1: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
2: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
3:
4: %% The command below calls the preprint style
5: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
6: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
7: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
8: %%
9: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
10:
11: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
12:
13: \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
14:
15: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
16:
17: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
18:
19: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
20: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
21: %% use the longabstract style option.
22:
23: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
24:
25: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
26: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
27: %% the \begin{document} command.
28: %%
29:
30: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
31: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
32:
33: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
34:
35: \slugcomment{Version of Sept 24 2008}
36:
37: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
38: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
39: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
40: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
41: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
42: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
43:
44: \shorttitle{New White Dwarfs in UKIDSS}
45: \shortauthors{Lodieu et al.}
46:
47: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
48: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: \title{Cool White Dwarfs Identified in the Second Data Release of the
53: UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey}
54:
55: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
56: %% author and affiliation information.
57: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
58: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
59: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
60: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
61:
62: \author{N. Lodieu\altaffilmark{1}}
63: \author{S. K. Leggett\altaffilmark{2}}
64: \author{P. Bergeron\altaffilmark{3}}
65: \and
66: \author{A. Nitta\altaffilmark{2}}
67:
68: \altaffiltext{1}{Instituto de Astrof\'\i sica de Canarias, C/ V\'\i a L\'actea s/n,
69: E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain }
70: \altaffiltext{2}{Gemini Observatory, Northern Operations Center, 670
71: N. A'ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA}
72: \altaffiltext{3}{D\'epartement de Physique, Universit\'e de Montr\'eal,
73: C.P.\ 6128 Succursale Centre-Ville, Montr\'eal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We have paired the Second Data Release of the Large Area Survey of the
77: UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey with the Fifth Data Release of the
78: Sloan Digital Sky Survey to identify ten cool white dwarf candidates,
79: from their photometry and astrometry. Of these ten, one was
80: previously known to be a very cool white dwarf. We have obtained optical
81: spectroscopy for seven of the candidates using the GMOS-N spectrograph
82: on Gemini North, and have confirmed all seven as white dwarfs. Our
83: photometry and astrometry indicates that the remaining two objects are
84: also white dwarfs. Model analysis of the photometry and available
85: spectroscopy shows that the seven confirmed new white dwarfs, and the
86: two new likely white dwarfs, have effective temperatures in the range $T_{\rm
87: eff}=5400-6600$~K. Our analysis of the previously
88: known white dwarf confirms that it is cool, with $T_{\rm eff}$ =
89: 3800~K. The cooling age for this dwarf is 8.7 Gyr, while that of the
90: nine $\sim$ 6000~K white dwarfs is 1.8--3.6 Gyr. We are unable to determine
91: the masses of the white dwarfs from the existing data, and therefore
92: we cannot constrain the total ages of the white dwarfs. The large cooling age
93: for the coolest white dwarf in the sample, combined with its low
94: estimated tangential velocity, suggests that it is an old member of the
95: thin disk, or a member of the thick disk of the Galaxy, with an age 10--11~Gyr.
96: The warmer white dwarfs appear to have velocities typical of the thick disk
97: or even halo; these may be very old remnants of low-mass stars, or they
98: may be relatively young thin disk objects with unusually high space motion.
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
102: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
103: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
104: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
105:
106: \keywords{
107: Stars: white dwarfs --- techniques: photometric ---
108: techniques: spectroscopic --- Infrared: Stars --- surveys}
109:
110:
111: %
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: %%%% Introduction %%%%
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: %
116: \section{Introduction}
117: %
118:
119: White dwarfs are the end stage of stellar evolution for the vast majority
120: of stars --- all stars less massive than 8 $M_{\odot}$ end their lives as
121: cooling white dwarfs. The coolest white dwarfs can therefore constrain the
122: age of the Galactic disk, or even of the halo, if such objects can be found.
123: Most white dwarfs consist of a C/O core with an outer envelope composed of
124: helium and/or hydrogen, with occasional traces of metals.
125: The ratio of the number of hydrogen-rich to helium-rich white dwarfs
126: is a function of $T_{\rm eff}$, and the
127: chemical evolution of white dwarf atmospheres is complex
128: (e.g.\ Bergeron, Leggett \& Ruiz 2001; Tremblay \& Bergeron 2008).
129: The mass and composition of both the core and the atmosphere controls the
130: cooling rate of the white dwarf. Bergeron et al. (2001) use atmospheric and
131: evolutionary models to analyse a sample of white dwarfs with measured
132: trigonometric parallaxes to show that the coolest of these
133: white dwarfs, with $T_{\rm eff} \sim$4000--4500~K, are 9--10 Gyr old
134: if they have a thick hydrogen atmosphere, and 8--9 Gyr old if they have a
135: helium-rich atmosphere. These ages are consistent with the age of the
136: local Galactic disk (e.g.\ Leggett et al.\ 1998).
137:
138: Several groups are trying to find even cooler and older white dwarfs in
139: order to confirm the age of the disk, and to investigate the ages of older
140: Galactic components. The {\it Hubble Space Telescope} has enabled the
141: detection of white dwarf cooling sequences in clusters;
142: Hansen et al. \ (2007) has recently identified hydrogen-rich white dwarfs
143: with cooling ages of 11~Gyr at the truncation of the white dwarf sequence
144: in the 11.5~Gyr old globular cluster NGC 6397. Oppenheimer et al.\ (2001)
145: identified a sample of
146: high-velocity white dwarfs which was inferred to be a halo population by
147: their kinematics. However Reid et al. \ (2001) suggest that the majority
148: of this sample has kinematics consistent with thick disk membership, and
149: analysis of the sample by Bergeron et al.\ (2005)
150: found that the white dwarfs were relatively warm, implying relatively short
151: cooling ages. The age of the Oppenheimer et al. sample remains a matter of
152: debate (e.g.\ Ducourant et al.\ 2007 and references therein).
153:
154: Very cool white dwarfs are unambiguously old,
155: as their total age is dominated by the large cooling time. Such
156: white dwarfs have been found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
157: (SDSS, York et al.\ 2000). Kilic et al.\ (2006) use the SDSS and
158: US Naval Observatory catalog (USNO-B; Monet et al.\ 2003) to identify
159: cool white dwarfs using
160: a reduced proper motion (RPM) diagram. The RPM is defined as
161: %
162: \begin{equation}
163: %
164: \label{eq_flux}
165: H_{\rm mag} = \rm mag + (5 \times {\rm log(\mu)}) + 5
166: %
167: \end{equation}
168: %
169: where the proper motion $\mu$
170: is measured in arcseconds per year. Here the apparent magnitude (mag) and
171: $\mu$ are used as a proxy for absolute magnitude for a sample with similar
172: kinematics (see e.g. Jones 1972).
173:
174: Kilic et al. (2006) have spectroscopically confirmed several white dwarfs
175: with $ 15.7 < r < 19.7 $
176: using the RPM diagram, including sixteen with $T_{\rm eff}$ around
177: 4000~K or cooler. The RPM diagram was also used by
178: Carollo et al.\ (2006) to identify cool white dwarf candidates in the Guide
179: Star Catalog II (GCS-II) database, of which 24, with $ 15 < R_{\rm F} < 20 $, were confirmed by spectroscopy
180: to be previously unknown white dwarfs. Hall et al.\ (2008) recently
181: identified an $r = 18.8$ halo white dwarf candidate in the SDSS from its spectrum and
182: high proper motion. Vidrih et al.\ (2007) also used the RPM diagram
183: to identify over 1000 cool white dwarf candidates in a deeply
184: imaged SDSS region known as Stripe 82, including 24 candidates that may
185: be cooler than 4000~K, and 34 halo white dwarf candidates. These candidates,
186: which have $ 18 < r < 22 $,
187: are yet to be confirmed spectroscopically.
188:
189: Low-temperature hydrogen-rich white dwarf atmospheres are at high pressures,
190: and show strong pressure-induced molecular hydrogen (H$_2$) opacity. This
191: opacity has a broad absorption feature around 2 $\mu$m, which affects the
192: $H$ and $K$ near-infrared bands, centered near 1.65 and 2.2 $\mu$m,
193: respectively. When $T_{\rm eff}$ decreases below 4000~K, the opacity also
194: impacts the red (0.8 $\mu$m) and far-red (1.1 $\mu$m) colors (Borysow 2002).
195: Harris et al.\ (2001) and Gates et al.\ (2004) used this feature
196: to identify and confirm six extremely cool white dwarfs, with
197: $ 18.9 \leq r \leq 19.6 $,
198: by their unusual
199: SDSS colors. Harris et al.\ (2008) extend this study and present an
200: additional seven cool white dwarfs with $ 18.7 \leq r \leq 20.4 $
201: found in the SDSS by their
202: colors. Rowell et al.\ (2008) in a similar way identified an
203: $ R_{\rm F} = 17.8 $ ultracool
204: white dwarf in the SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey (Hambly et al.\ 2001)
205: from its $BRI$ colors.
206:
207: Although analysis of white dwarfs with such cold and high-pressure
208: atmospheres is
209: difficult (e.g.\ Bergeron \& Leggett 2002) it is important to add to the
210: still small sample of cool and old white dwarfs. Not only do these objects
211: impart information about the history of the Galaxy, but improving our
212: understanding of the physics of such atmospheres is of general significance,
213: for example for modelling cool high-pressure planetary and brown dwarf
214: atmospheres.
215:
216: In this paper we present the results of a search of the UKIRT Infrared Deep
217: Sky Survey (UKIDSS; Lawrence et al.\ 2007) for cool white dwarfs. We
218: identified our sample by pairing the optical photometry given in the SDSS Data Release Number 5
219: (DR5; Adelman-McCarthy et al.\ 2007) with the infrared photometry in Data Release Number 2 of the Large
220: Area Survey (LAS) of UKIDSS (DR2; Warren et al.\ 2007b). Both techniques
221: described above were utilized --- candidates were selected using the
222: RPM diagram, and also by color, selecting for the presence of H$_2$
223: opacity.
224: The following sections describe the LAS (\S 2), the sample
225: selection (\S 3), the results of our spectroscopic follow-up (\S 4)
226: and model analysis (\S 5), and a discussion of these results (\S 6).
227: We show that we have discovered faint and cool white dwarfs
228: with $ 19.5 \leq r \leq 20.6 $ and $ 5400 \leq T_{\rm eff}$~(K)~$\leq 6600$.
229:
230: %
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: %%%% UKIDSS %%%%
233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
234: %
235:
236: \section{The UKIDSS Large Area Survey}
237:
238: UKIDSS (Lawrence et al. 2007) is a large-scale infrared survey conducted
239: with the UK InfraRed Telescope (UKIRT) Wide Field Camera
240: (WFCAM; Casali et al.\ 2007). WFCAM uses filters following the Mauna Kea
241: Observatories specification (Tokunaga, Simons \& Vacca 2002), and
242: the UKIDSS photometric system is described by Hewett et al.\ (2006).
243: Observations began in May 2005. The data and catalogues generated
244: by the automatic pipeline processing can
245: be retrieved through the WFCAM Science Archive (WSA; Hambly et al.\ 2008).
246:
247: All data are pipeline-processed by the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit
248: (CASU; Irwin et al., in preparation) following a standard procedure for
249: infrared images. An extensive description of each step involved in the
250: processing of the WFCAM data is available on the CASU
251: webpage\footnote{http://casu.ast.cam.ac.uk/surveys-projects/wfcam/technical}.
252: Summaries of the data reduction can also be found in Lawrence et al.\ (2007),
253: Dye et al.\ (2006), and Warren et al.\ (2007a).
254:
255: UKIDSS actually consists of five survey components, one of which is the
256: Large Area Survey (LAS). The LAS is the sub-survey most likely to contain
257: faint and rare sources of the local Galaxy, such as the cool white dwarfs
258: and brown dwarfs. The LAS aims to survey 4000 square degrees in $YJHK$
259: with a second epoch at $J$, to reach $J \sim$ 20 mag. The $5 \sigma$ photometric
260: depths of the second Data Release of the LAS are $Y = 20.2$, $J = 19.6$,
261: $H = 18.8$, and $K = 18.2$ mag (Warren et al.\ 2007b). The area surveyed
262: by the LAS was designed to overlap with the SDSS, divided up into three
263: blocks. The equatorial block with Right Ascension 23 to 04 hours
264: and Declination between $-$1.5 and $+$1.5 degrees overlaps SDSS
265: stripes 9 to 16. The southern block covers 8 to 14 hours
266: and (approximately) $-$3 to $+$15 degrees, and includes
267: SDSS stripe 82. Finally, the northern block
268: (available in upcoming data releases) will provide an overlap
269: with SDSS stripes 26 to 33. This information is
270: detailed in Lawrence et al.\ (2007), Dye et al.\ (2006), and Warren
271: et al.\ (2007a).
272:
273: A significant amount of multi-band photometric data has already
274: been released worldwide: the Early Data Release (EDR; Dye et al.\ 2006)
275: and Data Release Number 1 (DR1; Warren et al.\ 2007a). In addition,
276: a second Data Release was made available to the ESO community in March
277: 2007 (DR2; Warren et al.\ 2007b), a third in December
278: 2007 (DR3), and a fourth in July 2008. The sources presented
279: here were selected in July 2007 from LAS DR2, which included
280: 282 deg$^2$ of $YJHK$ data.
281:
282:
283:
284: %
285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286: %%%% Sample selection %%%%
287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
288: %
289: \section{Sample Selection}
290: %
291:
292: We have used Structured Query Language (SQL) and the WFCAM Science Archive
293: to carry out a cross-correlation of the UKIDSS LAS DR2 and SDSS DR5 databases.
294: We have restricted our queries of the LAS database to detections classified
295: as point sources
296: (``mergedClass'' parameter equal to $-1$
297: \footnote{A classification code where a point source has a
298: value of $-$1 and a galaxy $+$1. A full description is available at
299: http://surveys.roe.ac.uk/wsa/www/gloss\_m.html\#lassource\_mergedclass.})
300: and to good detections only ({``ppErrBits'' $<$256
301: \footnote{A value describing the quality of the detection.
302: More details on this parameter are available at
303: http://surveys.roe.ac.uk/wsa/www/gloss\_y.html\#lassource\_ypperrbits.})
304: to avoid cross talk\footnote{Cross-talk artefacts are due to the
305: presence of a nearby bright star.} and other artefacts.
306: Similar queries were used to find brown dwarfs in the field and in open
307: clusters (Lodieu et al.\ 2007a, b, c); additional examples and details can
308: be found in Hambly et al.\ (2008). The query imposed a detection in all of
309: $YJH$, and included color cuts as well as a lower limit on the proper motion,
310: as described below. Sources were matched by requiring the presence of a
311: ``primary'' SDSS source within 2$\arcsec$ of the LAS coordinates.
312: Increasing the search radius to 5$\arcsec$ picked up either no additional source, or additional sources that were clearly matched to other UKIDSS sources.
313: The query returned coordinates,
314: photometry and errors from both surveys, as well as the proper motion
315: (Tables 1 and 2).
316:
317: The proper motion was computed from the difference in the LAS DR2 and
318: SDSS DR5 coordinates. The WFCAM astrometry is tied to the
319: 2MASS point source catalogue and has a systematic accuracy of $< 0\farcs 1
320: \ rms$ (Dye et al. 2006). Figure 1 shows the size of the scatter in the
321: difference between the SDSS DR5 and LAS DR2 astrometry, as a function of $J$-band brightness.
322: For the sources considered here, with $ 18.7 \leq J \leq 19.5$, the typical
323: uncertainty is $0\farcs 025$ to $0\farcs 04$.
324: The LAS and SDSS epochs differ by 2 to 7 years for all our candidates,
325: and 2 to 4 years for our confirmed white dwarfs. Hence our lower limit to proper motion of
326: 0.1 arcsec yr$^{-1}$ can be measured to $>5 \sigma$.
327: We note that the proper motion measured for the brightest white dwarf in our sample using the SDSS DR2 and USNO-B catalogs
328: is in good agreement with our value --- the WFCAM data gives ($\mu_\alpha$, $\mu_\delta$) of ($+$0.142, $-$0.084) cf.
329: ($+$0.128, $-$0.072) arcsec yr$^{-1}$ (Kilic et al. 2006).
330:
331:
332:
333: Our color selections were based on a combination of published and modelled
334: colors of cool ($T_{\rm eff} < 7000$~K) hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, as available in July 2007. An initial search using Bergeron et al. (1995) model colors only, for $T_{\rm eff} \leq 4000$~K produced no matches.
335: We applied the following selections to the SDSS
336: DR5 and LAS DR2 databases, where the $gri$ are AB magnitudes and the
337: $JHK$ are Vega magnitudes:
338: $$ +0.2 \leq g - r \leq +1.2 $$
339: $$ -0.6 \leq r - i \leq +0.6 $$
340: $$ J - H < -0.1 $$
341: $$ H - K < -0.1 $$
342: $K$ non-detections (i.e. $K > 18.2$) were also included if the $g - r$, $r - i$ and $J - H$ criteria were met.
343: To avoid saturation we selected objects fainter than $J = 14.0$;
344: the lower limit on $J$ is set by the requirements of a blue $J - H$ color
345: and a detection at $H$. We selected objects fainter than the
346: $5 \sigma$\ $H$ detection limit of 18.8; we identified objects as faint as
347: $H=19.7$ although that results in highly uncertain $H$ magnitudes, as we
348: discuss further below.
349:
350: This query was designed to pick up neutral to red stellar sources in $g-r$,
351: with blue near-infrared colors indicating pressure-induced H$_2$ opacity in the near-infrared. Very red sources ($ g-i > 1.8$) were excluded as these are likely to be subdwarfs for the reduced proper motion values considered here
352: ($H_{\rm g}>20$, see e.g. Figure 1 of Kilic et al. 2006). Thus our search is designed to find cool sources with high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmospheres.
353: The query returned 586 objects.
354:
355: The sample size was reduced by requiring a proper motion larger than $0\farcs 1$ yr$^{-1}$ (corresponding to a $> \sim$5$\sigma$ detection on the total
356: motion, as described above). Our sample
357: has $g = 20 - 21$, hence this proper motion selection implies
358: reduced proper motions $H_g > 20$, appropriate for discovering previously
359: unrecognized white dwarfs in the old disk and halo (cf.\ Figure~1 of Kilic
360: et al.\ 2006). The proper motion cut reduced the sample to ten objects.
361: Of these ten objects, seven were accessible over the allocated telescope
362: time period and had no spectra, one had already been identified and
363: observed by Kilic et al.\ (2006) and two others were inaccessible.
364: Table 1 lists the astrometry and reduced proper motion for all ten
365: candidates, and Table 2 gives their SDSS and LAS photometry from
366: the latest releases, i.e.\ SDSS DR6 and LAS DR3.
367:
368: Our databases search did not pick up any of the other recently identified
369: cool white dwarfs described in \S 1, either because the sources
370: were outside the LAS DR2 sky area or the color criteria (usually the
371: blue near-infrared colors) were not met. For example, only three
372: out of the 112 white dwarfs reported by Kilic et al.\ (2006) are
373: detected in $YJH$ and lie within the LAS DR2 area, and only one of those
374: met our color criteria.
375: Other sources not in our sky area include those of Gates et al.\ (2004),
376: Hall et al.\ (2008), Rowell et al.\ (2008), and most of the
377: Carollo et al.\ (2006) and Harris et al.\ (2008)
378: sources. Those with inappropriate colors include the Harris et al.\ (2001)
379: source that is not detected at $J$ or $H$; two Carollo et al.\ sources;
380: and two sources from Harris et al.\ (2008), one of which is not detected at $H$ and the
381: other of which has $J - H >$ 0. Of the 13 faint disk and halo candidates
382: identified by Vidrih et al.\ (2008) that are detected at all of $YJH$,
383: only one has $J - H < -$0.1, and that is the Kilic et al.\ white dwarf
384: recovered in our search.
385:
386: Figure 2 shows $g - r$:$r - i$ and $i - J$:$J - H$ color-color plots
387: demonstrating the location of all 586 preliminary candidates, as well the
388: ten final white dwarf candidates, and a main sequence drawn
389: from a sample of SDSS$+$LAS sources with small photometric errors.
390: Also shown are modelled colors from Holberg \& Bergeron (2006;
391: see also \S 5.1 below), and some of the recently published
392: cool white dwarfs (or white dwarf candidates) described above.
393: Our color selections are indicated. While the $gri$ selection picks up both
394: warm to cool stars and white dwarfs, the cut $J - H < -0.1$ should eliminate
395: all but the hydrogen-rich white dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff} < 4000$~K,
396: according to the models. An important caveat is that selecting candidates
397: that are faint and blue in the near-infrared produces
398: sources that are very faint at $H$, and
399: so the errors in $J - H$ are significant (see Figure 2 and Table 2).
400: The uncertainties in the fainter half of the sample with $H > 19.0$ may
401: also be underestimated; extrapolation of the uncertainties for the brighter sources suggests that these should have $\sigma H \sim 0.5$~mag cf. 0.3 mag. We address this further in the data analysis presented in \S 5.
402:
403: Figure 3 shows the $H_{\rm g}$:$g - i$ RPM diagram for our sample, and other
404: white dwarfs taken from the literature, as described in the caption.
405: The expected locations of the white dwarf cooling curves for the disk and
406: halo are indicated on the plot. Our confirmed white dwarfs lie at
407: the lower end of the white dwarf sequence and have $H_{\rm g} > 20.35$.
408: The objects selected by our color and proper motion cuts do not form a
409: complete sample in $H_{\rm g}$ space. Faint objects with proper motion
410: less than $0\farcs 1$ yr$^{-1}$ also lie in the region defined by
411: $H_{\rm g} > 20.35$; however targets with $r > 20.5$ were impractical for
412: followup in the allocated telescope time, and some targets were unreachable. Our sampling of the 586 SDSS$+$LAS targets with $H_{\rm g} > 20.35$ is 90\% complete for the sources with
413: $r < 20.3$ but only 25\% complete for those with $ 20.3 < r < 20.5$.
414:
415:
416: %
417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
418: %%%% Spectroscopy %%%%
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: %
421: \section{Spectroscopic Observations}
422:
423: Ten hours of Gemini North observing time was granted to this project through
424: program GN-2007B-DD-6. Table 3 gives the total on-source exposure time for
425: the seven targets, and the dates on which they were observed. We
426: obtained long-slit spectroscopy with the GMOS-N instrument
427: (Hook et al.\ 2004) during dark photometric and non-photometric conditions.
428: The $1\arcsec$ slit was used with the
429: R150 grating providing a resolution of $\sim 17$~nm, for the typical
430: delivered seeing of $0 \farcs 7$ FWHM.
431: We blocked second-order contamination from
432: wavelengths shorter than $\sim$450 nm by using the G0305 filter. The
433: wavelength coverage obtained was 460 -- 950 nm, however detector fringing
434: affected the spectra longwards of 820 nm. For this initial investigation of
435: the SDSS$+$LAS candidate list we chose wide wavelength coverage, and so low
436: resolution, with good coverage of the red. The wide wavelength coverage
437: ensured that we could confidently identify subdwarfs or other
438: non-white dwarf contaminants, and the extension to the red
439: allowed detection of far-red pressure-induced H$_2$ effects, should any be present.
440:
441: Flatfielding and wavelength
442: calibration were achieved using lamps in the on-telescope calibration unit.
443: The standard star HZ 44 was used to determine the instrument response curve,
444: and flux calibrate the spectra. The data were reduced using routines
445: supplied in the IRAF Gemini package.
446:
447: Figure 4 shows the GMOS spectra obtained by us, as well as the spectrum
448: obtained at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope by Kilic et al.\ (2006) for
449: SDSS J2242$+$00. For reference, spectra of an F dwarf and F subdwarf
450: are also shown (taken from the spectral atlas of Le Borgne et al. 2003).
451: Six of our seven objects show hydrogen lines pressure-broadened by the high
452: gravities typical of white dwarfs, and no other features, while the
453: seventh is featureless. Hence all seven of our observed candidates
454: are confirmed to be white dwarfs.
455:
456: %
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: %%%% Modelling %%%%
459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
460: %
461: \section{Modelling the Observed Colors and Spectra}
462: %
463: \subsection{Description of the Models and Fitting Technique}
464: %
465:
466: The model atmospheres used in this analysis are described at length in
467: Bergeron et al.~(1995, with updates given in Bergeron et al.~2001,
468: 2005). These models are in local thermodynamic equilibrium, they allow
469: energy transport by convection, and they can be calculated with
470: arbitrary amounts of hydrogen and helium. Synthetic colors are
471: obtained using the procedure outlined in Holberg \& Bergeron (2006)
472: based on the Vega fluxes taken from Bohlin \& Gilliland (2004).
473:
474: The method used to fit the photometric data is similar to that
475: described in Bergeron et al.~(2001), which we briefly summarize here. We
476: first transform the magnitudes at each bandpass into observed average
477: fluxes $f_{\lambda}^m$ using the following equation
478:
479: %
480: \begin{equation}
481: %
482: \label{eq_flux_obs}
483: %
484: m= -2.5\log f_{\lambda}^m + c_m
485: %
486: \end{equation}
487: %
488:
489: \noindent
490: where the values of the constants $c_m$ for the infrared $YJHK$
491: photometry are obtained using the transmission functions from Hewett
492: et al.\ (2006) and the Vega fluxes discussed above; we obtain $c_Y=-23.10069$,
493: $c_J=-23.81578$, $c_H=,-24.84612$, and $c_K=-26.00940$. For the
494: optical $ugriz$ photometry, we simply rely on the definition of the
495: AB$_\nu$ magnitude system (see, e.g., eq.~3 of Holberg \& Bergeron
496: 2006). Small corrections to the SDSS $uiz$ (not to $gr$) magnitudes
497: have been applied and included in the modelling following the
498: work by Eisenstein et al.\ (2006).
499: The resulting energy distributions are then fitted with the
500: model Eddington fluxes $H_{\lambda}^m$ properly averaged over the
501: appropriate filter bandpasses (for the $ugriz$ system, we use the
502: transmission functions discussed in Holberg \& Bergeron 2006 and
503: references therein). The average observed and model fluxes are related
504: by the equation
505:
506: %
507: \begin{equation}
508: %
509: \label{eq_flux_model}
510: %
511: f_{\lambda}^m= 4\pi~(R/D)^2~H_{\lambda}^m
512: %
513: \end{equation}
514: %
515:
516: \medskip
517: \noindent where $R/D$ is the ratio of the radius of the star to its distance
518: from Earth. Our fitting procedure relies on the nonlinear
519: least-squares method of Levenberg-Marquardt, which is based on a
520: steepest descent method. The value of $\chi ^2$ is taken as the sum
521: over all bandpasses of the difference between both sides of equation
522: (3), properly weighted by the corresponding observational
523: uncertainties.
524: Since our models do not include the red wing opacity from Ly~$\alpha$
525: calculated by Kowalski \& Saumon (2006), we
526: neglect here the $u$ bandpass in our fitting procedure since
527: this opacity may be important in the ultraviolet region.
528: We also neglect the $H$-band data due to the large uncertainties in
529: these data. For one of our white dwarfs, ULAS J1522$+$08, the (faint)
530: $z$-band magnitude appeared discrepant, compared to both other wavelengths
531: and to the models, and was ignored.
532:
533: We consider only $T_{\rm eff}$ and the solid angle $\pi(R/D)^2$ free
534: parameters. The uncertainties of $T_{\rm eff}$ and the solid angle are
535: obtained directly from the covariance matrix of the fit. Since the
536: distance to each object in our sample is not known, we assume a
537: value of $\log g = 8.0$ in the following analysis. White dwarfs have been
538: shown to have a very strongly peaked mass and surface gravity
539: distribution (e.g.\ Bergeron et al.\ 1992; Liebert, Bergeron \& Holberg 2005;
540: Kepler et al. 2008). DA white dwarfs have a mean mass of
541: $0.6 \pm 0.1\ M_{\odot}$ while DBs are slightly more massive with
542: $0.7 \pm 0.1\ M_{\odot}$; these ranges infer a likely range in gravity
543: for our sample of $7.7 \leq \log g \leq 8.3$.
544:
545: Figures 5 through 7 show the model fits to the observational data, assuming
546: $\log g = 8.0$. For most of the sample, relatively warm temperatures are
547: derived of $T_{\rm eff} \approx$ 6000~K; for these the uncertainty in
548: $T_{\rm eff}$ due to the photometric scatter is around 180~K
549: (Figures~5 and 6). Experiments including the $H$-band data in the fits,
550: both with the nominal photometric uncertainty, and with twice the nominal
551: uncertainty (as might be expected for the faintest objects, based on an
552: extrapolation of the S/N of the brighter objects), gave differences in
553: derived temperature of only $\sim 30$~K; hence the uncertainty in
554: $T_{\rm eff}$ is dominated by the photometric scatter.
555: (Fits to the spectral energy distributions with $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 400$~K, i.e.
556: around twice the error derived from the scatter, produce synthetic fluxes that
557: fall well outside the error bars for the $z$, $Y$ and $J$ datapoints.)
558: All the $H$-band datapoints
559: appear faint because of our selection for objects with apparently blue $J - H$ color.
560: The faint magnitudes and associated large photometric errors have scattered
561: relatively warm white dwarfs into our target selection.
562:
563: The previously known dwarf SDSS J2242$+$00 recovered in our selection, however, is a
564: low-temperature white dwarf. This object is much cooler than the rest of the
565: sample, and we show below we can produce a good fit with $T_{\rm eff} = 3820\pm100$~K
566: (Figure~7). For this object both the $u$ and $g$ photometry
567: was ignored, due to the missing Ly~$\alpha$ opacity which has a larger impact at
568: lower temperatures (e.g. Figure\ 4 of Kowalski \& Saumon 2006).
569:
570: %
571: \subsection{Surface Gravity, Composition and Temperature}
572: %
573:
574: Since the energy distributions are not particularly sensitive to
575: $\log g$ in the temperature range considered
576: here, our assumption of $\log g = 8.0$ for all objects will not affect our
577: $T_{\rm eff}$ estimates. For instance, a variation of $\pm0.5$ dex in
578: $\log g$ yields differences in effective temperature of $\pm 15$~K on
579: average. This is much smaller than the uncertainty due to the
580: photometric variations.
581:
582: The effect of the presence of helium on the predicted energy
583: distributions and spectra of DA stars in this temperature range
584: is discussed in detail in Bergeron et al.\ (1997; see their
585: \S 5.4 and Figures\ 23 and 24).
586: Note that He~I lines become spectroscopically invisible
587: for $T_{\rm eff} < 10000$~K, and so we would not detect helium features
588: in our sample. While an atmospheric
589: composition of $N({\rm He})/N({\rm H})=1$ will not affect the energy
590: distribution and thus the temperature estimates significantly for
591: $T_{\rm eff} \approx 6000$~K, the
592: H$\alpha$ line profiles are predicted to be much more shallow than in the
593: pure hydrogen models. Hence the sharpness of the H$\alpha$ absorption
594: profiles reported here for six of the white dwarfs imply that these
595: objects have hydrogen-rich atmospheres. The differences in
596: $T_{\rm eff}$ that would be derived for the pure-helium fit range from 20~K
597: to 120~K, for these white dwarfs with 5400 $< T_{\rm eff} <$ 6600~K
598: (Figures~5 and 6). For the seventh white dwarf, ULAS J0302$+$00,
599: the lack of hydrogen features similarly constrains the atmosphere to be helium-rich.
600: In this case however the difference in temperature between the two
601: composition fits is only 20~K (Figure~5).
602:
603: Neither pure-hydrogen or pure-helium atmospheres produced a good fit
604: to the energy distribution of the very cool white dwarf SDSS
605: J2242$+$00, discovered by Kilic et al.\ (2006). Instead, a good fit
606: was found using a model with almost identical amounts of hydrogen and
607: helium (Figure~7). In this case the featureless spectrum does not
608: constrain the composition, as hydrogen lines would not be present at
609: this low a temperature.
610:
611: For the two white dwarf candidates without spectra, ULAS J1528$+$06 and
612: ULAS J1554$+$08, Figure 6 shows that,
613: if white dwarfs, these objects are relatively warm with
614: 6060 $\leq T_{\rm eff} \leq$ 6330~K. The faintness of the sources,
615: combined with their significant proper motion, suggests that these objects
616: are indeed evolved white dwarf remnants.
617:
618: Table 4 lists the derived atmospheric properties of the ten white dwarfs
619: discovered or recovered in our search of DR2 of the UKIDSS LAS. Using the
620: composition and temperature, and assuming that these stars have the canonical
621: white dwarf mass of 0.6 $M_{\odot}$, we can use the synthetic colors of
622: Holberg \& Bergeron (2006, an extension of Bergeron, Wesemael \& Beauchamp
623: 1995) and the evolutionary sequences of Fontaine, Brassard \& Bergeron (2001)
624: to derive both a cooling age and distance, and hence tangential velocity.
625: These values are also given in Table 4, together with the uncertainty in
626: $T_{\rm eff}$ -- due to photometric scatter -- as well as that in the implied
627: cooling age, distance and velocity -- all of which are primarily due to the
628: uncertainty in gravity (or mass). We discuss the implications of
629: these findings below.
630:
631: %
632: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
633: %%%% Discussion %%%%
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635: %
636: \section{Discussion}
637:
638: Nine of the sample of ten white dwarfs found in our search have
639: 5400 $< T_{\rm eff} <$ 6600~K. The evolutionary models imply that their
640: cooling ages are 1.8 -- 3.6 Gyr if they are 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ white dwarfs,
641: and around 2 Gyr older or 1 Gyr younger if they are more or less massive
642: (see \S 5.1 and Table 4). The range in gravity used here of $\pm 0.3$~dex
643: corresponds to a range in mass of $\sim\pm 0.2 M_{\odot}$.
644: Recent studies of the initial-final mass relation
645: (Catal\'{a}n et al. 2008, Kalirai et al. 2008) suggest that low-mass stars can
646: produce relatively high-mass white dwarf remnants. Specifically, a
647: 1.0 $M_{\odot}$ star will produce a 0.50 $M_{\odot}$ white dwarf, and
648: a 2.0 $M_{\odot}$ star will produce a 0.60 $M_{\odot}$ white dwarf.
649: As the main sequence lifetimes of such stars are 10 -- 2 Gyr, it is impossible
650: to constrain the total age of our nine $\sim$6000~K white dwarfs; if they have
651: the canonical white dwarf mass the total age is $\sim$5~Gyr, however if they
652: are even slightly less massive they may be much older.
653:
654: The tenth source discovered by Kilic et al.\ (2006), SDSS J2242$+$00, is brighter, closer and cooler than the other objects in the sample. The evolutionary models give it a
655: cooling age of 8.7 Gyr. Hence SDSS J2242$+$00 is clearly old with a total age $>$9 Gyr.
656:
657: The models and data allow us to estimate distances and tangential velocities
658: for the white dwarfs in our sample (Table 4).
659: Bergeron, Ruiz \& Leggett (1997, their Figure 34) and Holberg, Bergeron \& Gainninas (2008) show that distances determined using absolute model fluxes,
660: with model parameters determined either from spectroscopy or photometry,
661: agree well with those measured trigonometrically.
662: The LAS sample of white dwarfs can probe to fainter SDSS magnitudes
663: and hence greater distances than for example the Kilic et al.\ (2006) sample.
664: Kilic et al.\ required good detections in USNO-B in order to determine
665: reliable proper motions, and hence was limited to $g <$ 20 mag
666: (Monet et al.\ 2003). The LAS sample goes one magnitude fainter and
667: includes sources with 19.7 $< g <$ 21.0 mag. The cool white dwarf SDSS J2242$+$00
668: is at a distance of 40 pc, while the warmer LAS sample lies
669: 140--200 pc distant. Because of the large distances, the implied tangential
670: velocities for the LAS sample are also much higher than that of the SDSS
671: white dwarf: 70--120 km~s$^{-1}$ cf.\ 30 km~s$^{-1}$.
672: Allowing for a range in gravity, the LAS white dwarfs may be $\sim$30 pc closer or
673: more distant, which translates into a range of velocities of 60--140 km~s$^{-1}$
674: (Table 4). The sense of the gravity effect is that more massive white dwarfs
675: will have a longer cooling age and be closer and slower, and vice versa.
676: Even allowing for a generous range in mass for our LAS white dwarf sample,
677: their distances and motions remain large. Parallax determination will be difficult
678: for these white dwarfs.
679:
680: The galaxy simulations of Robin et al.\ (2003) and
681: Haywood, Robin \& Cr\'{e}z\'{e} (1997) predict scale heights, velocity
682: dispersions and ages for the thin and thick disk and stellar halo
683: (or spheroid) components of our Galaxy. The ages of these three components
684: are 0 -- 10 Gyr, 11 Gyr and 14 Gyr, respectively; the $UVW$ dispersions are
685: 20 -- 40 km~s$^{-1}$ for thin disk stars older than 3~Gyr, 40 -- 70 km~s$^{-1}$
686: for the thick disk, and 80 -- 130 km~s$^{-1}$ for the halo. The scale heights
687: are 100 -- 160 pc for the thin disk, and 800 pc for the thick disk.
688:
689: The high velocities of the $T_{\rm eff} \sim$ 6000~K LAS white dwarfs are
690: suggestive of thick disk or even halo membership. Given the short cooling age,
691: this implies that they would then be remnants of thick disk or halo late-F or
692: G stars. Alternatively, they may be younger thin disk remnants with high
693: velocities, such as described in Bergeron (2003).
694: Conversely, SDSS J2242$+$00 appears to be old and nearby,
695: with a low space motion. The velocities could be consistent with
696: thick disk membership if there is a significant radial component. A parallax for
697: this white dwarf would be helpful for further analysis.
698:
699: Although our $J - H$ selection was designed to pick up $T_{\rm eff} < 4000$~K sources
700: (Figure 2), only one was found, together with significantly warmer sources.
701: Pushing the LAS to its limits led to large uncertainties in the H magnitude,
702: hence warmer white dwarfs were scattered into our catalog selection.
703: The volume probed by Kilic et al.\ (2006) in their search of 3320~deg$^2$ of
704: the second Data Release of the SDSS, to $g \approx $20 mag, is approximately
705: three times larger than the volume probed here (the LAS DR2 area is around a
706: factor of 12 smaller, while we reached a depth $\sim 1.6\times$ larger).
707: Kilic et al.\ found seven white dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff} < 4000$~K, hence we might have
708: expected to find two cool white dwarfs, as opposed to the one found.
709: Our color selections could have excluded some very cool
710: white dwarfs --- see for example the location of
711: the possible halo white dwarf (Hall et al.\ 2008) in Figure 2, which is
712: redder than both our $g - r$ and $J - H$ upper limits.
713: Hall et al. state that this white dwarf is redder than predicted by any current model,
714: indicating the complexity of the physics of these atmospheres.
715: Having performed this initial search and demonstrated the validity of the technique,
716: we will now refine our color selections and apply them to more recent and larger
717: LAS data releases. We expect to discover more of these
718: elusive remnants of the early history of the Galaxy.
719:
720:
721: %
722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
723: %%%% Conclusions %%%%
724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
725: %
726: \section{Conclusions}
727:
728: We have searched 280~deg$^2$ of the second data release of the UKIDSS
729: Large Area Survey for cool white dwarfs. Candidates were
730: identified by pairing the database with the fifth data release of the Sloan
731: Digital Sky Survey, and searching for high proper motion stars with neutral
732: optical colors and blue near-infrared colors. A 100\% success rate was found
733: when we obtained optical spectroscopy of seven candidates; we also recovered
734: a previously known cool white dwarf found in the SDSS database; we suggest
735: that the remaining two stars in the sample are also white dwarfs.
736:
737: The newly identified white dwarfs are relatively warm with
738: $T_{\rm eff} \approx$ 6000~K\@. Of the seven with spectroscopy, six have
739: hydrogen-rich atmospheres and the seventh has a helium-rich atmosphere. Their cooling age
740: is around 2.5 Gyr. The previously known SDSS white dwarf is cool, with a
741: mixed composition atmosphere and $T_{\rm eff}$ = 3800~K; the cooling age
742: is correspondingly larger at 9 Gyr. Our data does not allow us to constrain
743: surface gravity or mass for our sample, and we cannot determine
744: total age. The cooling age and estimated tangential velocity of the
745: coolest object suggests that it is an old member of the disk of the Galaxy,
746: with an age 10 -- 11~Gyr. The warmer white dwarfs have smaller cooling ages and
747: higher estimated velocities -- they may be remnants of low-mass stars and
748: therefore 11~Gyr-old members of the thick disk, or they may be $\sim$5~Gyr-old
749: thin disk remnants with high velocities.
750:
751: We will expand this sample with continued larger-area data releases of the
752: UKIDSS LAS. Based on the results presented here, we will refine our color
753: selection and in the next data release we should find several
754: cool -- and therefore necessarily old -- white dwarf remnants of early star
755: formation in the thick disk or even of the halo of the Galaxy.
756:
757:
758: %
759: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
760: %%%% Thanks! %%%%
761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
762: %
763: \acknowledgments
764:
765: We are grateful to the referee for comments which significantly improved the paper.
766: We thank M.\ Kilic for sending us the electronic form of
767: his published spectrum. SKL and AN are supported by the Gemini Observatory,
768: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
769: Astronomy, Inc., on behalf of the international Gemini partnership. PB
770: is a Cottrell Scholar of Research Corporation and he is supported by
771: the NSERC Canada and by the Fund FQRNT (Qu\'ebec). This research has
772: made use of the Simbad database of NASA's Astrophysics Data System
773: Bibliographic Services (ADS). The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope
774: is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the
775: Science and Technology Facilities Council of the U.K. Based on
776: observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory (program
777: GN-2007B-DD-6), which is operated by the Association of Universities
778: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with
779: the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science
780: Foundation (United States),
781: the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the
782: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
783: (Australia), Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (Brazil) and SECYT (Argentina).
784: The SDSS is
785: managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating
786: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum
787: of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
788: Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University,
789: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
790: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins
791: University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli
792: Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
793: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
794: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
795: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
796: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
797: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
798: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
799:
800:
801: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
802: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
803: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
804: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
805: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
806: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
807: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
808: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
809:
810: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
811: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
812: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
813: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
814: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
815:
816: {\it Facilities: \facility{UKIRT (WFCAM, UKIDSS LAS DR2 \& DR3)} \facility{Sloan (SDSS DR5 \& DR6)}, \facility{Gemini:Gillett (GMOS-N)}}
817:
818: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
819: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
820: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
821:
822: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
823: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
824: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
825:
826:
827: %
828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
829: %%%% Bibliography %%%%
830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
831: %
832: \begin{thebibliography}{}
833:
834: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al. (2007)]{sdss5}Adelman-McCarthy, J. K. et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 634
835:
836: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al. (2008)]{sdss6}Adelman-McCarthy, J. K. et al.\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
837:
838: \bibitem[Bergeron (2003)]{b03}Bergeron, P.\ 2003, \apj, 586, 201
839:
840: \bibitem[Bergeron \ Leggett (2002)]{BL02}Bergeron, P. \& Leggett, S. K.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 1070
841:
842: \bibitem[Bergeron, Leggett \& Ruiz (2001)]{BLR01}Bergeron, P., Leggett, S. K. \& Ruiz, M.-T.\ 2001, \apjs, 133, 413
843:
844: \bibitem[Bergeron et al. (2005)]{halo}Bergeron, P., Ruiz, M.-T, Hamuy, M., Leggett, S. K., Currie, M. J., Lajoie, C.-P. \& Dufour, P.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 838
845:
846: \bibitem[Bergeron, Ruiz \& Leggett (1997)]{BRL97}Bergeron, P., Ruiz, M.-T. \& Leggett, S. K.\ 1997, \apjs, 108, 339
847:
848: \bibitem[Bergeron, Saffer \ Liebert (1992)]{bsl}Bergeron, P., Saffer, R. A. \& Liebert, J.\ 1992, \apj, 394, 228
849:
850: \bibitem[Bergeron et al. (1995)]{pb95}Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F. \& Beauchamp, A.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 1047
851:
852: \bibitem[Bohlin \& Gilliland (2004)]{vega}Bohlin, R. C. \& Gilliland, R. L.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3508
853:
854: \bibitem[Borysow (2002)]{CIA}Borysow, A.\ 2002, \aap, 390, 779
855:
856: \bibitem[Carollo et al. (2006)]{car} Carollo, D. et al.\ 2006, \aap, 448, 579
857:
858: \bibitem[Carpenter (2001)]{2mass} Carpenter, J. M.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2851
859:
860: \bibitem[Casali et al. (2006)]{wfcam}Casali, M. et al.\ 2006, \aap, 467, 777
861:
862: \bibitem[Catal\'{a}n et al. (2008)]{cat}Catal\'{a}n, S., Isern, J., Garc\'{i}a-Berro, E. \& Ribas, I., 2008, \mnras, 387, 1693
863:
864: \bibitem[Ducourant et al. (2007)]{duc} Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R., Hambly, N. C., Oppenheimer, B. R., Hawkins, M. R. S., Rapaport, M., Modolo, J. \& Lecampion, J. F. 2007, \aap, 470, 387
865:
866: \bibitem[Dye et al. (2006)]{EDR} Dye, S. et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 1227
867:
868: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al. (2006)]{eisenstein06} Eisenstein, D. J., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 167, 40
869:
870: \bibitem[Fontaine et al. (2001)]{gf}Fontaine, G., Brassard, P. \& Bergeron, P.\ 2001, \pasp, 113, 409
871:
872: \bibitem[Fukugita et al. (1996)]{fukugita96}Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K. \& Schneider, D. P. 1996, \aj 111, 1748
873:
874: \bibitem[Gates et al. (2004)]{eg04} Gates, E. et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 612, L129
875:
876: \bibitem[Hall et al. (2008)]{hall08} Hall, P. B., Kowalski, P. M., Harris, H. C., Awal, A., Leggett, S. K., Kilic, M., Anderson, S. F. \& Gates, E.\ 2008, AJ, 136, 76
877:
878: \bibitem[Hambly et al. (2001)]{SSS} Hambly, N. C. et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 326, 1279
879:
880: \bibitem[Hambly et al. (2008)]{WSA} Hambly, N. C. et al.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 637
881:
882: \bibitem[Hansen et al. (2007)]{ngc6397} Hansen, B. M. S. et al. \ 2007, \apj, 671, 380
883:
884: \bibitem[Harris et al. (2008)]{hch08} Harris, H. C. et al.\ 2008, \apj, 679, 697
885:
886: \bibitem[Haywood, Robin \& Cr\'{e}z\'{e} (1997)]{haywood} Haywood, M., Robin, A. C. \& Cr\'{e}z\'{e}, P.\ 1997, \aap, 320, 440
887:
888: \bibitem[Hewett et al. (2006)]{hew} Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., Leggett, S. K. \& Hodgkin, S. T.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 454
889:
890: \bibitem[Holberg \& Bergeron (2006)]{hb}Holberg, J. B. \& Bergeron, P. 2006, \aj, 132, 1221
891:
892: \bibitem[Holberg et al. (2008)]{hbg}Holberg, J. B., Bergeron, P. \& Gianninas, A.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 1239
893:
894: \bibitem[Hook et al. (2004)]{gmos}Hook, I., J$\o$rgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., Davies, R. L., Metcalfe, N., Murowinski, R. G. \& Crampton, D.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 425
895:
896: \bibitem[Jones (1972)]{jones72} Jones, E. M.\ 1972, \apj, 177, 245
897:
898: \bibitem[Kalirai et al. (2008)]{kal} Kalirai, J. S., Hansen, B. M. S., Kelson, D. D., Reitzel, D. B., Rich, R. M. \& Richer, H. B. 2008, \apj, 676, 594
899:
900: \bibitem[Kepler et al. (2008)]{kep} Kepler, S. O. et al. 2007, \mnras, 375, 1315
901:
902: \bibitem[Kilic et al. (2006)]{k06} Kilic, M. et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 582
903:
904: \bibitem[Kowalski \& Saumon (2006)]{ks} Kowalski, P. M. \& Saumon, D. \ 2006, \apjl, 651, 137
905:
906: \bibitem[Lawrence et al. (2007)]{UKIDSS} Lawrence, A. et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 1599
907:
908: \bibitem[Le Borgne (2003)]{atlas} Le Borgne, J. -F. et al.\ 2003, \aap, 402, 433
909:
910: \bibitem[Leggett et al. (1998)]{lf}Leggett, S. K., Ruiz, M. T. \& Bergeron, P. \ 1998, \apj, 497, 294
911:
912: \bibitem[Liebert, Bergeron \& Holberg (2005)]{lie} Liebert, J., Bergeron, P. \& Holberg, J. B. \ 2005, \apjs, 156, 47
913:
914: \bibitem[Lodieu et al. (2007a)]{nla}Lodieu, N., Hambly, N. C., Jameson, R. F., Hodgkin, S. T., Carraro, G. \& Kendall, T. R.\ 2007a, \mnras, 374, 372
915:
916: \bibitem[Lodieu et al. (2007b)]{nlb}Lodieu, N. et al.\ 2007b, \mnras, 379, 1423
917:
918: \bibitem[Lodieu et al. (2007a)]{nlc}Lodieu, N., Dobbie, P. D., Deacon, N. R., Hodgkin, S. T., Hambly, N. C. \& Jameson, R. F.\ 2007c, \mnras, 380, 712
919:
920: \bibitem[Monet et al. (2003)]{usno}Monet, D. G. et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 984
921:
922: \bibitem[Oppenheimer et al. (2001)]{opp} Oppenheimer, B. R., Hambly, N. C., Digby, A. P., Hodgkin, S. T. \& Saumon, D.\ 2001, Science, 292, 698
923:
924: \bibitem[Reid et al. (2001)]{reid}Reid, I. N., Sahu, K. C.; Hawley, S. L. \ 2001, \apj, 559, 942
925:
926: \bibitem[Robin et al. (2003)]{robin} Robin, A. C., Reyl\'{e}, C., Derrie\`{e}rre, S. \& Picaud, S.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 523
927:
928: \bibitem[Rowell et al. (2008)]{row}Rowell, N. R., Kilic, M. \& Hambly, N. C.\ 2008, \mnras, 385, L23
929:
930: \bibitem[Tokunaga, Simons \& Vaca (2002)]{MKO} Tokunaga, A. T., Simons, D. A \&; Vacca, W. D.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 180
931:
932: \bibitem[Tremblay \& Bergeron (2008)]{TB} Tremblay, P.-E. \& Bergeron, P.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 1144
933:
934: \bibitem[Vidrih et al. (2008)]{v08} Vidrih, S. et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 382, 515
935:
936: \bibitem[Warren et al. (2007a)]{DR1}Warren, S. J. et al.\ 2007a, \mnras, 375, 213
937:
938: \bibitem[Warren et al. (2007b)]{DR2}Warren, S. J. et al.\ 2007b, arXiv:astro-ph/0703037
939:
940: \bibitem[Wood (1992)]{wood}Wood, M. A.\ 1992, \apj, 386, 539
941:
942: \bibitem[York et al. (2000)]{york00}York, D. G. et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
943:
944: \end{thebibliography}
945:
946:
947: %
948: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
949: %%%% Table: Objects %%%%
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951: %
952: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
953: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
954: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
955: %\tablecolumns{7}
956: \tablewidth{0pt}
957: %\rotate
958: \tablecaption{Astrometry for Candidate White Dwarfs in DR2 of the UKIDSS LAS}
959: \tablehead{
960: \colhead{Short Name} & \colhead{Right Ascension} & \colhead{Declination} & \colhead{Epoch} &
961: \colhead{$\mu$ $\arcsec$yr$^{-1}$} & \colhead{RPM}\\
962: \colhead{} & \colhead{HH:MM:SS.SS} & \colhead{DD:MM:SS.S} & \colhead{YYYYMMDD} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}\\
963: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}
964: & \colhead{(RA,dec)} & \colhead{$H_g$} \\
965: }
966: \startdata
967: ULAS J0049$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 00:49:00.53 & $-$00:39:42.1 & 20050902 & $-$0.120,$-$0.034 & 20.36 \\
968: ULAS J0142$+$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 01:42:21.79 & $+$00:35:50.9 & 20051126 & $+$0.050,$+$0.092 & 20.36 \\
969: ULAS J0226$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 02:26:26.53 & $-$00:39:34.9 & 20050926 & $-$0.049,$-$0.098 & 20.85 \\
970: ULAS J0302$+$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 03:02:21.35 & $+$00:55:57.0 & 20051007 & $+$0.118,$-$0.031 & 21.33 \\
971: ULAS J1522$+$08{\tablenotemark{a}} & 15:22:29.87 & $+$08:12:13.9 & 20060703 & $+$0.033,$-$0.099 & 21.04 \\
972: ULAS J1528$+$06{\tablenotemark{b}} & 15:28:07.15 & $+$06:04:59.4 & 20050528 & $-$0.061,$+$0.083 & 20.94 \\
973: ULAS J1554$+$08{\tablenotemark{b}} & 15:54:31.37 & $+$08:02:48.5 & 20060723 & $-$0.081,$-$0.113 & 20.91 \\
974: SDSS J2242$+$00{\tablenotemark{c}} & 22:42:06.23 & $+$00:48:22.4 & 20051007 & $+$0.142,$-$0.084 & 20.76 \\
975: ULAS J2331$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 23:31:47.60 & $-$00:48:50.0 & 20050828 & $+$0.137,$+$0.003 & 21.16 \\
976: ULAS J2339$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 23:39:41.65 & $-$00:43:06.4 & 20050828 & $+$0.099,$+$0.029 & 20.49 \\
977: \enddata
978: \tablecomments{Typical uncertainty in proper motion is 14 mas yr$^{-1}$.}
979: \tablenotetext{a}{Confirmed as a white dwarf spectroscopically in this work.}
980: \tablenotetext{b}{Unconfirmed as a white dwarf.}
981: \tablenotetext{c}{Discovered in SDSS by Kilic et al. (2006) and confirmed
982: spectroscopically by those authors. Our proper motion determination is in
983: agreement with their estimate.}
984: \end{deluxetable}
985:
986: \clearpage
987:
988: \clearpage
989:
990:
991: %
992: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
993: %%%% Table: Photometry %%%%
994: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
995: %
996: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}
997: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
998: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
999: %\tablecolumns{9}
1000: \tablewidth{0pt}
1001: \rotate
1002: \tablecaption{Photometry for Candidate White Dwarfs in DR2 of the UKIDSS LAS}
1003: \tablehead{
1004: \colhead{Short Name} & \colhead{$u$(err)} & \colhead{$g$(err)} & \colhead{$r$(err)} & \colhead{$i$(err)} &
1005: \colhead{$z$(err)} & \colhead{$Y$(err)} & \colhead{$J$(err)} & \colhead{$H$(err)} \\
1006: }
1007: \startdata
1008: ULAS J0049$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 20.78(0.11) & 19.87(0.02) & 19.52(0.02) & 19.42(0.02) & 19.50(0.09)
1009: & 19.05(0.08) & 18.72(0.11) & 18.82(0.27) \\
1010: ULAS J0142$+$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 20.96(0.09) & 20.26(0.02) & 19.86(0.02) & 19.68(0.03) & 19.68(0.08)
1011: & 19.21(0.08) & 18.75(0.09) & 18.94(0.21) \\
1012: ULAS J0226$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 21.83(0.22) & 20.66(0.03) & 20.14(0.02) & 20.03(0.03) & 19.97(0.09)
1013: & 19.36(0.10) & 18.98(0.14) & 19.08(0.23) \\
1014: ULAS J0302$+$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 21.66(0.18) & 20.90(0.03) & 20.48(0.03) & 20.27(0.04) & 20.23(0.13)
1015: & 19.60(0.11) & 19.28(0.16) & 19.42(0.30) \\
1016: ULAS J1522$+$08{\tablenotemark{a}} & 22.44(0.39) & 20.95(0.04) & 20.48(0.03) & 20.19(0.04) & 19.86(0.08)
1017: & 19.55(0.11) & 19.19(0.12) & 19.31(0.24) \\
1018: ULAS J1528$+$06{\tablenotemark{b}} & 21.96(0.22) & 20.88(0.03) & 20.57(0.03) & 20.37(0.04) & 20.48(0.14)
1019: & 19.78(0.10) & 19.52(0.15) & 19.71(0.31) \\
1020: ULAS J1554$+$08{\tablenotemark{b}} & 21.15(0.09) & 20.20(0.02) & 19.88(0.02) & 19.77(0.02) & 19.86(0.08)
1021: & 19.18(0.07) & 18.75(0.09) & 18.96(0.17) \\
1022: SDSS J2242$+$00{\tablenotemark{c}} & 22.26(0.25) & 19.66(0.01) & 18.65(0.01) & 18.28(0.01) & 18.16(0.02)
1023: & 17.71(0.02) & 18.02(0.05) & 18.59(0.15) \\
1024: ULAS J2331$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 21.47(0.19) & 20.48(0.03) & 20.15(0.03) & 20.06(0.04) & 19.87(0.12)
1025: & 19.55(0.11) & 19.23(0.15) & 19.43(0.29) \\
1026: ULAS J2339$-$00{\tablenotemark{a}} & 21.33(0.18) & 20.40(0.03) & 20.17(0.03) & 20.05(0.04) & 19.94(0.12)
1027: & 19.48(0.09) & 19.24(0.13) & 19.39(0.27) \\
1028: \enddata
1029: \tablecomments{None of the sources were detected at $K$, implying $K >$ 18.2
1030: mag. SDSS DR6 (Adelman-McCarthy et al.\ 2008) and LAS DR3 photometry is given
1031: although our candidates were selected from LAS DR2 and SDSS DR5. SDSS
1032: $ugriz$ magnitudes are on the AB system (Fukugita et al. \ 1996)
1033: while LAS $YJHK$ are on the Vega
1034: system (Hewett et al.\ 2006).}
1035: \tablenotetext{a}{Confirmed as a white dwarf spectroscopically in this work.}
1036: \tablenotetext{b}{Unconfirmed as a white dwarf.}
1037: \tablenotetext{c}{Discovered in SDSS by Kilic et al.\ (2006) and
1038: confirmed spectroscopically by those authors.}
1039: \end{deluxetable}
1040:
1041: \clearpage
1042:
1043:
1044: %
1045: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1046: %%%% Table: Spectroscopic Logs %%%%
1047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1048: %
1049: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1050: \tablecaption{GMOS-N Observation Log}
1051: \tablewidth{0pt}
1052: \tablehead{
1053: \colhead{Short Name} & \colhead{SDSS $r$} & \colhead{Total Exp} & \colhead{Dates} \\
1054: \colhead{} & \colhead{AB} &\colhead{seconds} & \colhead{YYYYMMDD} \\
1055: }
1056: \startdata
1057: ULAS J0049$-$00 & 19.56 & 600 & 20080109\\
1058: ULAS J0142$+$00 & 19.86 & 2400 & 20080109\\
1059: ULAS J0226$-$00 & 20.14 & 4200 & 20080109\\
1060: ULAS J0302$+$00 & 20.48 & 6000 & 20080103, 20080110\\
1061: ULAS J1522$+$08 & 20.48 & 6000 & 20080304\\
1062: ULAS J2331$-$00 & 20.15 & 4200 & 20080103\\
1063: ULAS J2339$-$00 & 20.17 & 4200 & 20080110\\
1064: \enddata
1065: \label{tab:ObsLog}
1066: \end{deluxetable}
1067:
1068: \clearpage
1069:
1070: %
1071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1072: %%%% Table: Properties %%%%
1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1074: %
1075: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccrr}
1076: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1077: %\tablecolumns{6}
1078: \tablewidth{0pt}
1079: \tablecaption{Derived Properties for the DR2 UKIDSS/LAS White Dwarfs}
1080: \tablehead{
1081: \colhead{Short Name} & \colhead{Atmospheric{\tablenotemark{a}}} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$}
1082: & \colhead{Cooling{\tablenotemark{b}}} & \colhead{Distance{\tablenotemark{c}}}
1083: & \colhead{$V_{\rm tan}${\tablenotemark{d}}}\\
1084: \colhead{} & \colhead{Composition} &\colhead{K}
1085: & \colhead{Age, Gyr} & \colhead{pc} & \colhead{km~s$^{-1}$}\\
1086: }
1087: \startdata
1088: ULAS J0049$-$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 6380$\pm$140 & 1.9$\,^{+\,1.8}_{-\,0.6}$ & 140$\pm$25 & 80$\pm$15 \\
1089: ULAS J0142$+$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 5950$\pm$140 & 2.3$\,^{+\,2.1}_{-\,0.8}$ & 140$\pm$25 & 70$\pm$15 \\
1090: ULAS J0226$-$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 5670$\pm$160 & 2.7$\,^{+\,2.5}_{-\,1.0}$ & 150$\pm$30 & 80$\pm$15 \\
1091: ULAS J0302$+$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & He & 5720$\pm$160 & 3.2$\,^{+\,2.2}_{-\,1.3}$ & 180$\pm$35 & 100$\pm$20 \\
1092: ULAS J1522$+$08{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 5390$\pm$180 & 3.6$\,^{+\,3.0}_{-\,1.6}$ & 150$\pm$30 & 70$\pm$15 \\
1093: ULAS J1528$+$06{\tablenotemark{f}} & unknown & (6060 - 6160)$\pm$200 & (2.1 - 2.5)$\,^{+\,2.1}_{-\,0.7}$ & 200$\pm$40 & 100$\pm$20 \\
1094: ULAS J1554$+$08{\tablenotemark{f}} & unknown & (6210 - 6330)$\pm$140 & (2.0 - 2.3)$\,^{+\,1.9}_{-\,0.7}$ & 160$\pm$30 & 100$\pm$20 \\
1095: SDSS J2242$+$00{\tablenotemark{g}} & H$\simeq$He & 3820$\pm$100 & 8.7$\,^{+\,0.4}_{-\,1.6}$ & 37$\pm$6 & 29$\pm$5 \\
1096: ULAS J2331$-$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 6340$\pm$220 & 1.9$\,^{+\,1.8}_{-\,0.6}$ & 180$\pm$20 & 120$\pm$20 \\
1097: ULAS J2339$-$00{\tablenotemark{e}} & H & 6590$\pm$240 & 1.8$\,^{+\,1.5}_{-\,0.6}$ & 190$\pm$35 & 90$\pm$20 \\
1098: \enddata
1099: \tablecomments{A standard surface gravity of $\log g=8.0$ has been adopted;
1100: this does not significantly affect the derived composition or temperature,
1101: but does impact age, distance and velocity. For these last three parameters a range is shown corresponding to
1102: $7.7 \leq \log g \leq 8.3$.}
1103: \tablenotetext{a}{The atmospheric composition is by number.}
1104: \tablenotetext{b}{The cooling age is derived from the composition and temperature using the cooling models of Fontaine, Brassard \& Bergeron (2001). }
1105: \tablenotetext{c}{The distance is estimated from the modelled and observed
1106: magnitudes (Holberg \& Bergeron 2006). }
1107: \tablenotetext{d}{The tangential velocity is calculated from distance and
1108: proper motion given in Table 1.}
1109: \tablenotetext{e}{Confirmed as a white dwarf spectroscopically in this work.}
1110: \tablenotetext{f}{Unconfirmed as a white dwarf.}
1111: \tablenotetext{g}{Discovered in SDSS by Kilic et al.\ (2006). }
1112: \end{deluxetable}
1113:
1114: \clearpage
1115:
1116: %
1117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1118: %%%% astrometry plot
1119: %%%%
1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1121: %
1122: \begin{figure}
1123: \begin{center}
1124: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.60]{fig1new.ps}
1125: \end{center}
1126: \caption{The $rms$ of the difference in astrometry for all point sources
1127: in LAS DR2 and SDSS DR5 as a function of $J$ magnitude.
1128: }
1129: \end{figure}
1130:
1131: %
1132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1133: %%%% Figure: CC-Plot %%%%
1134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1135: %
1136: \begin{figure}
1137: \begin{center}
1138: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.53]{fig2anew.ps}
1139: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.53]{fig2bnew.ps}
1140: \end{center}
1141: \caption{Color-color plots for our seven new confirmed white dwarfs (red squares),
1142: one recovered Kilic et al. \ (2006) white dwarf (red triangle),
1143: two candidate white dwarfs (red diamonds), and other white dwarfs
1144: taken from the literature (green symbols; triangles - Kilic et al. \ 2006;
1145: diamond - Harris et al. \ 2001; squares - Carollo et al. \ 2006;
1146: circles - Vidrih et al. \ 2008; downward triangle - Hall et al. \ 2008).
1147: Model sequences with $\log g=8$
1148: (see \S 5.1) are shown for hydrogen (solid lines) and helium (dashed lines)
1149: atmospheres; $T_{\rm eff}$ decreases from left to right, looping back to
1150: the left for the hydrogen sequence in the $i - J$:$J - H$ plot.
1151: Blue dots indicate $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 250$~K. Color cuts used to select our
1152: sample are indicated by the red lines. Typical error bars are shown. Also shown
1153: is the location of the main sequence (small black dots) and the sample selected
1154: on color alone, before the proper motion cut was applied (larger black dots).
1155: $gri$ are on the AB system, $JH$ on the Vega system.}
1156: \end{figure}
1157:
1158: \clearpage
1159:
1160: %
1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1162: %%%% Figure: RPM %%%%
1163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1164: %
1165: \begin{figure}
1166: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.60]{fig3new.ps}
1167: \caption{The reduced $g$-band proper motion as a function of $g - i$ for
1168: our sample of white dwarfs (red symbols),
1169: and others taken from the literature (green symbols); symbols are as in Figure 2.
1170: Confirmed subdwarfs from Kilic et al.\ (2006) are
1171: shown as open triangles. The main sequence and our initial candidate selection
1172: based on color alone are also shown, as small and large black dots respectively.
1173: Red lines indicate the region included by our color and proper motion cuts.
1174: White dwarf cooling curves for different tangential velocities are shown
1175: as solid lines. The 30 km~s$^{-1}$ curve marks the expected location of disk
1176: white dwarfs, and the 150 km~s$^{-1}$ curve represents the halo white dwarfs.
1177: }
1178: \label{fig:RPM}
1179: \end{figure}
1180:
1181: \clearpage
1182:
1183: %
1184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1185: %%%% Figure: Spectra %%%%
1186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1187: %
1188: \begin{figure}
1189: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.60]{fig4new.ps}
1190: \caption{The spectra obtained with GMOS-N at Gemini for the sample of seven
1191: white dwarfs. Exposure times are given in Table \ref{tab:ObsLog}, and the
1192: instrument configuration is described in the text. The telluric oxygen
1193: A and B lines at 6867 and 7594\AA{} have been removed for clarity. The
1194: linear regions seen for some white dwarfs are the gaps in the GMOS-N detectors.
1195: F dwarf and F subdwarf spectra
1196: (Le Borgne et al.\ 2003) are shown at the top of the panel for comparison,
1197: where the spectra have been smoothed to the resolution of our data. The spectrum
1198: at the bottom of the panel is from Kilic et al.\ (2006) and is the cool SDSS
1199: white dwarf discovered by those authors and recovered in this work.
1200: }
1201: \label{fig:GMOSspectra}
1202: \end{figure}
1203:
1204: \clearpage
1205:
1206: %
1207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1208: %%%% Figure: Fits #1 %%%%
1209: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1210: %
1211: \begin{figure}
1212: \begin{center}
1213: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.65]{fig5new.ps}
1214: \end{center}
1215: \caption{Plots demonstrating the model fits to five of the white dwarfs in
1216: our sample, as identified in the legends. The error bars in the left panels
1217: represent SDSS and LAS photometry; SDSS $u$ (and $z$ for ULAS J1522$+$08),
1218: and LAS $H$,
1219: have been ignored in the fits (dashed error bars).
1220: Circles represent the models fluxes averaged over the filter bandpass;
1221: filled circles are pure-hydrogen models and open circles are pure-helium models.
1222: A surface gravity $\log g=8.0$ is
1223: assumed, and the derived $T_{\rm eff}$ for each composition is shown.
1224: The right panels show the observed spectrum around the H$\beta$ (top) and
1225: H$\alpha$ (bottom) lines, with the modelled pure-hydrogen atmosphere line
1226: profiles. ULAS J0302$+$00 has a featureless spectrum, and is therefore helium-rich;
1227: the remaining sources are hydrogen-rich.
1228: }
1229: \label{fig:WDfits_1}
1230: \end{figure}
1231:
1232: \clearpage
1233:
1234: %
1235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1236: %%%% Figure: Fits #2 %%%%
1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1238: %
1239: \begin{figure}
1240: \begin{center}
1241: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.65]{fig6new.ps}
1242: \end{center}
1243: \caption{Similar to Figure \ref{fig:WDfits_1}, for the remaining white dwarfs
1244: in our sample. For ULAS J1528$+$06 and ULAS J1554$+$08 no spectra exists and
1245: only modelled H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ spectra are shown. For SDSS J2242$+$00
1246: both the pure-hydrogen and pure-helium fits to the photometry are poor;
1247: the modelled pure-hydrogen spectra shown are featureless as no absorption
1248: lines would be detected at 4610~K (a better fit to this object is shown in
1249: Figure \ref{fig:fit_SDSS2242}).
1250: }
1251: \label{fig:WDfits_2}
1252: \end{figure}
1253:
1254: \clearpage
1255:
1256: %
1257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1258: %%%% Figure: Fits #3 %%%%
1259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1260: %
1261: \begin{figure}
1262: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.70]{fig7new.ps}
1263: \caption{Model fits to SDSS J2242$+$00; this mixed-composition atmosphere
1264: fit is superior to the single composition fits shown in
1265: Figure \ref{fig:WDfits_2}\@.
1266: }
1267: \label{fig:fit_SDSS2242}
1268: \end{figure}
1269: \clearpage
1270:
1271: \end{document}
1272: