1742: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr@{~~~}|@{~~~}lrrrr}

1743: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1744: \tablecaption{Light-curve solutions for CV~Boo based on our $V$-band photometry.\label{tab:LCparams}}

1745: \tablewidth{0pt}

1746: \advance\tabcolsep by -3pt

1747: \tablehead{

1748: \colhead{~~~~Parameter~~~~} & \colhead{No spots} & \colhead{Case (a)} & \colhead{Case (b)} & \colhead{Case (c)} & 

1749: \colhead{~~~~Parameter~~~~} & \colhead{No spots} & \colhead{Case (a)} & \colhead{Case (b)} & \colhead{Case (c)}

1750: }

1751: \startdata

1752: $i$ ($\degr$)\dotfill           &  87.651 &   86.891  &   86.650  &   86.237   &   $r_{\rm A,pole}$\dotfill & 0.26533 & 0.26646 & 0.25798 & 0.26028 \\

1753:                                 & $\pm 42$&  $\pm 34$ &  $\pm 33$ &  $\pm 32$  &                            &$\pm 67$ & $\pm 49$& $\pm 47$& $\pm 46$\\[+3pt]

1754: $\Omega_{\rm A}$\dotfill        &  4.6752 &   4.6591  &   4.7844  &   4.7495   &  $r_{\rm A,point}$\dotfill & 0.28105 & 0.28268 & 0.27188 & 0.27478 \\

1755:                                 & $\pm 76$&  $\pm 48$ &  $\pm 49$ &  $\pm 46$  &                            &$\pm 90$ & $\pm 67$& $\pm 61$& $\pm 62$\\[+3pt]

1756: $\Omega_{\rm B}$\dotfill        &  4.9014 &   4.9614  &   4.8186  &   4.8707   &   $r_{\rm A,side}$\dotfill & 0.27032 & 0.27167 & 0.26254 & 0.26501 \\

1757:                                 & $\pm 78$&  $\pm 50$ &  $\pm 47$ &  $\pm 43$  &                            &$\pm 73$ & $\pm 53$& $\pm 51$& $\pm 50$\\[+3pt]

1758: $T_{\rm eff,B}$ (K)\dotfill     &  5632.8 &   5628.1  &   5656.1  &   5672.6   &   $r_{\rm A,back}$\dotfill & 0.27726 & 0.27877 & 0.26870 & 0.27142 \\

1759:                                 &$\pm 1.6$& $\pm 1.4$ & $\pm 2.4$ & $\pm 4.3$  &                            &$\pm 82$ &$\pm 62$ & $\pm 58$& $\pm 57$\\[+3pt]

1760: $a$ (R$_{\sun}$)\dotfill        &  4.757  &   (4.748) &   (4.748) &   (4.748)  &  $r_{\rm A,vol}$\dotfill& 0.27189 & 0.27252 & 0.26327 & 0.26577 \\

1761:                                 &$\pm 12$ &   (fixed) &   (fixed) &   (fixed)  &                            &$\pm 74$ &$\pm 55$ &$\pm 51$ & $\pm 51$\\[+3pt]

1762: $\gamma$ (\kms)\dotfill         &$-15.877$&($-15.889$)&($-15.889$)&($-15.889$) &   $r_{\rm B,pole}$\dotfill & 0.24054 & 0.23699 & 0.24573 & 0.24247 \\

1763:                                 &$ \pm 31$&   (fixed) &   (fixed) &   (fixed)  &                            &$\pm 98$ &$\pm 86$ &$\pm 84$ & $\pm 81$\\[+3pt]

1764: $q \equiv M_{\rm B}/M_{\rm A}$\dotfill  &  0.9376 &  (0.9378) &  (0.9378) &  (0.9378)  &   $r_{\rm B,point}$\dotfill& 0.25177 & 0.24757 & 0.25825 & 0.25423 \\

1765:                                 &$\pm 24$ &   (fixed) &   (fixed) &   (fixed)  &                            &$\pm 117$&$\pm 101$&$\pm 101$&$\pm 97$ \\[+3pt]

1766: $(\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm A})_V$\dotfill  &   0.741 &     0.746 &     0.769 &     0.778  &   $r_{\rm B,side}$\dotfill & 0.24410 & 0.24042 & 0.24972 & 0.24624 \\

1767:                                 &$\pm 10$ &  $\pm 4$  &  $\pm 21$ &  $\pm 14$  &                            &$\pm 104$& $\pm 91$& $\pm 90$& $\pm 86$\\[+3pt]

1768: $(\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm A})_{V,0.25}$\dotfill & 0.734 & 0.699 & 0.829     & 0.802      &   $r_{\rm B,back}$\dotfill & 0.24935 & 0.24535 & 0.25548 & 0.25168 \\

1769: $\sigma_{\rm V}$ (mag)\dotfill  &  0.0196 &   0.0148  &   0.0147  &    0.0146  &                            &$\pm 111$& $\pm 94$& $\pm 96$& $\pm 93$  \\[+3pt]

1770: $x^{\ast}_{\rm bolo,A}$\dotfill &   0.428 &     0.429 &     0.428 &     0.428  &  $r_{\rm B,vol}$\dotfill& 0.24483 & 0.24107 & 0.25049 & 0.24697 \\

1771: $x^{\ast}_{\rm bolo,B}$\dotfill &   0.437 &     0.437 &     0.435 &     0.434  &                            &$\pm 105$& $\pm 91$& $\pm 90$& $\pm 87$\\[+3pt]

1772: $x^{\ast}_{\rm V,A}$\dotfill    &   0.715 &     0.715 &     0.715 &     0.715  & $\beta^{\ast}_{\rm A}$\dotfill  & 0.378 &  0.378 &  0.378 & 0.378  \\

1773: $x^{\ast}_{\rm V,B}$\dotfill    &   0.724 &     0.724 &     0.722 &     0.721  &$\beta^{\ast}_{\rm B}$\dotfill  & 0.390 &   0.390 &   0.388 &   0.386 \\ [-1.0ex]

1774: \enddata

1775: 

1776: \tablecomments{In all spotted solutions both components were assumed

1777: to rotate at a rate 1.0114 times faster than the orbital motion (see

1778: \S\,\ref{sec:LCresid}). For the no-spot solution the rotation is

1779: assumed to be synchronous. The linear limb-darkening coefficients

1780: ($x$) as well as the gravity-brightening exponents ($\beta$) are

1781: marked with an asterisk to indicate that they were changed dynamically

1782: during the iterations as $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ changed. The

1783: gravity-brightening exponents varied over the mutually illuminated

1784: stellar surfaces following \cite{alencarvaz1997} and

1785: \cite{alencaretal1999}, and the values presented here are for the

1786: non-illuminated hemispheres. $T_{\rm eff,A}$ was held fixed at

1787: 5760\,K. The quantity $(\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm A})_{V,0.25}$

1788: corresponds to the $V$-band light ratio at the first quadrature

1789: without considering the effect of spots, and $(\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm

1790: A})_V$ is the mean light ratio outside of eclipse accounting for the

1791: spots and proximity effects.  The uncertainties given on the left-hand

1792: side of the table (in units of the last decimal place) are the formal

1793: internal errors of the minimization procedure, while the ones on the

1794: right for the component radii account for the uncertainties of the

1795: gravitational pseudo-potentials as well as the mass ratio. The

1796: quantities $r_{\rm A,vol}$ and $r_{\rm B,vol}$ represent the ``volume

1797: radius'' for each star, i.e., the radius of a sphere with the same

1798: volume as the distorted stars.}

1799: 

1800: \end{deluxetable}

1801: 

1802: \clearpage

1803: 

1804: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}

1805: \tablecaption{Physical parameters of CV\,Boo.\label{tab:dimensions} }

1806: \tablewidth{0pt}

1807: \tablehead{\colhead{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Primary} & \colhead{Secondary}}

1808: \startdata

1809: \noalign{\vskip -5pt}

1810: \sidehead{Absolute dimensions}

1811: ~~~Mass (M$_{\odot}$)\dotfill          & 1.032~$\pm$~0.013 &  0.968~$\pm$~0.012 \\

1812: ~~~Radius (R$_{\odot}$)\dotfill        & 1.262~$\pm$~0.023 &  1.173~$\pm$~0.023   \\

1813: ~~~$\log g$ (cgs)\dotfill              & 4.249~$\pm$~0.016 &  4.285~$\pm$~0.017   \\

1814: ~~~Measured $v \sin i$ (\kms)\dotfill  & 73~$\pm$~10       & 67~$\pm$~10         \\

1815: ~~~$v_{\rm async} \sin i$ (\kms)\dotfill      &  78.5~$\pm$~1.1\phn & 72.7~$\pm$~1.1\phn  \\

1816: ~~~$v_{\rm sync} \sin i$ (\kms)\dotfill       &  77.6~$\pm$~1.1\phn & 71.9~$\pm$~1.1\phn  \\

1817: \sidehead{Radiative and other properties}

1818: ~~~$T_{\rm eff}$ (K)\dotfill           & 5760~$\pm$~150\phn &   5670~$\pm$~150\phn  \\

1819: ~~~$\log L/L_\odot$\dotfill            & 0.197~$\pm$~0.048  &   0.107~$\pm$~0.049  \\

1820: ~~~$M_{\rm bol}$ (mag)\dotfill         & 4.24~$\pm$~0.12    &   4.46~$\pm$~0.12   \\

1821: ~~~$M_{\rm V}$ (mag)\dotfill           & 4.32~$\pm$~0.12    &   4.57~$\pm$~0.13  \\

1822: ~~~$L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A}$\dotfill       & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.81~$\pm$~0.13}      \\

1823: ~~~Distance (pc)\dotfill               & \multicolumn{2}{c}{259~$\pm$~16\phn}   \\ [-1.0ex]

1824: \enddata

1825: 

1826: \tablecomments{$M_{\rm V}$ and $M_{\rm bol}$ were computed using

1827: bolometric corrections from \cite{Flower:96} along with $M_{\rm

1828: bol}^{\sun} = 4.732$. The predicted asynchronous projected rotational

1829: velocities $v_{\rm async} \sin i$ correspond to the values assuming

1830: the rotational period is $P_{\rm orb}/1.0114$ for both stars (see

1831: \S\,\ref{sec:LCspots}), while the $v_{\rm sync} \sin i$ values give

1832: the result if $P_{\rm rot} = P_{\rm orb}$. In both cases we use the

1833: radius of the stars at quadrature.}

1834: 

1835: \end{deluxetable}

1836: 

1837: \end{document}

1838: