1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \documentclass{emulateapj}
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5:
6: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
7:
8: %\slugcomment{********* Draft Version \today\ *********}
9: %\email{********* Draft Version \today\ *********}
10:
11: \shortauthors{Torres \& Lacy}
12: \shorttitle{VZ~Cep}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \journalinfo{Accepted for publication in The Astronomical Journal}
17:
18: \title{Absolute dimensions of the F-type eclipsing binary star
19: VZ~Cephei}
20:
21: \author{
22: Guillermo Torres\altaffilmark{1}, and
23: Claud H.\ Sandberg Lacy\altaffilmark{2}
24: }
25:
26: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
27: Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, e-mail: gtorres@cfa.harvard.edu}
28:
29: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, University of Arkansas,
30: Fayetteville, AR 72701, e-mail: clacy@uark.edu}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33:
34: We present new $V$-band differential photometry and radial-velocity
35: measurements of the unevolved 1.18-day period F+G-type double-lined
36: eclipsing binary VZ~Cep. We determine accurate values for the absolute
37: masses, radii, and effective temperatures as follows: $M_{\rm A} =
38: 1.402 \pm 0.015$~M$_{\sun}$, $R_{\rm A} = 1.534 \pm 0.012$~R$_{\sun}$,
39: $T_{\rm eff} = 6690 \pm 160$~K for the primary, and $M_{\rm B} =
40: 1.1077 \pm 0.0083$~M$_{\sun}$, $R_{\rm B} = 1.042 \pm
41: 0.039$~R$_{\sun}$, $T_{\rm eff} = 5720 \pm 120$~K for the secondary. A
42: comparison with current stellar evolution models suggests an age of
43: 1.4~Gyr for a metallicity near solar. The temperature difference
44: between the stars, which is much better determined than the absolute
45: values, is found to be $\sim$250~K larger than predicted by theory. If
46: all of this discrepancy is attributed to the secondary (which would
47: then be too cool compared to models), the effect would be consistent
48: with similar differences found for other low-mass stars, generally
49: believed to be associated with chromospheric activity. However, the
50: radius of VZ~Cep~B (which unlike the primary, still has a thin
51: convective envelope) appears normal, whereas in other stars affected
52: by activity the radius is systematically larger than predicted. Thus,
53: VZ~Cep poses a challenge not only to standard theory but to our
54: understanding of the discrepancies in other low-mass systems as well.
55:
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \keywords{
59: binaries: eclipsing ---
60: stars: evolution ---
61: stars: fundamental parameters ---
62: stars: individual (VZ~Cep)
63: }
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: VZ~Cephei (also known as BD~+70~1199 and GSC~04470-01334; $\alpha =
68: 21^{\rm h}\,50^{\rm m}\,11\fs14$, $\delta =
69: +71\arcdeg\,26\arcmin\,38\farcs3$, J2000.0; $V = 9.72$) was discovered
70: photographically as a variable star by \cite{Gengler:28}, who
71: classified it to be of type ``Is?'', a rapid irregular variable.
72: \cite{Cannon:34} made the first spectral type assignment as G0. Its
73: discovery as an eclipsing binary is due to \cite{Rossiger:78}, who
74: determined a period of 1.18336 days and showed it to have unequal
75: minima. The system was included by \cite{Lacy:92, Lacy:02a} in his
76: photometric surveys of eclipsing binary stars. Because of its
77: relatively late spectral class, \cite{Popper:96} had it as a target in
78: his program to search for late-type (F--K) eclipsing binary stars. He
79: concluded on the basis of 4 spectrograms that both stellar components
80: were likely hotter than G0. No determinations have been made of the
81: physical properties of the stars, and the system has generally been
82: neglected except for measurements of the times of eclipse made by a
83: number of investigators since 1994.
84:
85: We began our investigation for the same reason Popper did: to test
86: theoretical predictions of the properties of low-mass stars. We and
87: other authors have previously found that in some of these binary
88: systems the absolute properties are not well described by standard
89: stellar evolution theory \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Popper:97, Clausen:99,
90: Ribas:06, Torres:06}. We find below that VZ~Cep also shows some
91: anomalies compared to standard models, even though its components are
92: both more massive than the Sun.
93:
94: \section{Eclipse ephemeris}
95: \label{sec:ephemeris}
96:
97: Photometric times of minimum light of VZ~Cep available from the
98: literature are collected in Table~\ref{tab:minima}. Eclipse
99: ephemerides determined by weighted least squares separately from the
100: 15 primary minima and the 13 secondary minima gave the same period
101: within the errors. A joint fit of all the measurements was then
102: performed enforcing a common period but allowing the primary and
103: secondary epochs to be free parameters. Scale factors for the
104: internal errors were determined by iterations separately for the two
105: types of measurements in order to achieve reduced $\chi^2$ values near
106: unity. This solution resulted in a phase difference between the two
107: epochs of $\Delta\phi = 0.50033 \pm 0.00022$, not significantly
108: different from 0.5. For our final ephemeris we imposed a circular
109: orbit, and obtained
110: %
111: \begin{eqnarray*}
112: {\rm Min~I~(HJD)} & = & 2,\!452,\!277.324478(59) + 1.183363762(84)\cdot E .
113: \end{eqnarray*}
114: %
115: The uncertainties of the fitted quantities in terms of the least
116: significant digit are shown in parentheses. The final scale factors
117: for the published internal errors were similar to those in the
118: previous fit, and were 1.38 for the primary and 2.42 for the
119: secondary. We adopt this ephemeris for the spectroscopic and
120: photometric analyses below.
121:
122: \section{Spectroscopic observations and orbit}
123: \label{sec:spectroscopy}
124:
125: VZ~Cep was placed on the observing list at the Harvard-Smithsonian
126: Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in 2003 January, and was observed until
127: 2007 June with an echelle spectrograph on the 1.5-m Tillinghast
128: reflector at the F.\ L.\ Whipple Observatory (Mount Hopkins, AZ). A
129: single echelle order 45\,\AA\ wide centered at 5188.5\,\AA\ was
130: recorded with an intensified Reticon photon-counting diode array, at a
131: resolving power of $\Delta\lambda/\lambda \approx 35,\!000$. The
132: strongest lines in this window are those of the \ion{Mg}{1}~$b$
133: triplet. A total of 39 spectra were obtained with signal-to-noise
134: ratios ranging from 19 to 47 per resolution element of 8.5~\kms.
135:
136: Radial velocities were measured with the two-dimensional
137: cross-correlation technique TODCOR \citep{Zucker:94}. Templates for
138: the primary and secondary were selected from a large library of
139: synthetic spectra based on model atmospheres by R.\ L.\
140: Kurucz\footnote{Available at {\tt http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu}.}
141: \citep[see also][]{Nordstrom:94, Latham:02}. These calculated spectra
142: cover a wide range of effective temperatures ($T_{\rm eff}$),
143: rotational broadenings ($v \sin i$ when seen in projection), surface
144: gravities ($\log g$), and metallicities. Solar metallicity was assumed
145: throughout, along with initial values of $\log g = 4.5$ for both
146: components. The temperatures and rotational velocities for the
147: templates were determined by running extensive grids of
148: two-dimensional cross-correlations and seeking the best correlation
149: value averaged over all exposures, as described in more detail by
150: \cite{Torres:02}. The secondary component in VZ~Cep is some 5 times
151: fainter than the primary, and we were unable to determine its
152: temperature independently. We therefore adopted the results from other
153: estimates described below, and chose the nearest value in our library,
154: which is 5750~K. Due to the narrow wavelength range of our spectra the
155: derived temperatures are strongly correlated with the assumed surface
156: gravities. The secondary $\log g$ presented in
157: \S\,\ref{sec:dimensions} is very close to the value we assumed, but
158: the primary $\log g$ is intermediate between 4.0 and 4.5, so we
159: repeated the calculations above using the lower value, and
160: interpolated. The results for the primary are $T_{\rm eff} = 6690 \pm
161: 150$~K and $v \sin i = 57 \pm 3$~\kms, and for the secondary we obtain
162: $v \sin i = 50 \pm 10$~\kms. Radial velocities were derived with
163: template parameters near these values. The stability of the
164: zero-point of the CfA velocity system was monitored by means of
165: exposures of the dusk and dawn sky, and small run-to-run corrections
166: were applied in the manner described by \citet{Latham:92}.
167:
168: Possible systematics in the radial velocities that may result from
169: residual line blending in our narrow spectral window, or from shifts
170: of the spectral lines in and out of this window as a function of
171: orbital phase, were investigated by performing numerical simulations
172: as described by \cite{Torres:97, Torres:00}. Briefly, we generated
173: artificial composite spectra by adding together copies of the two
174: templates with scale factors in accordance with the light ratio
175: reported below, and with Doppler shifts for each star appropriate for
176: each actual time of observation, computed from a preliminary orbital
177: solution. These simulated spectra were then processed with TODCOR in
178: the same manner as the real spectra, and the input and output
179: velocities were compared. Experience has shown that the magnitude of
180: these effects is difficult to predict, and must be studied on a
181: case-by-case basis. Corrections were determined for VZ~Cep based on
182: these simulations and were applied to the raw velocities. The
183: corrections for the primary star are small (under 1~\kms), but for the
184: secondary they are as large as 11~\kms, and as expected they vary
185: systematically with orbital phase or radial velocity (see
186: Figure~\ref{fig:rvcorr}). Similarly large corrections have been found
187: occasionally for other systems using the same instrumentation
188: \citep[e.g., AD~Boo, GX~Gem;][]{Clausen:08, Lacy:08}. The impact of
189: these corrections is quite significant for VZ~Cep: the minimum masses
190: increase by 4\% for the primary and 1.9\% for the secondary, and the
191: mass ratio decreases by 2.1\%. The final velocities in the
192: heliocentric frame, including the corrections for systematics, are
193: listed in Table~\ref{tab:rvs} and have typical uncertainties of
194: 1.3~\kms\ for the primary and 3.8~\kms\ for the fainter secondary.
195:
196: \begin{figure}
197: \epsscale{1.35}
198: \vskip -0.5in
199: {\hskip -0.25in \plotone{fig1.eps}}
200: \vskip -0.7in
201: %
202: \figcaption[]{Corrections for systematics in the radial-velocity
203: measurements for VZ~Cep as a function of orbital phase and radial
204: velocity (see text). Filled circles correspond to the primary and
205: open circles to the secondary.
206: \label{fig:rvcorr}}
207: %
208: \end{figure}
209:
210: Preliminary single-lined orbital solutions using the primary and
211: secondary velocities separately indicated a zero-point difference
212: between the two data sets (i.e., a difference in the systemic velocity
213: $\gamma$), which is often seen by many investigators in cases where
214: there is a slight mismatch between the templates used for the
215: cross-correlations and the spectra of the real stars \citep[see,
216: e.g.,][]{Popper:00, Griffin:00}. Numerous tests with other templates
217: did not remove the offset.\footnote{As a further test, solutions
218: without applying the corrections for systematics described in the
219: preceding paragraph gave an offset more than twice as large.} This
220: most likely arises in our case because of stellar parameters
221: (particularly the rotation) that fall in between the template
222: parameters available in our library of synthetic spectra, which come
223: in rather coarse steps of 10~\kms\ at the high rotation rates of
224: VZ~Cep. We therefore included this velocity offset as an additional
225: free parameter in the double-lined orbital fit, and we verified that
226: when doing so the velocity semi-amplitudes (which determine the
227: masses) are insensitive to the exact template parameters within
228: reasonable limits, and are essentially identical to those resulting
229: from separate single-lined solutions. Our final orbital fit is
230: presented in Table~\ref{tab:specorbit}. No indication of eccentricity
231: was found, as expected for such a short period, so only a circular
232: orbit was considered in the following. A graphical representation of
233: the observations and our best fit, along with the residuals, is shown
234: in Figure~\ref{fig:rvorbit}.
235:
236: \begin{figure}
237: \epsscale{1.35}
238: \vskip -0.1in
239: {\hskip -0.2in \plotone{fig2.eps}}
240: \vskip -0.1in
241: %
242: \figcaption[]{Radial-velocity measurements for VZ~Cep (including the
243: corrections for systematics described in the text) along with our
244: spectroscopic orbital solution. Filled circles correspond to the
245: primary, and the dotted line represents the center-of-mass
246: velocity. Error bars are smaller than the size of the points. The
247: $O\!-\!C$ residuals are shown on an expanded scale in the bottom
248: panels, where typical error bars are indicated in the upper right
249: corner.
250: \label{fig:rvorbit}}
251: %
252: \end{figure}
253:
254: The light ratio between the primary and secondary was determined from
255: our spectra following \cite{Zucker:94}, accounting for the difference
256: in line blocking between the primary and the much cooler secondary.
257: After corrections for systematics analogous to those described above,
258: we obtained $L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A} = 0.19 \pm 0.02$ at the mean
259: wavelength of our observations. A further adjustment to the visual
260: band taking into account the temperature difference between VZ~Cep A
261: and B was determined from synthetic spectra integrated over the $V$
262: passband and the spectral window of our observations, and resulted in
263: $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V = 0.22 \pm 0.02$.
264:
265: \section{Photometric observations and analysis}
266: \label{sec:photometry}
267:
268: Differential photometry of VZ~Cep was obtained at the URSA Observatory
269: on the University of Arkansas campus at Fayetteville, AR. The URSA
270: Observatory sits atop Kimpel Hall and consists of a Meade f/6.3,
271: 10-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope with a Santa Barbara Instruments
272: Group ST8EN CCD camera inside a Technical Innovations RoboDome, all
273: controlled by a Macintosh G4 computer in an adjacent control room
274: inside the building. The field of view is 20$\arcmin\times30\arcmin$.
275: Images of VZ~Cep ($V \approx 9.7$) and the two comparison stars
276: GSC~04470-01497 ($V \approx 9.9$) and GSC~04470-01622 ($V \approx
277: 11.2$), both of which are within 6\arcmin\ of the target, were taken
278: with typical integration times of 60 seconds through a Bessell $V$
279: filter. With an overhead of about 30 seconds to download the images
280: from the camera, the observing cadence was typically 90 seconds per
281: image. A ``virtual measuring engine'' application written by Lacy was
282: used to determine the brightness of the variable and comparison stars,
283: to subtract off the sky brightness, and to correct for differences in
284: airmass. A total of 5473 images were gathered between 2001 March 5
285: and 2003 September 7. Differential magnitudes were formed between the
286: variable star and the magnitude corresponding to the sum of the fluxes
287: of the two comparison stars. These are listed in
288: Table~\ref{tab:photometry}, and shown graphically in
289: Figure~\ref{fig:photometry} along with our modeling described
290: below. Expanded views of the primary and secondary eclipse are given
291: in Figure~\ref{fig:photometry1} and Figure~\ref{fig:photometry2}. The
292: typical precision of these measurements is about 0.007 mag, which is
293: comparable to that expected from photon statistics
294: ($\sim$0.006~mag). The comparison stars are not known to be
295: variable. The mean magnitude difference between the two was constant
296: with a standard deviation of 0.0095~mag over 67 nights, which is what
297: would be expected for individual magnitudes with a typical error of
298: 0.007~mag. A Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis of the individual
299: differences was performed to search for periodic signals in either
300: star, but none were detected.
301:
302: \begin{figure}
303: \epsscale{1.25}
304: \vskip -0.6in
305: {\hskip -0.1in \plotone{fig3.eps}}
306: \vskip -0.75in
307: %
308: \figcaption{$V$-band photometric measurements for VZ~Cep, along with
309: our best constrained model described in the text. $O\!-\!C$ residuals
310: are shown at the bottom.\label{fig:photometry}}
311: %
312: \end{figure}
313:
314:
315: \begin{figure}
316: \epsscale{1.25}
317: \vskip -0.6in
318: {\hskip -0.1in \plotone{fig4.eps}}
319: \vskip -0.75in
320: %
321: \figcaption{Enlarged view of Figure~\ref{fig:photometry} showing the
322: $V$-band photometry for VZ~Cep around the primary minimum. $O\!-\!C$
323: residuals are shown at the bottom.\label{fig:photometry1}}
324: %
325: \end{figure}
326:
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \epsscale{1.25}
330: \vskip -0.6in
331: {\hskip -0.1in \plotone{fig5.eps}}
332: \vskip -0.75in
333: %
334: \figcaption{Enlarged view of Figure~\ref{fig:photometry} showing the
335: $V$-band photometry for VZ~Cep around the secondary minimum.
336: $O\!-\!C$ residuals are shown at the bottom.\label{fig:photometry2}}
337: %
338: \end{figure}
339:
340: We have previously found \citep{Lacy:08} that the URSA photometry is
341: significantly improved by removal of small nightly zero-point
342: variations. Thus 67 nightly corrections were made to the original
343: magnitudes based on a preliminary photometric orbital fit. This
344: procedure reduced the residual standard deviation by about 15\%, a
345: small but significant amount. Examination of these offsets, which are
346: typically smaller than 0.01~mag, revealed no detectable pattern as a
347: function of orbital phase. Such a pattern might be expected, for
348: instance, if there were perturbations in the light curve due to spots
349: on either star (assuming synchronous rotation). We thus consider the
350: nightly offsets to be instrumental in nature.
351:
352: The corrected photometry was fitted with the NDE model
353: \citep{Etzel:81, Popper:81}, with all observations being assigned
354: equal weight. In this model the stars are represented as biaxial
355: ellipsoids, and despite the relatively large radius of the primary of
356: VZ~Cep relative to the separation (see below), its ellipticity of
357: 0.016, as defined by \cite{Etzel:81}, is still well below the maximum
358: tolerance of 0.04 \citep{Popper:81}, and thus the model is expected to
359: be adequate for this case. We return to this below. We used the
360: JKTEBOP implementation of \cite{Southworth:07} with a linear
361: limb-darkening law, consistent with our findings \citep{Lacy:05,
362: Lacy:08} that with the amount and precision of our data, non-linear
363: limb-darkening laws do not improve the accuracy of the fits
364: significantly. The following quantities were allowed to vary in this
365: unconstrained solution: the central surface brightness $J_{\rm B}$ of
366: the secondary (cooler) star relative to the primary, the sum of
367: relative radii $r_{\rm A}+r_{\rm B}$, the ratio of radii $r_{\rm
368: B}/r_{\rm A}$, the orbital inclination $i$, the limb-darkening
369: coefficients $u_{\rm A}$ and $u_{\rm B}$, a phase offset, and the
370: magnitude at quadrature. The following quantities were kept fixed:
371: the orbital eccentricity $e = 0$, the mass ratio from the
372: spectroscopic solution $q \equiv M_{\rm B}/M_{\rm A} = 0.7900$, and
373: the gravity brightening exponents $y_{\rm A} = 0.25$ and $y_{\rm B} =
374: 0.36$, set by the temperatures and surface gravities following
375: \cite{Claret:98}. The uncertainties of the adjustable parameters were
376: estimated with a Monte Carlo technique in which we generated 500
377: synthetic light curves, solved for the parameters, and calculated the
378: standard error of each parameter. This process yielded uncertainty
379: estimates accurate to two significant digits, which is sufficient for
380: our purposes. These ``Unconstrained'' results are given in
381: Table~\ref{tab:ebopfits}. Tests allowing for non-zero eccentricity
382: and third light gave statistically insignificant values for those
383: quantities.
384:
385: \begin{figure}
386: \epsscale{1.25}
387: \vskip -0.05in
388: {\hskip -0.15in \plotone{fig6.eps}}
389: \vskip 0.2in
390: %
391: \figcaption[]{Application of the constraint given by the spectroscopic
392: brightness ratio to the light curve fits of VZ~Cep. Grids of
393: solutions for fixed values of $k$ are shown for several key
394: parameters, along with the corresponding rms residual of the fit
395: ($\sigma$). The spectroscopic value $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V = 0.22
396: \pm 0.02$ is applied in the top left panel to determine $k$, and all
397: other quantities are interpolated to the same value.
398: \label{fig:constraint}}
399: %
400: \end{figure}
401:
402: The $V$-band light ratio $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V$ from this fit is
403: consistent with our spectroscopic value from
404: \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}, but formally less precise. In similar
405: systems with partial eclipses, the \emph{accuracy} of the parameters
406: (more than their precision) is sometimes compromised because of strong
407: correlations among variables and the relatively flat bottom of the
408: $\chi^2$ surface in the least-squares problem \citep[see,
409: e.g.,][]{Andersen:91}. In such systems it is often the case that more
410: accurate results are obtained by applying the spectroscopic light
411: ratio as an external constraint. We have done this here by first
412: computing a grid of solutions for a range of fixed values of $k$. We
413: then interpolated in the smooth relation obtained between the light
414: ratio and $k$ to our value of $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V = 0.22 \pm
415: 0.02$, and derived $k = 0.680 \pm 0.030$. Interpolations of all other
416: quantities to this value of $k$ were then carried out. This is
417: illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:constraint} for some of the key
418: light-curve parameters. Note that $\sigma$, the rms residual of the
419: fit, changes very little for $k$ between 0.65 and 0.75, demonstrating
420: that the radius ratio cannot be determined accurately from photometry
421: alone without an external constraint. The results for the light curve
422: parameters from this constrained fit are listed in
423: Table~\ref{tab:ebopfits}, and are adopted for further use. The
424: uncertainties have been propagated directly from the error in the
425: spectroscopic light ratio (see Figure~\ref{fig:constraint}), and
426: include also a contribution from the statistical uncertainties derived
427: from a separate solution in which $k$ was fixed at the best-fit value
428: and all other parameters were left free.
429:
430: The fitted linear limb-darkening coefficients from this constrained
431: solution tend to be somewhat smaller than predicted by theory. We
432: find, for example, marginal differences of 0.10 ($\sim$1.3$\sigma$)
433: for both stars compared to the calculations by \cite{vanHamme:93}, and
434: more significant differences of 0.19 (2.5$\sigma$) compared to the
435: coefficients by \cite{Claret:00}. These differences are similar in
436: magnitude (and in this particular case, of the same sign) as those
437: reported, e.g., by \cite{Southworth:08}, and may be due to
438: shortcomings in the theoretical model atmospheres although
439: observational errors cannot be ruled out. For further comparisons
440: between theory and observations the reader is referred to the recent
441: work of \cite{Claret:08}. Adopting coefficients from the tables by
442: \cite{Claret:00} leads to values of the relative radii that are larger
443: by 1.1\% for the primary and 1.7\% for the secondary (1.6$\sigma$ and
444: 0.5$\sigma$, respectively).
445:
446: As a test of the reliability of the geometric parameters, we carried
447: out solutions with two other light-curve modeling programs that are
448: more sophisticated than the one we have used. One is the WINK program
449: \citep{Wood:72}, which adopts a better approximation to the stellar
450: shapes as triaxial ellipsoids, rather than the simpler biaxial
451: ellipsoids in EBOP, and includes a more detailed treatment of
452: reflection effects. The version we used has been modified and extended
453: as described by \cite{Vaz:84, Vaz:86}, \cite{Vaz:85}, and
454: \cite{Nordlund:90}. The other program is the Wilson-Devinney code
455: \citep[WD;][]{Wilson:71, Wilson:79, Wilson:90, Wilson:93, vanHamme:07}
456: in its most recent (2007) release, which uses Roche geometry. Light
457: curve solutions with these two codes were performed for a fixed value
458: of $k = 0.680$ (as closely as allowed by the different input
459: quantities) to permit a direct comparison with our constrained JKTEBOP
460: fit, and with the same limb-darkening law and coefficients as used
461: earlier. The WINK fit delivered marginally smaller relative radii that
462: differ from our JKTEBOP results by $\Delta r_{\rm A} = -0.0009$ and
463: $\Delta r_{\rm B} = -0.0005$ (i.e., less than 0.4\%), and an
464: inclination angle that was only $\Delta i = +0\fdg03$ larger. The WD
465: fit gave $\Delta r_{\rm A} = -0.0008$, $\Delta r_{\rm B} = -0.0005$,
466: and $\Delta i = +0\fdg22$. These results are thus not significantly
467: different from those of the simpler model we have used, as expected
468: from the relatively small ellipticity of the stars mentioned earlier.
469:
470: The individual temperatures were determined from the central surface
471: brightness parameter $J_{\rm B}$ slightly adjusted for limb darkening
472: to correspond to the disk average \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Lacy:87}, the
473: absolute visual flux scale of \cite{Popper:80}, and an estimate of the
474: mean system temperature used as the initial value for the primary. The
475: latter was then improved by iteration until convergence. The mean
476: system temperature is based on accurate Str\"omgren photometry for
477: VZ~Cep reported by \cite{Lacy:02a}. Interstellar reddening was
478: estimated using the calibration of \cite{Perry:82} and the method of
479: \cite{Crawford:75}, which resulted in $E(b\!-\!y) = 0.032 \pm 0.007$
480: and an intrinsic color index of $(b\!-\!y)_0 = 0.286 \pm 0.007$. The
481: calibration by \cite{Holmberg:07} was then used to derive a mean
482: system temperature of $6500 \pm 150$~K, assuming solar metallicity.
483: The individual temperatures derived in this way are $6690 \pm 160$~K
484: and $5720 \pm 120$~K for the primary and secondary, respectively,
485: which correspond to spectral types of approximately F3 and G4
486: \citep[][p.\ 430]{Gray:92}. The primary $T_{\rm eff}$ is identical to
487: our spectroscopic estimate in \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}. The
488: temperature difference based the light curve is of course better
489: determined than the absolute values: $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 970 \pm
490: 35$~K. Use of a different color/temperature calibration for inferring
491: the mean system temperature, such as that by \cite{Alonso:96}, yields
492: results only $\sim$30~K hotter.
493:
494: \section{Absolute dimensions and physical properties}
495: \label{sec:dimensions}
496:
497: The spectroscopic and photometric solutions above lead to the masses
498: and radii given in Table~\ref{tab:absolute}. Also included are the
499: predicted projected rotational velocities, calculated under the
500: assumption of synchronism with the orbital motion. The secondary
501: value is consistent with our measured $v \sin i$ from
502: \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}, but the expected value of $64.6 \pm
503: 0.5$~\kms\ for the primary seems somewhat larger than our
504: spectroscopic estimate of $v \sin i = 57 \pm 3$~\kms. At face value
505: this would indicate sub-synchronous rotation of that component, which
506: is unexpected in a short-period binary such as VZ~Cep. Since the
507: primary star dominates the light of the system, we investigated the
508: possibility that there might be a photometric signal produced, for
509: instance, by rotational modulation from surface features on that
510: component. For this we examined the residuals from our adopted light
511: curve solution. A Lomb-Scargle power spectrum did not indicate any
512: significant periodicities within a factor of two of the orbital
513: frequency, although the primary star is likely to be too hot for spots
514: to be important (see \S\,\ref{sec:discussion}).
515:
516: There are no measurements of the chemical abundance of VZ~Cep. Our own
517: spectroscopy is inadequate for this, and the combined-light
518: Str\"omgren indices along with the calibration by \cite{Holmberg:07}
519: indicate [Fe/H] $= +0.06 \pm 0.09$, in which the uncertainties include
520: photometric errors as well as the scatter of the calibration. The {\it
521: Hipparcos\/} catalog \citep{Perryman:97} has no entry for VZ~Cep and
522: no trigonometric parallax is available. From its radiative properties
523: as measured here we find the distance to the system to be $215 \pm
524: 10$~pc (similar distances are obtained separately for each component,
525: indicating the consistency of the measured properties).
526:
527: Discrepancies described in the next section between our effective
528: temperature estimates and the $T_{\rm eff}$ values predicted by
529: stellar evolution models prompted us to attempt a deconvolution of the
530: combined-light photometry of VZ~Cep, as a check on both the color
531: excess and the temperature difference between the components. We used
532: tables of standard Str\"omgren indices by \cite{Crawford:75} and
533: \cite{Olsen:84}, and synthesized binary stars for a range of primary
534: indices and a fixed $V$-band light ratio given by our spectroscopic
535: estimate of $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V = 0.22 \pm 0.02$. We explored a
536: wide range of $E(b\!-\!y)$ values. At each reddening we determined
537: the intrinsic indices for the primary and secondary that provide the
538: best match to the system values of $b\!-\!y$, $m_1$, $c_1$, and
539: $\beta$ as measured by \cite{Lacy:02a}, in the $\chi^2$ sense. We
540: found the best agreement for $E(b\!-\!y) = 0.032$, in excellent accord
541: with our earlier determination based on the combined light. The
542: measured $b\!-\!y$, $c_1$, and $\beta$ indices are reproduced to well
543: within their uncertainties, and $m_1$ is within 1.8$\sigma$. Making
544: use of the same color/temperature calibration by \cite{Holmberg:07}
545: invoked earlier, the intrinsic indices for each star from this
546: photometric deconvolution yield temperatures of 6670~K and 5690~K,
547: once again in very good agreement with the light curve results. The
548: temperature difference from this exercise is $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 975
549: \pm 40$~K.
550:
551: \section{Comparison with stellar evolution theory}
552: \label{sec:evolution}
553:
554: The absolute masses of VZ~Cep have formal relative errors of 1\% or
555: better. The radius of the primary is similarly well determined, while
556: that of the faint secondary is good to about 3.7\%. These values
557: along with the temperatures are compared here with stellar evolution
558: models from the Yonsei-Yale series \citep{Yi:01, Demarque:04}. In
559: Figure~\ref{fig:radteff} the measurements are shown in the $R$ vs.\
560: $T_{\rm eff}$ plane against evolutionary tracks computed for the
561: measured masses and for solar metallicity ($Z = 0.01812$ in these
562: models, indicated with solid lines). The shaded areas represent the
563: uncertainty in the location of each track due to the measurement
564: errors in the masses $M_{\rm A}$ and $M_{\rm B}$. While the primary
565: track is in good agreement with our temperature determination for that
566: star, the secondary track is too hot. Adjustment of the chemical
567: composition of the models to $Z = 0.0280$ (corresponding to [Fe/H] $=
568: +0.21$) provides the fit shown with the dotted lines. This fit is
569: marginally consistent with our temperature error bars in the figure,
570: but the agreement is misleading since the temperature
571: \emph{difference} is much better determined than the error bars appear
572: to indicate. The best-fit age for this metallicity is 1.6~Gyr, and the
573: corresponding isochrone is indicated with a dashed curve.
574:
575: \begin{figure}
576: \epsscale{1.35}
577: \vskip -0.4in
578: {\hskip -0.35in \plotone{fig7.eps}}
579: \vskip -0.3in
580: %
581: \figcaption[]{Stellar evolution models from the Yonsei-Yale series
582: \citep{Yi:01, Demarque:04} compared against the measurements for
583: VZ~Cep. Solid lines show evolutionary tracks for the measured masses
584: and for solar metallicity ($Z = Z_{\sun}$), with the uncertainty in
585: the location of the tracks represented by the shaded regions. Dotted
586: lines correspond to mass tracks at a somewhat higher metallicity of $Z
587: = 0.0280$ that seems to fit the observations better (see text). An
588: isochrone for this metallicity and an age of 1.6~Gyr is shown with a
589: dashed curve. \label{fig:radteff}}
590: %
591: \end{figure}
592:
593: Figure~\ref{fig:massrad} shows the measurements in the mass-radius
594: diagram against the same set of models. The dashed line represents the
595: same isochrone shown before, and the solid line is an isochrone for
596: solar metallicity that provides the best fit, in this case for a
597: slightly younger age of 1.4~Gyr. Both are seen to represent the
598: measurements equally well.
599:
600: \begin{figure}
601: \epsscale{1.35}
602: \vskip -0.4in
603: {\hskip -0.35in \plotone{fig8.eps}}
604: \vskip -0.3in
605: %
606: \figcaption[]{Isochrones from the Yonsei-Yale series \citep{Yi:01,
607: Demarque:04} compared with the measurements for VZ~Cep in the
608: mass-radius plane. The dashed line is the same isochrone shown in
609: Figure~\ref{fig:radteff} ($Z = 0.0280$), and a solar-metallicity
610: isochrone is represented by the solid curve, for a slightly younger
611: age that fits the observations best. \label{fig:massrad}}
612: %
613: \end{figure}
614:
615: These comparisons suggest that the models correctly predict the radii
616: of the stars at the measured masses, but that the temperature of the
617: secondary is underestimated by a significant amount. Tests with a
618: different series of models by \cite{Pietrinferni:04} gave similar
619: results.
620:
621: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
622: \label{sec:discussion}
623:
624: VZ~Cep stands out among the F stars as one of the eclipsing binaries
625: with the largest difference in mass between the components ($q =
626: 0.7900$), which provides extra leverage for testing stellar evolution
627: models. There are no less than five other systems with well determined
628: properties \citep[BW~Aqr~B, V1143~Cyg~A, BP~Vul~B, V442~Cyg~B, and
629: AD~Boo~A;][]{Andersen:91, Lacy:03, Clausen:08} that have at least one
630: component nearly identical in mass to the primary of VZ~Cep (i.e.,
631: within 1\%). However, these stars are all in very different
632: evolutionary states so that their radii span a range of 33\% and their
633: effective temperatures differ by up to 360~K. They are therefore of
634: little help in understanding the discrepancies with theory noted above
635: for VZ~Cep. Only one other well measured binary has one component
636: with a mass similar to that of the secondary of VZ~Cep, but that star
637: (EK~Cep~B) is considered to be in the pre-main sequence stage
638: \citep{Popper:87}.
639:
640: Figure~\ref{fig:radteff} highlights the main disagreement between the
641: models and the measurements for VZ~Cep, which is that the temperature
642: difference predicted from theory for the measured masses and surface
643: gravities is much smaller than all of our estimates. Solar metallicity
644: models, which appear to fit the properties of the primary well,
645: indicate $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 710$~K, and this is reduced further to
646: 660~K when considering the higher metallicity of $Z = 0.0280$. The
647: uncertainty in these determinations is difficult to quantify, but a
648: useful measure may be obtained by propagating the uncertainty in the
649: measured masses, which results in $\pm$50~K. Uncertainties from
650: physical inputs to the models are unlikely to add much to this due to
651: the differential nature of the comparison. In this paper we have made
652: three empirical determinations of $\Delta T_{\rm eff}$, as follows: 1)
653: $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 970 \pm 35$~K, based on the $J_{\rm B}$ value
654: from our light-curve analysis along with the visual flux scale of
655: \cite{Popper:80} and our spectroscopic brightness ratio (used as an
656: external constraint); 2) $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 975 \pm 40$~K, from
657: photometric deconvolution based on the measured Str\"omgren indices
658: and the spectroscopic brightness ratio (\S\,\ref{sec:dimensions}),
659: along with the color/temperature calibrations of \cite{Holmberg:07};
660: 3) $\Delta T_{\rm eff} = 940$~K, directly from a primary temperature
661: estimate based on spectroscopy (\S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}) and an
662: assumed temperature for the secondary similar to estimates for that
663: star from the other two methods. While these three determinations are
664: not completely independent, their consistency despite the widely
665: different ingredients reinforces our conclusion that the model $\Delta
666: T_{\rm eff}$ is at least $\sim$250~K too small.
667:
668: Stellar evolution models have been shown previously to overestimate
669: the effective temperatures of low-mass stars in eclipsing binaries by
670: up to $\sim$200~K \citep[e.g.,][]{TorresRibas:02, Ribas:03}. The
671: study of V1061~Cyg by \cite{Torres:06} suggested that the problem is
672: not confined to M dwarfs, but extends up to masses almost as large as
673: that of the Sun (0.93~M$_{\sun}$ in the case of V1061~Cyg~B). At the
674: same time, the radii of these stars appear too large compared to
675: theory, and both discrepancies are generally attributed to the effects
676: of stellar activity in these short-period, tidally synchronized and
677: rapidly rotating systems.
678:
679: There is little doubt that the VZ~Cep system is active, judging by its
680: strong X-ray emission as recorded by ROSAT \citep{Voges:99}. We
681: estimate its X-ray luminosity to be $\log L_{\rm X} = 30.61 \pm 0.12$
682: (where $L_{\rm X}$ is in cgs units), and $\log L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol} =
683: -3.70 \pm 0.13$.\footnote{By comparison, $\log L_{\rm X}$ for the Sun
684: ranges between 26.4 and 27.7 during the activity cycle
685: \citep{Peres:00}, and $\log L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm bol}$ ranges between
686: $-7.2$ and $-5.9$.} The mass of VZ~Cep~B is slightly larger than that
687: of the Sun, but it still has a thin convective envelope representing
688: about 1.3\% of the total mass, which suggests that star may in fact be
689: responsible for most of the X-ray emission given that the primary has
690: no convective envelope. Another indication is given by the Rossby
691: numbers of the stars (ratio $R_0$ between the convective turnover time
692: and the rotational period). For the primary we estimate $\log R_0 >
693: 2.1$, which according to \citet[Fig.~6]{Hall:94} clearly places it
694: among the inactive stars. The secondary, on the other hand, has $\log
695: R_0 = -1.3$. Stars in this regime tend to be very active and have
696: photometric variability due to spots with amplitudes as large as
697: $\sim$0.4 mag. Detection of this expected variability is difficult in
698: VZ~Cep because of the faintness of the secondary. Nevertheless, we
699: examined the nightly residuals from our adopted solution near the
700: primary minimum, where the contrast is more favorable, and we see only
701: occasional systematic deviations on one or two nights. However,
702: similar deviations are seen at the secondary eclipse, and also outside
703: of eclipse, which leads us to believe these are residual instrumental
704: errors rather than real changes in the light level caused by
705: spottedness on the secondary (see \S\,\ref{sec:photometry}).
706:
707: If we consider the properties of the primary of VZ~Cep to be
708: relatively well described by theory for a metallicity near solar, then
709: the secondary shows a temperature difference compared to models in the
710: same direction as mentioned above for other active stars (i.e., lower
711: than predicted). However, we see no indication that its radius is
712: larger than predicted (Figure~\ref{fig:massrad}), which we would have
713: expected not only from the evidence displayed by other systems but
714: also from recent theoretical studies of the effects of chromospheric
715: activity \citep[e.g.,][]{Mullan:01, Chabrier:07}.
716:
717: As described in previous sections, we have carried out a variety of
718: tests to explore the possibility of systematic errors in our mass,
719: radius, or temperature determinations, including a careful examination
720: of biases in our velocity measurements, and sanity checks of our
721: light-curve analysis with results from more sophisticated modeling
722: programs. We were unable to demonstrate any significant errors that
723: would explain the discrepancies in the preceding paragraph. For
724: example, matching the model $\Delta T_{\rm eff}$ with the $\Delta
725: T_{\rm eff}$ measured from the light curve would require a change in
726: the mass ratio to $q \approx 0.71$, much lower than allowed by the
727: spectroscopy, regardless of the choice of cross-correlation templates
728: (see \S\,\ref{sec:spectroscopy}). Conversely, deriving a smaller
729: temperature difference from the light curve to match the models would
730: require an increase in $J_{\rm B}$ to values that are unrealistic and
731: would bring strong disagreement with the light ratio from
732: spectroscopy. Additionally, this would leave the other two empirical
733: estimates of $\Delta T_{\rm eff}$ unchanged, and a discrepancy would
734: remain. As indicated earlier, we see no evidence for third light at a
735: level that would make much difference. The adjustments required in
736: each of the quantities mentioned above, and others we experimented
737: with, are so large compared to the uncertainties that a combination of
738: effects is unlikely to resolve the issue either.
739:
740: At the suggestion of the referee, we show in Figure~\ref{fig:baraffe}
741: a comparison with an alternate set of models by \cite{Baraffe:98},
742: which allows us to explore the effect of differences in the mixing
743: length parameter $\alpha_{\rm ML}$. Previous studies of the radius and
744: temperature discrepancies for active low-mass stars have indicated
745: that a value of $\alpha_{\rm ML}$ lower than appropriate for the Sun,
746: representing a reduced overall convective efficiency, provides a much
747: better match to the observations of these objects. Consequently, we
748: show a solar-metallicity evolutionary track for a solar-like mixing
749: length parameter for the radiative primary ($\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.9$ in
750: these models), and tracks for three values of the mixing length
751: parameter for the secondary star ($\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.9$, 1.5, and
752: 1.0), which, as mentioned earlier, we believe to be the more active
753: member of the system. For reference, triangles on each track mark the
754: age of 1.4~Gyr, which we found in Figure~\ref{fig:radteff} to provide
755: the best match for $Z = Z_{\sun}$ using the Yonsei-Yale models. The
756: \cite{Baraffe:98} model for the primary is seen to be similar to the
757: corresponding solar-metallicity Yonsei-Yale model (dashed line,
758: reproduced from Figure~\ref{fig:radteff}). A reduction of the mixing
759: length parameter for the secondary star leads to the expected
760: systematic decrease in effective temperature, and an increase in
761: radius. A secondary model with $\alpha_{\rm ML}$ between 1.0 and 1.5,
762: when paired with the standard $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.9$ model for the
763: primary, would appear to give approximately the correct temperature
764: difference for the system. However, the measured radius of VZ~Cep~B is
765: somewhat smaller than predicted, in agreement with our earlier
766: conclusion that this star appears normal in size (compared to standard
767: models).
768:
769: \begin{figure}
770: \epsscale{1.35}
771: \vskip -0.4in
772: {\hskip -0.35in \plotone{fig9.eps}}
773: \vskip -0.3in
774: %
775: \figcaption[]{Radius and effective temperature of VZ~Cep compared
776: against evolutionary tracks for solar metallicity by
777: \cite{Baraffe:98}, for the exact masses we measure (solid lines). A
778: single track is shown for the primary star, for a mixing length
779: parameter $\alpha_{\rm ML} = 1.9$ appropriate for the Sun. The dashed
780: line represents the same solar-metallicity Yonsei-Yale track shown in
781: Figure~\ref{fig:radteff}. Three \cite{Baraffe:98} models are shown for
782: the secondary, for different values of $\alpha_{\rm ML}$, as
783: labeled. For reference, the triangles on the solid curves correspond
784: to an age of 1.4~Gyr, which was found in Figure~\ref{fig:massrad} to
785: provide a good match in the mass-radius plane using solar-metallicity
786: models from the Yonsei-Yale series.
787: \label{fig:baraffe}}
788: %
789: \end{figure}
790:
791: The 13\% difference between our measured $v \sin i$ for the primary
792: and the predicted synchronous velocity is somewhat puzzling, and is
793: significant at the 2.5-$\sigma$ confidence level. We do not believe
794: errors in the spectroscopic measurements are to blame since all 39 of
795: our individual spectra consistently give values smaller than
796: predicted. A reduction in the predicted value could be accomplished
797: with an increase in $k$, but it would have to be much larger than
798: allowed by our photometric solutions, and would once again bring
799: disagreement between the photometric and spectroscopic light ratios.
800:
801: At the moment we are unable to offer an explanation for the
802: differences noted above, and based on the tests just described we are
803: inclined to believe that the measurements are accurate and that the
804: system is affected in some way that the models do not account for,
805: most likely having to do with chromospheric activity. It would also
806: appear that our understanding of the effects of chromospheric activity
807: (reduced convective efficiency, spot coverage) on the global
808: properties of stars is still incomplete, since we see here only the
809: effect on the temperature predicted by recent models that account for
810: these phenomena \citep{Chabrier:07}, but not the effect on the radius.
811: VZ~Cep thus presents a challenge to theory. Further progress in
812: understanding these differences may be made by obtaining complete
813: light curves in multiple passbands, which would give a better handle
814: on the temperature issue. Higher signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopy
815: would also help in refining the $v \sin i$ measurements for the
816: primary and secondary, in constraining the abundance, and perhaps also
817: in providing a more direct determination of the effective temperatures
818: and revealing whether \ion{Ca}{2} emission is present.
819:
820: \acknowledgments
821:
822: The spectroscopic observations of VZ~Cep used in this paper were
823: obtained with the expert assistance of P.\ Berlind, M.\ Calkins, D.\
824: W.\ Latham, and R.\ P.\ Stefanik. R.\ J.\ Davis is thanked for
825: maintaining the CfA echelle database. We are grateful to the referee,
826: J.\ V.\ Clausen, for a prompt, detailed, and very helpful report. GT
827: acknowledges partial support for this work from NSF grant AST-0708229.
828: CHSL would like to thank University of Arkansas graduate student
829: Kathryn D.\ Hicks for a preliminary analysis of the photometry and
830: radial velocities of VZ~Cep. This research has made use of the SIMBAD
831: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and of NASA's
832: Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.
833:
834: \begin{thebibliography}{}
835:
836: \bibitem[Agerer \& Huebscher(1995)]{Agerer:95}
837: Agerer, F., \& Huebscher, J. 1995, IBVS, No.\ 4222
838:
839: \bibitem[Alonso et al.(1996)]{Alonso:96}
840: Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'\i nez-Roger, C. 1996, \aap, 313,
841: 873
842:
843: \bibitem[Andersen(1991)]{Andersen:91}
844: Andersen, J. 1991, \aapr, 3, 91
845:
846: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(1998)]{Baraffe:98}
847: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.\ H. 1998,
848: \aap, 337, 403
849:
850: \bibitem[Cannon(1934)]{Cannon:34}
851: Canon, A.\ J. 1934, Bull.\ Harvard Obs., 897, 12
852:
853: \bibitem[Chabrier et al.(2007)]{Chabrier:07}
854: Chabrier, G., Gallardo, J., \& Baraffe, I. 2007, \aap, 472, L17
855:
856: \bibitem[Claret(1998)]{Claret:98}
857: Claret, A. 1998, \aaps, 131, 395
858:
859: \bibitem[Claret(2000)]{Claret:00}
860: Claret, A. 1998, \aap, 363, 1081
861:
862: \bibitem[Claret(2008)]{Claret:08}
863: Claret, A. 2008, \aap, 482, 259
864:
865: \bibitem[Clausen et al.(1999)]{Clausen:99}
866: Clausen, J.\ V., Helt, B.\ E., \& Olsen, E.\ H. 1999, in Theory and
867: Tests of Convection in Stellar Structure, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 173, ed.\
868: A.\ Gim\'enez, E.\ F.\ Guinan, \& B.\ Montesinos (San Francisco:
869: ASP), 321
870:
871: \bibitem[Clausen et al.(2008)]{Clausen:08} Clausen, J.\ V., Torres,
872: G., Bruntt, H., Andersen, J., Nordstr\"om, B., Stefanik R.\ P.,
873: Latham, D.\ W., \& Southworth, J. 2008, \aap, 487, 1095
874:
875: \bibitem[Crawford(1975)]{Crawford:75}
876: Crawford, D.\ L. 1975, \aj, 80, 955
877:
878: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{Demarque:04}
879: Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.\ K. 2004, \apjs, 155,
880: 667
881:
882: \bibitem[Diethlem(2006)]{Diethlem:06}
883: Diethlem, R. 2006, IBVS, No.\ 5713
884:
885: \bibitem[Etzel(1981)]{Etzel:81}
886: Etzel, P.\ B. 1981, Photometric and Spectroscopic Binary Systems
887: (Dordrecht: Reidel), 65
888:
889: \bibitem[Gengler et al.(1928)]{Gengler:28}
890: Gengler, G.\ T., Blasko, S., \& Schneller, H. 1928, AN, 233, 39
891:
892: \bibitem[Gray(1992)]{Gray:92}
893: Gray, D.\ F. 1992, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar
894: Photospheres, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press)
895:
896: \bibitem[Griffin et al.(2000)]{Griffin:00}
897: Griffin, R.\ E.\ M., David, M., \& Verschueren, W. 2000, \aaps, 147,
898: 299
899:
900: \bibitem[Hall(1994)]{Hall:94}
901: Hall, D.\ S. 1994, Mem.\ R.\ Astr.\ Soc., 65, 73
902:
903: \bibitem[Holmberg et al.(2007)]{Holmberg:07}
904: Holmberg, J., Nordstr\"om, B., \& Andersen, J. 2007, \aap, 475,
905: 519
906:
907: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2006)]{Kim:06}
908: Kim, C.-H., Lee, C.-U., Yoon, Y.-N., Park, S.-S., Kim, D.-H., Cha,
909: S.-M., \& Won, Y.-H. 2006, IBVS, No.\ 5694
910:
911: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(1987)]{Lacy:87}
912: Lacy, C.\ H., Freuh, M.\ L., \& Turner, A.\ E. 1987, \aj, 94, 1035
913:
914: \bibitem[Lacy(1992)]{Lacy:92}
915: Lacy, C.\ H. 1992, \aj, 104, 801
916:
917: \bibitem[Lacy(2002a)]{Lacy:02a}
918: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S. 2002a, \aj, 124, 1162
919:
920: \bibitem[Lacy(2002b)]{Lacy:02b}
921: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S. 2002b, IBVS, No.\ 5357
922:
923: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2003)]{Lacy:03}
924: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Torres, G., Claret, A., \& Sabby, J.\ A. 2003, \aj,
925: 126, 1905
926:
927: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2002)]{Lacyetal:02}
928: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Straughn, A., \& Denger F. 2002, IBVS, No.\ 5251
929:
930: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2008)]{Lacy:08}
931: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Torres, G., \& Claret, A. 2008, \aj, 135, 1757
932:
933: \bibitem[Lacy et al.(2005)]{Lacy:05}
934: Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Torres, G., Claret, A., \& Vaz, L.\ P.\ R. 2005,
935: \aj, 130, 2838
936:
937: \bibitem[Latham(1992)]{Latham:92}
938: Latham, D.\ W. 1992, in IAU Coll.\ 135, Complementary Approaches to
939: Double and Multiple Star Research, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 32, eds.\ H.\ A.\
940: McAlister \& W.\ I.\ Hartkopf (San Francisco: ASP), 110
941:
942: \bibitem[Latham et al.(2002)]{Latham:02}
943: Latham, D.\ W., Stefanik, R.\ P., Torres, G., Davis, R.\ J., Mazeh,
944: T., Carney, B.\ W., Laird, J.\ B., \& Morse, J.\ A. 2002, \aj, 124,
945: 1144
946:
947: \bibitem[Mullan \& MacDonald(2001)]{Mullan:01}
948: Mullan, D.\ J., \& MacDonald, J. 2001, \apj, 559, 353
949:
950: \bibitem[Nelson(2001)]{Nelson:01}
951: Nelson, R.\ H. 2001, IBVS, No.\ 5040
952:
953: \bibitem[Nelson(2007)]{Nelson:07}
954: Nelson, R.\ H. 2007, IBVS, No.\ 5760
955:
956: \bibitem[Nordlund \& Vaz(1990)]{Nordlund:90}
957: Nordlund, \AA, \& Vaz, L.\ P.\ R. 1990, \aap, 228, 231
958:
959: \bibitem[Nordstr\"om et al.(1994)]{Nordstrom:94}
960: Nordstr\"om, B., Latham, D.\ W., Morse, J.\ A., Milone, A.\ A.\ E.,
961: Kurucz, R.\ L., Andersen, J., \& Stefanik, R.\ P. 1994, \aap, 287, 338
962:
963: \bibitem[Olsen(1984)]{Olsen:84}
964: Olsen, E.\ H. 1984, \aaps, 57, 443
965:
966: \bibitem[Peres et al.(2000)]{Peres:00}
967: Peres, G., Orlando, S., Reale, F., Rosner, R., \& Hudson, H. 2000,
968: \apj, 528, 537
969:
970: \bibitem[Perry \& Johnston(1982)]{Perry:82}
971: Perry, C.\ L., \& Johnston, L. 1982, \apjs, 50, 451
972:
973: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1997)]{Perryman:97}
974: Perryman, M.\ A.\ C., et al. 1997, The {\it Hipparcos\/} and {\it
975: Tycho\/} Catalogues (ESA SP-1200; Noordwjik: ESA)
976:
977: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et al.(2004)]{Pietrinferni:04}
978: Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F. 2004,
979: \apj, 612, 168
980:
981: \bibitem[Popper(1980)]{Popper:80}
982: Popper, D.\ M. 1980, \araa, 18, 115
983:
984: \bibitem[Popper(1987)]{Popper:87}
985: Popper, D.\ M. 1987, \apj, 313, L81
986:
987: \bibitem[Popper(1996)]{Popper:96}
988: Popper, D.\ M. 1996, \apjs, 106, 133
989:
990: \bibitem[Popper(1997)]{Popper:97}
991: Popper, D.\ M. 1997, \aj, 114, 1195
992:
993: \bibitem[Popper(2000)]{Popper:00}
994: Popper, D.\ M. 2000, \aj, 119, 2391
995:
996: \bibitem[Popper \& Etzel(1981)]{Popper:81}
997: Popper, D.\ M., \& Etzel, P.\ B. 1981, \aj, 86, 102
998:
999: \bibitem[Ribas(2006)]{Ribas:06}
1000: Ribas, I.\ 2006, \apss, 304, 89
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Ribas(2003)]{Ribas:03}
1003: Ribas, I.\ 2003, \aap, 398, 239
1004:
1005: \bibitem[R\"ossiger(1978)]{Rossiger:78}
1006: R\"ossiger, S. 1978, IBVS, No.\ 1474
1007:
1008: \bibitem[Sarounova \& Wolf(2005)]{Sarounova:05}
1009: Sarounova, L., \& Wolf, M. 2005, IBVS, No.\ 5594
1010:
1011: \bibitem[Southworth(2008)]{Southworth:08}
1012: Southworth, J. 2008, \mnras, 386, 1644
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Southworth et al.(2007)]{Southworth:07}
1015: Southworth, J., Bruntt, H., \& Buzasi, D.\ L. 2007, \aap, 467, 1215
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2000)]{Torres:00}
1018: Torres, G., Andersen, J., Nordstr\"om, B., \& Latham, D.\ W. 2000,
1019: \aj, 119, 1942
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2002)]{Torres:02}
1022: Torres, G., Neuh\"auser, R., \& Guenther, E.\ W. 2002, \aj, 123, 1701
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1997)]{Torres:97}
1025: Torres, G., Stefanik, R.\ P., Andersen, J., Nordstr\"om, B., Latham,
1026: D.\ W., \& Clausen, J.\ V. 1997, \aj, 114, 2764
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2006)]{Torres:06}
1029: Torres, G., Lacy, C.\ H.\ S., Marschall, L.\ A., Sheets, H.\ A., \&
1030: Mader, J.\ A. 2006, \apj, 640, 1018
1031:
1032: \bibitem[Torres \& Ribas(2002)]{TorresRibas:02}
1033: Torres, G., \& Ribas, I. 2002, \apj, 567, 1140
1034:
1035: \bibitem[van Hamme(1993)]{vanHamme:93}
1036: van Hamme, W. 1993, \aj, 106, 2096
1037:
1038: \bibitem[van Hamme(2007)]{vanHamme:07}
1039: van Hamme, W., \& Wilson, R.\ E. 2007, \apj, 661, 1129
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Vaz(1984)]{Vaz:84}
1042: Vaz, L.\ P.\ R. 1984, Ph.D.\ Thesis, Copenhagen University
1043: (unpublished)
1044:
1045: \bibitem[Vaz(1986)]{Vaz:86}
1046: Vaz, L.\ P.\ R. 1986, Rev.\ Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 12, 177
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Vaz(1985)]{Vaz:85}
1049: Vaz, L.\ P.\ R., \& Nordlund, \AA\ 1985, \aap, 147, 281
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Voges et al.(1999)]{Voges:99}
1052: Voges, W.\ et al.\ 1999, \aap, 349, 389
1053:
1054: \bibitem[Wilson \& Devinney(1971)]{Wilson:71}
1055: Wilson, R.\ E., \& Devinney, E.\ J. 1971, \apj, 166, 605
1056:
1057: \bibitem[Wilson(1979)]{Wilson:79}
1058: Wilson, R.\ E. 1979, \apj, 234, 1054
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Wilson(1990)]{Wilson:90}
1061: Wilson, R.\ E. 1990, \apj, 356, 613
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Wilson(1993)]{Wilson:93}
1064: Wilson, R.\ E. 1993, in New Fronteers in Binary Star Research, ASP
1065: Conf. Ser.\ 38, ed.\ K.-C.\ Leung \& I.-S.\ Nha (San Francisco: ASP),
1066: 91
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Wood(1972)]{Wood:72}
1069: Wood, D.\ B. 1972, A Computer Program for Modeling Non-Spherical
1070: Eclipsing Binary Star Systems, Goddard Space Flight Center,
1071: Greenbelt, Maryland
1072:
1073: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{Yi:01}
1074: Yi, S.\ K., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C.\ H.,
1075: Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
1076:
1077: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(1994)]{Zucker:94}
1078: Zucker, S., \& Mazeh, T. 1994, \apj, 420, 806
1079:
1080: \end{thebibliography}
1081:
1082: \clearpage
1083:
1084: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1085: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1086: \tablewidth{0pc}
1087: \tablecaption{Published measurements of the times of eclipse for
1088: VZ~Cep.\label{tab:minima}}
1089: \tablehead{
1090: \colhead{HJD} &
1091: \colhead{} &
1092: \colhead{Uncertainty} &
1093: \colhead{$(O\!-\!C)$} &
1094: \colhead{} \\
1095: \colhead{\hbox{~~(2,400,000$+$)~~}} &
1096: \colhead{Type\tablenotemark{a}} &
1097: \colhead{(days)} &
1098: \colhead{(days)} &
1099: \colhead{Source}
1100: }
1101: \startdata
1102: 49567.42210\dotfill & 1 & 0.0003\phn & $+$0.00067 & 1 \\
1103: 51608.72370\dotfill & 1 & 0.0003\phn & $-$0.00023 & 2 \\
1104: 52038.87680\dotfill & 2 & 0.0005\phn & $-$0.00012 & 3 \\
1105: 52044.79410\dotfill & 2 & 0.0005\phn & $+$0.00036 & 3 \\
1106: 52051.89410\dotfill & 2 & 0.0005\phn & $+$0.00018 & 3 \\
1107: 52054.85215\dotfill & 1 & 0.00011 & $+$0.00008 & 3 \\
1108: 52073.78570\dotfill & 1 & 0.0002\phn & $-$0.00019 & 3 \\
1109: 52076.74440\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $-$0.00016 & 3 \\
1110: 52079.70300\dotfill & 1 & 0.0003\phn & $+$0.00029 & 3 \\
1111: 52080.88604\dotfill & 1 & 0.00019 & $-$0.00003 & 3 \\
1112: 52093.90270\dotfill & 1 & 0.0005\phn & $-$0.00038 & 3 \\
1113: 52108.69630\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $+$0.00092 & 3 \\
1114: 52111.65270\dotfill & 1 & 0.0006\phn & $-$0.00083 & 3 \\
1115: 52112.83709\dotfill & 1 & 0.00014 & $+$0.00019 & 3 \\
1116: 52114.61500\dotfill & 2 & 0.0006\phn & $+$0.00280 & 3 \\
1117: 52154.84470\dotfill & 2 & 0.0004\phn & $-$0.00187 & 3 \\
1118: 52159.58000\dotfill & 2 & 0.0010\phn & $-$0.00002 & 3 \\
1119: 52166.67970\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $-$0.00051 & 3 \\
1120: 52179.69710\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $-$0.00011 & 3 \\
1121: 52233.54070\dotfill & 1 & 0.0004\phn & $+$0.00070 & 3 \\
1122: 52277.32429\dotfill & 1 & 0.00007 & $-$0.00017 & 4 \\
1123: 52463.70530\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $+$0.00079 & 5 \\
1124: 52464.88810\dotfill & 2 & 0.0003\phn & $+$0.00022 & 5 \\
1125: 52482.63870\dotfill & 2 & 0.0005\phn & $+$0.00037 & 5 \\
1126: 52518.73064\dotfill & 1 & 0.00019 & $-$0.00003 & 5 \\
1127: 53366.01950\dotfill & 1 & 0.0002\phn & $+$0.00037 & 6 \\
1128: 53658.30900\dotfill & 1 & 0.0006\phn & $-$0.00098 & 7 \\
1129: 54009.76910\dotfill & 1 & 0.0001\phn & $+$0.00008 & 8 \\ [-1.5ex]
1130: \enddata
1131: \tablenotetext{a}{Type: 1 = primary eclipse; 2 = secondary eclipse.}
1132: \tablecomments{References: 1. \cite{Agerer:95}; 2. \cite{Nelson:01};
1133: 3. \cite{Lacyetal:02}; 4. \cite{Sarounova:05}; 5. \cite{Lacy:02b};
1134: 6. \cite{Kim:06}; 7. \cite{Diethlem:06}; 8. \cite{Nelson:07}.}
1135: \end{deluxetable}
1136:
1137: \clearpage
1138:
1139: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
1140: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1141: \tablewidth{0pc}
1142: \tablecaption{Radial velocity measurements of VZ~Cep.\label{tab:rvs}}
1143: \tablehead{\colhead{HJD} &
1144: \colhead{$RV_{\rm A}$} &
1145: \colhead{$RV_{\rm B}$} &
1146: \colhead{$(O\!-\!C)_{\rm A}$} &
1147: \colhead{$(O\!-\!C)_{\rm B}$} &
1148: \colhead{} \\
1149: \colhead{\hbox{~~(2,400,000$+$)~~}} &
1150: \colhead{(\kms)} &
1151: \colhead{(\kms)} &
1152: \colhead{(\kms)} &
1153: \colhead{(\kms)} &
1154: \colhead{Orbital phase}}
1155: \startdata
1156: 52661.5709\dotfill & $+$106.35 & $-$149.88 & $+$1.69 & $+$2.71 & 0.707 \\
1157: 52808.9615\dotfill & $-$127.46 & $+$139.25 & $+$1.12 & $-$3.40 & 0.259 \\
1158: 52828.9269\dotfill & \phn$-$96.88 & $+$102.39 & $+$0.15 & $-$0.32 & 0.131 \\
1159: 52834.9798\dotfill & $-$127.64 & $+$147.21 & $+$1.10 & $+$4.36 & 0.246 \\
1160: 52885.8243\dotfill & $-$126.22 & $+$134.87 & $-$0.81 & $-$3.76 & 0.212 \\
1161: 52894.8309\dotfill & \phn$+$96.39 & $-$136.82 & $-$0.31 & $+$5.69 & 0.823 \\
1162: 52924.7873\dotfill & $-$100.02 & $+$112.30 & $+$0.34 & $+$5.38 & 0.138 \\
1163: 52951.7261\dotfill & \phn$+$57.66 & $-$102.06 & $-$0.97 & $-$7.73 & 0.902 \\
1164: 52958.6957\dotfill & $+$105.49 & $-$155.58 & $+$0.59 & $-$2.69 & 0.792 \\
1165: 53013.5806\dotfill & $-$114.11 & $+$129.47 & $+$0.78 & $+$4.16 & 0.172 \\
1166: 53182.9448\dotfill & $-$125.76 & $+$138.43 & $-$1.35 & $+$1.06 & 0.293 \\
1167: 53185.9637\dotfill & \phn$+$88.37 & $-$131.20 & $-$0.31 & $+$1.16 & 0.845 \\
1168: 53186.9164\dotfill & \phn$+$88.42 & $-$133.24 & $+$2.37 & $-$4.21 & 0.650 \\
1169: 53189.9839\dotfill & $-$129.03 & $+$137.70 & $-$0.41 & $-$4.99 & 0.242 \\
1170: 53191.8776\dotfill & \phn$+$89.70 & $-$128.04 & \phs0.00 & $+$5.61 & 0.842 \\
1171: 53192.9211\dotfill & $+$106.23 & $-$154.75 & $-$1.14 & $+$1.27 & 0.724 \\
1172: 53215.9246\dotfill & $-$112.11 & $+$119.86 & $-$0.73 & $-$1.02 & 0.163 \\
1173: 53218.8991\dotfill & \phn$+$94.48 & $-$137.57 & $-$2.02 & $+$4.69 & 0.677 \\
1174: 53271.6999\dotfill & $-$122.28 & $+$137.26 & $+$1.64 & $+$0.51 & 0.296 \\
1175: 53272.7658\dotfill & $-$122.11 & $+$134.75 & $-$0.01 & $+$0.31 & 0.197 \\
1176: 53274.6998\dotfill & \phn$+$94.19 & $-$144.23 & $+$0.17 & $-$5.11 & 0.831 \\
1177: 53275.7597\dotfill & $+$104.75 & $-$162.66 & $-$2.93 & $-$6.25 & 0.727 \\
1178: 53281.7191\dotfill & $+$107.50 & $-$158.17 & $-$1.13 & $-$0.56 & 0.763 \\
1179: 53282.8175\dotfill & $+$100.85 & $-$144.52 & $+$0.05 & $+$3.18 & 0.691 \\
1180: 53301.7530\dotfill & $+$100.90 & $-$147.17 & $-$0.28 & $+$1.01 & 0.692 \\
1181: 53333.7365\dotfill & $+$106.56 & $-$150.44 & $-$0.27 & $+$4.89 & 0.720 \\
1182: 53335.6589\dotfill & $-$109.05 & $+$117.57 & $-$0.46 & $+$0.23 & 0.344 \\
1183: 53336.6417\dotfill & $-$116.21 & $+$124.74 & $-$0.51 & $-$1.60 & 0.175 \\
1184: 53339.6764\dotfill & $+$108.41 & $-$157.55 & $-$0.30 & $+$0.16 & 0.739 \\
1185: 53630.7663\dotfill & $+$106.36 & $-$156.85 & $-$1.07 & $-$0.75 & 0.724 \\
1186: 53636.7401\dotfill & $+$108.74 & $-$160.82 & $+$0.93 & $-$4.24 & 0.773 \\
1187: 53690.6534\dotfill & $-$112.94 & $+$127.71 & $+$0.49 & $+$4.24 & 0.332 \\
1188: 53691.7072\dotfill & $-$127.60 & $+$134.58 & $-$0.62 & $-$6.04 & 0.222 \\
1189: 54042.6132\dotfill & $+$111.73 & $-$160.65 & $+$2.80 & $-$2.66 & 0.755 \\
1190: 54043.7068\dotfill & \phn$+$98.06 & $-$145.42 & $+$0.68 & $-$2.05 & 0.679 \\
1191: 54074.5790\dotfill & $+$106.66 & $-$154.30 & $-$1.60 & $+$2.85 & 0.768 \\
1192: 54103.5713\dotfill & $-$127.62 & $+$139.12 & $+$0.44 & $-$2.87 & 0.268 \\
1193: 54279.9427\dotfill & $-$121.65 & $+$138.43 & $-$1.19 & $+$6.07 & 0.310 \\
1194: 54282.8950\dotfill & $+$105.11 & $-$148.54 & $+$3.09 & $+$0.71 & 0.805 \\ [-1.5ex]
1195: \enddata
1196: \tablecomments{These velocities include corrections for systematics (see text).}
1197: \end{deluxetable}
1198:
1199: \clearpage
1200:
1201: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
1202: \tablewidth{0pc}
1203: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic orbital solution for VZ~Cep.\label{tab:specorbit}}
1204: \tablehead{
1205: \colhead{
1206: \hfil~~~~~~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} & \colhead{Value}}
1207: \startdata
1208: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Adjusted quantities\hfil} \\
1209: ~~~~$P$ (days)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 1.18336377 \\
1210: ~~~~$T_{\rm I}$ (HJD$-$2,400,000)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 52,277.32446 \\
1211: ~~~~$K_{\rm A}$ (\kms)\dotfill & 118.88~$\pm$~0.22\phn\phn \\
1212: ~~~~$K_{\rm B}$ (\kms)\dotfill & 150.48~$\pm$~0.67\phn\phn \\
1213: ~~~~$\gamma$ (\kms)\dotfill & $-9.90$~$\pm$~0.21\phs \\
1214: ~~~~$\Delta RV$ (\kms)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill & $-2.31$~$\pm$~0.65\phs \\
1215: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Derived quantities\hfil} \\
1216: ~~~~$M_{\rm A}\sin^3 i$ (M$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 1.339~$\pm$~0.013 \\
1217: ~~~~$M_{\rm B}\sin^3 i$ (M$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 1.0577~$\pm$~0.0064 \\
1218: ~~~~$q\equiv M_{\rm B}/M_{\rm A}$\dotfill & 0.7900~$\pm$~0.0038 \\
1219: ~~~~$a_{\rm A}\sin i$ (10$^6$ km)\dotfill & 1.9345~$\pm$~0.0036 \\
1220: ~~~~$a_{\rm B}\sin i$ (10$^6$ km)\dotfill & 2.4487~$\pm$~0.0109 \\
1221: ~~~~$a \sin i$ (R$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 6.298~$\pm$~0.016 \\
1222: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Other quantities pertaining to the fit\hfil} \\
1223: ~~~~$N_{\rm obs}$\dotfill & 39 \\
1224: ~~~~Time span (days)\dotfill & 1621.3 \\
1225: ~~~~$\sigma_{\rm A}$ (\kms)\dotfill & 1.27 \\
1226: ~~~~$\sigma_{\rm B}$ (\kms)\dotfill & 3.82 \\ [-1.0ex]
1227: \enddata
1228: \tablenotetext{a}{Ephemeris adopted from \S\,\ref{sec:ephemeris}.}
1229: \tablenotetext{b}{Velocity offset in the sense
1230: $\langle$primary$-$secondary$\rangle$ (see text).}
1231: \end{deluxetable}
1232:
1233: %\clearpage
1234:
1235: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
1236: \tablewidth{0pc}
1237: \tablecaption{Differential $V$-band magnitudes of VZ~Cep.\label{tab:photometry}}
1238: \tablehead{
1239: \colhead{HJD$-2,\!440,\!000$} &
1240: \colhead{$\Delta V$} &
1241: \colhead{Orbital phase}}
1242: \startdata
1243: 51973.95823 & 0.129 & 0.64077 \\
1244: 51973.95926 & 0.115 & 0.64164 \\
1245: 51973.96028 & 0.123 & 0.64250 \\
1246: 51973.96130 & 0.126 & 0.64336 \\
1247: 51973.96233 & 0.126 & 0.64423 \\ [-1.5ex]
1248: \enddata
1249: \tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab:photometry} is available in its entirety
1250: in the electronic edition of the {\it Astronomical Journal}. A
1251: portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and contents.}
1252: \end{deluxetable}
1253:
1254: %\clearpage
1255:
1256: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1257: \tablewidth{0pc}
1258: \tablecaption{Photometric orbital solutions for VZ~Cep.\label{tab:ebopfits}}
1259: \tablehead{
1260: \colhead{~~~~Parameter~~~~} &
1261: \colhead{Unconstrained fit} &
1262: \colhead{Constrained fit}}
1263: \startdata
1264: $J_{\rm B}$\dotfill & 0.495~$\pm$~0.010 & 0.4920~$\pm$~0.0013 \\
1265: $k \equiv r_{\rm B}/r_{\rm A}$\dotfill & 0.717~$\pm$~0.041 & 0.680~$\pm$~0.030 \\
1266: $r_{\rm A}+r_{\rm B}$\dotfill & 0.4077~$\pm$~0.0043 & 0.4028~$\pm$~0.0077 \\
1267: $r_{\rm A}$\dotfill & 0.2374~$\pm$~0.0033 & 0.2398~$\pm$~0.0017 \\
1268: $r_{\rm B}$\dotfill & 0.1703~$\pm$~0.0073 & 0.1630~$\pm$~0.0061 \\
1269: $u_{\rm A}$\dotfill & 0.499~$\pm$~0.075 & 0.420~$\pm$~0.076 \\
1270: $u_{\rm B}$\dotfill & 0.581~$\pm$~0.059 & 0.500~$\pm$~0.076 \\
1271: $i$ (deg)\dotfill & 79.47~$\pm$~0.44\phn & 79.97~$\pm$~0.45\phn \\
1272: $L_{\rm A}(V)$\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 0.802~$\pm$~0.022 & 0.820~$\pm$~0.014 \\
1273: $(L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm A})_V$\dotfill & 0.246~$\pm$~0.033 & 0.220~$\pm$~0.020\tablenotemark{b} \\
1274: $\sigma_V$ (mmag)\dotfill & 7.4400 & 7.4365 \\
1275: $N_{\rm obs}$\dotfill & 5473 & 5473 \\ [-1.0ex]
1276: \enddata
1277: \tablenotetext{a}{Fractional luminosity of the primary.}
1278: \tablenotetext{b}{Adopted as a constraint from spectroscopy (see text).}
1279: \end{deluxetable}
1280:
1281: \clearpage
1282:
1283: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1284: \tablewidth{0pc}
1285: \tablecaption{Physical properties of VZ~Cep.\label{tab:absolute}}
1286: \tablehead{
1287: \colhead{~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~} &
1288: \colhead{Primary} &
1289: \colhead{Secondary}}
1290: \startdata
1291: Mass (M$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 1.402~$\pm$~0.015 & 1.1077~$\pm$~0.0083 \\
1292: Radius (R$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 1.534~$\pm$~0.012 & 1.042~$\pm$~0.039 \\
1293: $\log g$ (cgs)\dotfill & 4.2130~$\pm$~0.0080 & 4.446~$\pm$~0.033 \\
1294: Temperature (K)\dotfill & 6670~$\pm$~160\phn & 5720~$\pm$~120\phn \\
1295: $\log L$ (L$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & 0.634~$\pm$~0.041 & 0.026~$\pm$~0.050 \\
1296: $v \sin i$ (\kms)\tablenotemark{a}\dotfill & 57~$\pm$~3\phn & 50~$\pm$~10 \\
1297: $v_{\rm sync} \sin i$ (\kms)\tablenotemark{b}\dotfill & 64.6~$\pm$~0.5\phn & 43.9~$\pm$~1.6\phn \\
1298: $a$ (R$_{\sun}$)\dotfill & \multicolumn{2}{c}{6.396~$\pm$~0.019} \\
1299: Distance (pc)\dotfill & \multicolumn{2}{c}{215~$\pm$~10\phn} \\
1300: $M_{\rm bol}$ (mag)\dotfill & 3.18~$\pm$~0.10 & 4.68~$\pm$~0.12 \\
1301: $M_V$ (mag)\dotfill & 3.16~$\pm$~0.11 & 4.77~$\pm$~0.12 \\ [-1.5ex]
1302: \enddata
1303: \tablenotetext{a}{Value measured spectroscopically.}
1304: \tablenotetext{b}{Value predicted assuming synchronous rotation.}
1305: \end{deluxetable}
1306:
1307: \end{document}
1308: