1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,flushrt]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
4: %
5: % aas2pp4 is dual column, aaspp4 is what we've been using (11pt),
6: % aasms4 (12pt) is what is submitted.
7: %
8: %
9: %
10: %This manuscript is prepared in AASTex 5.0 style
11: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
12:
13: \received{}
14: \revised{}
15: \accepted{}
16: \ccc{}
17: \cpright{}{}
18:
19: \slugcomment{AJ, in press (Sep. 2001)}
20: \shorttitle{Fe Abundance of M71}
21: \shortauthors{Ram\'{\i}rez \etal}
22:
23: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
24: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\odot}$}}
25: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\/}}
26: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{eff}$}
27: \newcommand{\grav}{log($g$)}
28: \newcommand{\mtv}{$\xi$}
29: \newcommand{\ew}{$W_{\lambda}$}
30: \newcommand{\fe}{[Fe/H]}
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \title{Abundances in Stars from the Red Giant Branch Tip to the Near the
35: Main Sequence Turn Off in M71: II. Iron Abundance
36: \altaffilmark{1}}
37:
38: \author{Solange V. Ram\'{\i}rez \altaffilmark{2},
39: Judith G. Cohen\altaffilmark{2},
40: Jeremy Buss\altaffilmark{3} and
41: Michael M. Briley\altaffilmark{3}}
42:
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at the
44: W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by the California
45: Institute of Technology and the University of California}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{2}{Palomar Observatory, Mail Stop 105-24,
48: California Institute of Technology}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin,
51: Oshkosh, Wisconsin}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: We present \fe\ abundance results that involve a
55: sample of stars with a wide range in luminosity from luminous giants to
56: stars near the turnoff in a globular cluster.
57: Our sample of 25 stars in M71 includes 10 giant stars more luminous than the
58: RHB, 3 horizontal branch stars, 9 giant stars less luminous than the RHB,
59: and 3 stars near the turnoff.
60: We analyzed both Fe I and Fe II lines in high dispersion spectra observed
61: with HIRES at the W. M. Keck Observatory.
62: We find that the \fe\ abundances from both Fe I and Fe II
63: lines agree with each other and with earlier determinations.
64: Also the \fe\ obtained from Fe I and Fe II lines is constant within the rather
65: small uncertainties for this group of stars over the full range in
66: \teff\ and luminosity, suggesting that NLTE effects are negligible in
67: our iron abundance determination.
68: In this globular cluster, there is no difference among the
69: mean \fe\ of giant stars located at or above the RHB, RHB stars,
70: giant stars located below the RHB and stars near the turnoff.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \keywords{globular clusters: general ---
74: globular clusters: individual (M71) --- stars: evolution -- stars:abundances}
75:
76:
77: \section{INTRODUCTION}
78:
79: Abundance determinations of stars in Galactic globular clusters can provide
80: valuable information about important astrophysical processes such as
81: stellar evolution, stellar structure, Galactic chemical evolution and
82: the formation of the Milky Way. Surface stellar abundances of C, N, O,
83: and often Na, Mg, and Al are found to be variable among red giants within
84: a globular cluster.
85: The physical process responsible of these star-to-star element variations
86: is still uncertain \citep[see ][Paper I]{coh01}.
87:
88: %A possible explanation of these star-to-star element
89: %variations involves processes occurring during the giant branch phase of the
90: %stars, ie, deep mixing, where the abundance is altered by products
91: %of the star's nucleosynthesis \citep{swe79,cha94,cha95}.
92: %But, star-to-star element variations have also been found in main sequence
93: %turn-off globular cluster stars \citep{sun91,can98,coh99,bri01,gra01}.
94: %These element variations follow a similar pattern to the one found in
95: %red giant stars. An possible explanation for
96: %these star-to-star abundance variations involves inhomogeneities of the
97: %material from which globular cluster stars were formed \citep{can98}.
98: %
99: %Furthermore, \citet{kin98} found that \fe\ from subgiant stars in M92 is
100: %is a factor of two smaller than \fe\ measurements using
101: %red giants in the same cluster \citep{coh79,sne91}. If this result is not
102: %due to systematic differences arising from the analysis procedures of the
103: %different groups that handle the red giant branch (RGB) and the subgiant samples,
104: %then the results of \citet{kin98}
105: %would suggest enrichment of the atmosphere of the subgiants in Fe after the
106: %star was formed, since the photospheric Fe abundance can not be altered
107: %by mixing.
108: %Since Fe, unlike the lighter elements, is not involved in normal mass transfer
109: %processes that might ocurr
110: %in binary systmes or in normal stellar winds, and it is only produced in
111: %supernovae, this would be quite difficult to explain and would
112: %add another layer to the already complicated picture
113: %of the star-to-star element variations in globular cluster stars.
114:
115: Of particular importance to the present study are the results of
116: \citet{kin98}, who found that \fe\ among M92 subgiants
117: is a factor of two smaller than \fe\ from red giants in the same
118: cluster \citep{coh79,sne91}. If this result is not
119: due to systematic differences arising from the analysis procedures of the
120: different groups that handle the red giant branch (RGB) and the subgiant
121: samples,
122: then the results of \citet{kin98} would suggest some modification of
123: photospheric Fe abundances which would be quite difficult to explain.
124: Clearly the present day clusters stars are incapable of modifying their
125: own Fe abundances through nucleosynthesis. Yet evolution-driven
126: changes in \fe\ could be possible if the outer envelopes of the subgiants
127: were somehow infused with Fe-poor external material. Thus as evolution progesses up
128: the RGB the deeping convective envelope would dilute the photospheric \fe\
129: with more Fe-rich ``unmodified'' material from the interior causing an increase
130: in \fe\ with luminosity. We note the unlikelyhood of this scenario as
131: Fe, unlike the lighter elements, is not involved in normal mass transfer
132: processes that might ocurr in binary systems or in normal stellar winds,
133: and is only produced in supernovae. Moreover, it is difficult to understand
134: how cluster stars could be contaminated by material with {\it less} Fe,
135: presumably at a time after the present subgiants had formed.
136:
137: In order to study the origin of the star-to-star abundance variations
138: and to address the issues raised by \citet{kin98},
139: we have started a program to determine chemical abundances of the nearer
140: galactic globular cluster stars. In this paper, we present our results for
141: the iron abundance of M71, the nearest globular cluster reachable from the
142: northern hemisphere.
143: Similar programs are underway at ESO by \citet{cas00} and
144: \citet{gra01} taking advantage of the fact that the
145: nearest globular cluster accessible from a southern site (NGC 6397)
146: is 1.8 times close than M71 and has a lower reddening.
147: Our M71 sample includes stars over a large range in luminosity:
148: 19 giant stars, 3 horizontal branch stars, and 3 stars near the main
149: sequence
150: turnoff, in order to study in a consistent manner red giants, horizontal
151: branch stars,
152: and stars at the main sequence turnoff.
153: Details on the star sample, observations, data reduction
154: and determination of stellar parameters are described in
155: Paper I.
156: Previous high dispersion abundance analysis for M71 involve studies of
157: red giants only, resulting in \fe\ of $-$0.70 \citep{coh83},
158: $-$0.80 \citep{gra86}, between $-$0.6 and $-$1.0 \citep{lee87},
159: and $-$0.79 \citep{sne94}.
160:
161: \section{ANALYSIS}
162:
163: We begin our analysis with Fe, as many Fe lines are identified in our
164: HIRES spectra over a wide range of excitation potentials and line
165: strengths,
166: as well as over two ionization states (Fe I and Fe II).
167: The iron abundance analysis is done using a current version of the LTE
168: spectral synthesis program MOOG \citep{sne73}.
169: A line list specifying the wavelengths, excitation
170: potentials, gf--values, damping constants, and equivalent widths for the
171: observed Fe I and Fe II lines is required.
172: The provenance of the gf--values and the measurement of equivalent widths
173: are discussed below.
174: The damping constants for all Fe I and Fe II lines were set to twice
175: that of the Uns\"{o}ld approximation for van der Waals broadening
176: following \citet{hol91}.
177: The use of the Blackwell approximation for the damping constants gives
178: the same result within the errors, when comparing \fe\ obtained with the
179: ``good line set'' of Fe I (see definition of line sets on Sec. 2.2).
180:
181: In addition, a model atmosphere for the effective temperature
182: and surface gravity appropriate for each star and a value for the
183: microturbulent velocity are also required.
184: We use the grid of model atmospheres from \citet{kur93a} with a metallicity of
185: \fe\ = $-$0.5 dex, based on earlier high dispersion abundance analysis of M71
186: red giants \citep{coh83,gra86,lee87,sne94}.
187: The final result for \fe\ is not sensitive to small changes in the metallicity of
188: the model atmosphere. In particular, the error introduced by using a model
189: with \fe\ = $-$0.5 instead of $-$0.7 dex is very small (see Tables 2 \& 3).
190: The effective temperatures and surface gravities are
191: derived from the photometry of the stars as described in Paper I. The error
192: in the photometric \teff\ is 75 K for giants and 150 K for the dwarfs and
193: the error in the photometric \grav\ is 0.2 dex (Paper I).
194: The microturbulent velocity is derived spectroscopically (see below).
195: The stellar parameters are listed in Table 1.
196:
197: \subsection{Transition Probabilities}
198:
199: Transition probabilities for the Fe I lines were obtained from several
200: laboratory experiments, including studies of Fe I absorption
201: lines produced by iron vapor in a carbon tube furnace
202: \citep{bla79,bla82a,bla82b,bla86} (Oxford Group),
203: measurement of radiative lifetimes of Fe I transitions by laser induced
204: fluorescence \citep{obr91,bar91,bar94},
205: Fe I emission line spectroscopy from a low current arc \citep{may74},
206: and emission lines of Fe I from a shock tube \citep{wol71}.
207: We also considered solar gf--values from \citet{the89,the90} when needed.
208:
209: We compare the gf--values obtained by the different experiments in an attempt
210: to place them onto a common scale with respect to the results from
211: \citet{obr91}, who provided the longest list of gf--values.
212: We considered for the comparison
213: only the set of lines present in our data,
214: which have a wavelength coverage roughly from 5380 \AA\ to 7900 \AA.
215: We found that the values of \citet{obr91} and of the Oxford Group were
216: on the
217: same scale; the mean difference in log($gf$) between the two
218: experiments is $0.02 \pm 0.01$ for 21 lines in common. Similar
219: results are found when considering 21 lines in common between \citet{obr91}
220: and \citet{bar91} \citep[see also ][]{bar94}, where the mean difference in
221: log($gf$) is $0.02 \pm 0.04 $.
222: Considering 34 lines in common between \citet{obr91}
223: and \citet{may74}, the mean difference in log($gf$) is $0.03 \pm 0.03$.
224: When comparing the 14 lines in common between \citet{obr91} and
225: \citet{wol71}
226: we found a mean difference in log($gf$) of $-0.07 \pm 0.02$.
227: We also compared the results from
228: \citet{obr91} with solar gf--values obtained by \citet{the89,the90}.
229: We found
230: that the mean difference in log($gf$) is $+0.05 \pm 0.02$ when comparing
231: 68 lines in common between these latest works. Similar offsets are found by
232: \citet{lam96}.
233:
234: The gf--values for our Fe I lines were taken when possible from laboratory
235: data in the following order of priority: from \citet{obr91}, from the Oxford
236: Group, from \citet{may74}, and from \citet{wol71} corrected by $-0.07$ dex.
237: In the cases where no laboratory data were available, we used solar gf--values
238: from \citet{the89,the90} corrected by +0.05 dex.
239:
240: Transition probabilities for the Fe II lines were taken from the solar analysis of
241: \citet{bla80}, \citet{bie91}, and from the semiempirical calculations of
242: \citet{kur93b}.
243: While restricting ourselves to lines present in our spectra, we compared the
244: gf--values from \citet{bla80} and \citet{kur93b} to the study of
245: \citet{bie91}.
246: There are 9 lines in common between \citet{bie91} and \citet{bla80}. The
247: mean difference between the two in log($gf$) is $0.14 \pm 0.02$. A similar
248: offset was found by \citet{lam96}. We found no significant difference between
249: the results of \citet{bie91} and \citet{kur93b}, since the 9 lines in common
250: result in a mean difference of $0.03 \pm 0.02$.
251:
252: The gf--values for our Fe II lines were taken in the following order of priority:
253: from \citet{bie91}, from \citet{bla80} corrected by 0.14 dex, and from
254: \citet{kur93b}.
255:
256: \subsection{Measurement of Equivalent Widths}
257:
258: Our sample contains many stars observed in mutiple orders, with many
259: detectable absorption features in these high S/N spectra. For example,
260: in the coolest M71 star in our sample, M71-1-45, 1407 absorption lines
261: have been identified.
262: A FORTRAN code to automatically search for absorption features and
263: measure their equivalent width (\ew), EWDET, was developed for this
264: project.
265: The code is available upon request to SVR.
266: EWDET determines the continuum location of the HIRES spectra by fitting
267: a curve to the spectra performing several iterations of point rejection
268: above and below sigma levels given by the user. Then, EWDET identifies
269: lines above the noise level defined by a factor of two of the continuum rms
270: dispersion.
271: Each of the identified lines is fit by a Gaussian profile and then
272: the \ew\ are computed by the integration of the fitted Gaussian.
273: The error in \ew\ is computed by adding quadratically the error
274: at each point of integration, $\sigma_{i}$, times the step of the integration.
275: The error at each point of integration is given by:
276: $$\sigma_{i}^{2} = g(\lambda_{i})^{2} \times
277: \left[ \frac{\sigma_{P}^{2}}{P^{2}} +
278: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{2}}{\sigma^{4}} \sigma_{\lambda_{cen}}^{2}
279: +
280: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{4}}{\sigma^{6}} \sigma_{\sigma}^{2} +
281: \sigma_{cont}^{2} \right] $$
282: where $g(\lambda_{i})$ is the Gaussian profile, $P$ is the peak of the
283: Gaussian, $\sigma_{P}$ is the error in the peak of the Gaussian,
284: $\lambda_{cen}$ is the central wavelength of the Gaussian,
285: $\sigma_{\lambda_{cen}}$ is the error in the central wavelength,
286: $\sigma$ is the dispersion of the Gaussian, $\sigma_{\sigma}$ is
287: the error in the dispersion of the Gaussian, and $\sigma_{cont}$ is the error in
288: the continuum. The errors of the Gaussian parameters are from the
289: covariance matrix of the Gaussian fit. The expression for the error in \ew\
290: is deduced by propagating the errors of the Gaussian parameters and
291: assuming that the continuum level is equal to one (see Appendix).
292: The fit by a Gaussian profile is reasonable even for the strongest lines
293: we use, as shown in Figure 1, where the observed line is plotted with a solid
294: curve and its corresponding Gaussian profile fit is shown with a dashed curve.
295:
296: The line list identified and measured by EWDET is then correlated to the line
297: list with the atomic parameters to specifically identify the Fe I and
298: Fe II lines.
299: %The number of Fe I and Fe II lines used in the analysis is listed in Table 1.
300: The detailed lists of \ew\ and gf--values will be given in the next paper.
301:
302: The spectral resolution, $\lambda / \Delta \lambda $, of an echelle is fixed,
303: unlike a low incidence, angle of low order grating spectrograph where
304: $\Delta \lambda $ is constant, independent of $\lambda $.
305: Hence a line of constant central depth, $D$, will have an equivalent width
306: proportional to $\lambda D$.
307: We construct the relationship between $\lambda D$ and \ew\ for the Fe I lines
308: to look for possible blends and for saturation effects.
309: The $\lambda D$ versus \ew\ relation for three stars
310: are plotted in Figure 2; M71-I is one of the most luminous and coolest stars
311: of our sample, M71-G53476\_4543 is a medium luminosity and temperature star,
312: and M71-G53392\_4624 is one of the faintest and hottest stars of the sample.
313: We fit a second order polynomial to the $\lambda D-$\ew\ relationship
314: for each star, performing several iterations of point rejection above
315: and below the two sigma level. The second order term is needed to account for
316: line saturation at large \ew\ and the rejection of points is needed to
317: eliminate blended lines. The second order fit is plotted
318: as a solid line in Figure 2, and the points considered for such a fit are
319: shown in black.
320:
321: For Fe I, we use two sets of lines. The first set, subsequently called
322: ``the weak line set'', contains those Fe I lines which
323: are within two sigma levels of the $\lambda D-$\ew\ fit,
324: have \ew\ $<$ 60 m\AA, and have errors less than a third of the \ew.
325: This set of lines produces a sample of the best weak Fe I lines with
326: the most accurate \ew\ and the abundances derived using them will have a
327: minimal dependence on the choice of microturbulent velocity.
328: The second set, subsequently called ``the good line set'', consists of all
329: the Fe I lines with errors less than a third of the \ew\ and with \ew\
330: computed from the fit for $\lambda D-$\ew\ determined for each star.
331: In future papers, the \ew\ of lines of other elements will be determined in the
332: same manner as the Fe I lines of ``the good line set''.
333: This way a consistent comparison can be done among the resulting abundances
334: without a restriction on the strength of the lines used.
335: The ``weak line set'' is different for each star. Actually the weak lines
336: for the stars near the main sequence are no longer weak for the cooler stars
337: in our sample.
338: We compare the results from 20 lines common to 15 stars over almost the whole
339: range in \teff\ with the results from the ``weak line set''; there is no
340: difference within the errors, nor a trend in \teff.
341:
342: For Fe II, the \ew\ of the lines are also determined using the fit to
343: the $\lambda D-$\ew\ relation of the Fe I lines of ``the good line set''.
344: The Fe II lines follow the relationship determined from Fe I lines well,
345: as shown in Figure 3.
346: Additional Fe II lines, not picked up automatically, were measured by hand for
347: the stars near the turn off and for M71-G53425\_4612 and M71-G53457\_4709.
348: The set of \ew\ for the hand selected Fe II lines is computed from the
349: $\lambda D-$\ew\ relation of the Fe I lines, after determining their
350: observed depth from the spectra.
351:
352: The number of Fe I lines, for both sets of lines, and the number of Fe II
353: lines utilized in this analysis are listed in Table 1.
354:
355: \subsection{Spectroscopic Effective Temperature}
356:
357: The effective temperature (\teff) of a star can be determined spectroscopically
358: by requiring the abundance to be independent of the lower excitation potential.
359: This technique can be applied to 20 of our stars where
360: we have Fe I lines with enough range in lower excitation potential to do so.
361: For the spectroscopic \teff\ determination we are using ``the weak line set'' of Fe I
362: lines, because its resulting abundance and spectroscopic \teff\ will be
363: only weakly dependent on the choice of microturbulent velocity.
364: We find that the spectroscopic \teff\ is in good agreement
365: with the photometric \teff\ derived in Paper I, as shown in Figure 4.
366: The solid line in Figure 4 shows the ideal case when the spectroscopic
367: and the photometric \teff\ are equal.
368: The scatter around the solid line is about 150 K, which is comparable to the
369: error of the photometric \teff\ of 75 K for giants and of 150 K for dwarfs
370: (Paper I), also shown in Figure 4.
371: The scatter around the solid line is symmetric, not above or below,
372: indicating the lack of systematic effects with the photometric temperatures.
373:
374: \subsection{Microturbulent Velocity}
375:
376: The microturbulent velocity (\mtv) of a star can be determined spectroscopically
377: by requiring the abundance to be independent of the strength of the lines measured
378: as the equivalent width.
379: We apply this technique for both sets of Fe I lines.
380: The resulting \mtv\ and the \fe\ computed with it for ``the weak line set'' of
381: Fe I lines are listed in Table 1.
382: Only 18 of our stars have enough weak Fe I lines to derive \mtv\
383: spectroscopically.
384: We also compute \mtv\ using all the good Fe I lines for 20 of our stars.
385: The difference of the resulting \fe\ computed with the derived \mtv\ for
386: the two set of lines is plotted with respect to \teff\ in Figure 5.
387: The mean difference is $-0.004 \pm$ 0.011, hence, as expected, the \fe\
388: results from both sets of lines show a very good agreement.
389:
390: The relationship between \mtv\ determined for the set of all good Fe I lines
391: and the photometric \teff\ is shown in Figure 6.
392: The solid line corresponds to a linear least squares fit of the data,
393: excluding the red horizontal branch (RHB) stars, marked with circles.
394: The best fit line is given by:
395: $$\xi = 3.30 - 4.66 \times 10^{-4} \times T_{eff} $$
396: The scatter around the solid line is about 0.2 \kms, which is a reasonable
397: estimation of the error in \mtv. For the rest of the analysis, we will use
398: the set of all the good Fe I and Fe II lines, with \mtv\ computed from the
399: \mtv-\teff\ fit.
400: For the RHB stars we use a value of 1.61 \kms, which corresponds to the mean
401: value determined for the three RHB stars.
402: The microturbulent velocity used for our stars is listed in Table 1.
403:
404: \section{RESULTS}
405:
406: Given the stellar parameters from Table 1, we determined the iron abundance
407: using the equivalent widths of all the good Fe I and Fe II lines identified
408: in the HIRES spectra.
409: We employ the grid of stellar atmospheres from \citet{kur93b} to compute
410: the iron abundance using the four stellar atmosphere models with the closest
411: \teff\ and \grav\ to each star's parameters.
412: The \fe\ listed in Table 1 is an interpolation of the results from the
413: closest stellar model atmospheres to the appropriate \teff\ and \grav\ for
414: each star.
415:
416: \subsection{\fe\ from Fe I lines}
417:
418: The results of \fe\ from Fe I lines are listed in column 9 of Table 1 and
419: plotted against the photometric \teff\ in Figure 7a.
420: \teff\ is used for the x-axis as a convenient parameter for characterizing the
421: position of the stars in the color-magnitude diagram as it also ranks the
422: stars in luminosity (except for the RHB stars).
423: The errors listed in Table 1 correspond to the larger of the statistical
424: uncertainty, given by the standard deviation of the iron abundance from
425: different lines divided by the square root of the number of lines, or a
426: minimum value of 0.03 dex.
427: These errors are lower limits to the actual uncertainties in the abundances,
428: since they do not include uncertainties due to the stellar parameters nor any
429: systematic effects that might be present.
430: We estimate the sensitivity of \fe\ derived from Fe I lines with respect to
431: the stellar parameters in three cases 4250/1.0/1.0, 5000/2.5/1.0 and 5500/4.0/1.0,
432: where the three numbers correspond to \teff/\grav/\mtv.
433: The results are listed in Table 2, where the range adopted for each parameter is
434: representative of its uncertainty.
435: Our determination of \fe\ from Fe I lines is most sensitive to errors
436: in \teff, which is
437: less than $\sim$ 0.1 dex for $\Delta$\teff\ of $\pm$ 100 K, and have a
438: minimal sensitivity on the choice of metallicity of the model atmosphere grid
439: for plausible changes in \fe\ ($\pm$0.2 dex).
440:
441: The solid line, shown in Figure 7a, is a linear fit weighted by the errors
442: of \fe\ versus \teff.
443: The slope of the fit is $(-0.8 \pm 3.6) \times 10^{-5}$ dex/K,
444: which is consistent with \fe\ being constant, independent of \teff\ (ie, of
445: luminosity or equivalently position in the color-magnitude diagram).
446: We divide our sample in four groups of stars: giant stars at or above the
447: RHB, stars on the RHB, giant stars below the RHB,
448: and main sequence stars near the turnoff. The mean \fe\ for each group
449: is listed on Table 4. We found no significant difference in the mean \fe\
450: obtained from Fe I lines among the defined groups of stars.
451:
452: The mean \fe\ weighted by the errors of all 25 stars
453: is $-0.71 \pm 0.08$, in very good
454: agreement with earlier determinations \citep{coh83,gra86,lee87,sne94}.
455:
456: \subsection{\fe\ from Fe II lines}
457:
458: The determinations of \fe\ from Fe II lines are listed in column 11 of Table 1
459: and plotted against the photometric \teff\ in Figure 7b.
460: The errors listed in Table 1 corresponds to the statistical uncertainty or
461: a value of 0.05 dex, whichever is larger.
462: We estimate the sensitivity of \fe\ derived from Fe II ines with respect to
463: the stellar parameters in the same manner as the sensitivity of \fe\ from
464: Fe I lines. The results are listed in Table 3, where the range adopted for
465: each parameter is representative of its uncertainty.
466: We see a stronger sensitivity on the stellar parameters from the
467: Fe II lines than from the Fe I lines.
468: The \fe\ determination from Fe II lines is most sensitive to the systematic
469: error (note that the internal uncertainty in \grav\ is $\leq$ 0.1 dex) in \grav,
470: as well as to \teff\ among the coolest M71 giants.
471: The sensitivity on the choice of metallicity of the model atmosphere grid
472: is small for reasonable changes in metallicity.
473:
474: The solid line, shown in Figure 7b, is a linear fit weighted by the errors
475: of \fe\ versus \teff.
476: The slope of the fit is $(+3.1 \pm 5.2) \times 10^{-5}$ dex/K,
477: which is consistent with \fe\ being constant, independent of \teff.
478: We found that there is no significant difference in the mean \fe\ obtained
479: from Fe II among stars from different luminosity groups, listed in Table 4.
480: The mean \fe\ weighted by the errors is $-0.84 \pm 0.12$, in very good
481: agreement with our result from Fe I lines and earlier determinations
482: \citep{coh83,gra86,lee87,sne94}.
483:
484: \subsection{NLTE effects}
485:
486: The iron abundance could be affected by departures from LTE. The main NLTE
487: effect in late-type stars is caused by overionization of electron donor
488: metals by ultraviolet radiation \citep{aum75}.
489: Recently, \citet{gra99} and \citet{the99} studied NLTE effects in Fe abundances in
490: metal-poor late-type stars.
491: \citet{gra99} found that NLTE corrections for Fe lines are very small in
492: dwarfs of any \teff, and only small corrections ($<$ 0.1 dex) are expected for
493: stars on the red giant branch.
494: \citet{the99} found that NLTE corrections become less important as [Fe/H]
495: increases, being less than 0.1 dex for stars with \fe $> -$0.75 dex, and that
496: ionized lines are not significantly affected by NLTE.
497:
498: One way to explore possible NLTE effects present in our data is by comparing
499: the results from Fe I and Fe II lines. The difference between \fe\ from Fe II
500: and Fe I lines is plotted in Figure 8 against \teff. The solid line is a linear
501: fit weighted by the errors.
502: The slope of the fit is $(+2.0 \pm 8.2)\times 10^{-5}$ dex/K, which is
503: nearly flat. The mean difference is $-0.13 \pm 0.18$. We conclude that NLTE
504: effects are negligible in our iron abundance determination, as expected
505: from results of earlier studies \citep{gra99,the99}.
506:
507: \section{DISCUSSION}
508:
509: Our \fe\ abundance results involve for the first time a wide luminosity sample
510: of stars, which includes at the same time stars from luminous giants to
511: stars near the turnoff.
512: We find that the \fe\ abundance, from both Fe I and Fe II
513: lines, is independent of \teff, and equivalently luminosity.
514:
515: Our result is in agreement with the work of \citet{gra01}.
516: They present abundances from high dispersion spectra from the VLT of
517: stars in NGC 6397 and NGC 6752.
518: They found that the \fe\ obtained for stars at the base of the subgiant
519: branch agrees within a few percent with the \fe\ obtained for
520: stars at the main sequence turnoff, and further compare this
521: value with analysis of the RGB stars in this cluster by other groups.
522: Note that the luminosity range of
523: the sample presented in our work is several orders of magnitude wider than
524: the luminosity range of \citet{gra01}'s sample.
525:
526: Our results, and those of \citet{gra01}, appear to be in disagreement with
527: inhomogeneities in \fe\ found earlier by \citet{kin98}.
528: They obtained \fe=$-$2.52 dex
529: for a sample of subgiant stars in M92, which is a factor of two smaller than
530: \fe\ measurements using red giants in the same cluster \citep{coh79,sne91}.
531: \citet{kin98} compare their result for the M92 subgiants with analysis
532: of RBG stars by other groups, who may have
533: determined the stellar parameters and performed the abundance determinations
534: in a different way. This possible difference in the analysis of the giant and
535: subgiant sample may account for the difference in \fe\ found by \citet{kin98}
536: or perhaps the determination of the stellar parameters by \citet{kin98} is
537: flawed.
538: Our result, on the other hand, is robust, because we have determined both the
539: stellar parameters and the Fe abundance in a homogeneous and consistent manner
540: for all our stars.
541:
542: \citet{gra01} also found that NGC 6397 is homogeneous in both O and Fe,
543: while an O-Na anticorrelation is present among unevolved stars
544: in NGC 6752, which is very difficult to explain by the deep mixing scenario.
545: Lines from many additional species, including O, Na, Mg, Ti, Sc among others,
546: are observed in our HIRES spectra.
547: We plan to present additional information in the matter of
548: light, iron-peak, and heavy elements in the near future.
549:
550: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
551:
552: We present results of a high dispersion analysis of Fe I and Fe II lines to
553: obtain \fe\ for 25 members of the Galactic globular cluster M71.
554: Our sample of stars includes
555: 19 giant stars, 3 horizontal branch stars, and 3 stars near the
556: turnoff. Our conclusions are summarized as follows:
557:
558: \begin{itemize}
559: \item The \fe\ obtained from Fe I lines agrees very well with the
560: \fe\ obtained from Fe II lines.
561: \item The mean \fe\ obtained from Fe I and Fe II lines of all 25 stars
562: is in good agreement with earlier determinations.
563: \item The \fe\ obtained from both Fe I and Fe II lines is independent
564: of \teff, and equivalently luminosity.
565: \item No difference is found among the mean \fe\ from giant stars
566: located at or above the RHB, RHB stars, giant stars located below the RHB and
567: stars near the main sequence turnoff.
568: \end{itemize}
569:
570: In the near future, we will present the result from the analysis now underway
571: of additional elements.
572:
573: \acknowledgements
574: The entire Keck/HIRES and LRIS user communities owes a huge debt to
575: Jerry Nelson, Gerry Smith, Steve Vogt, Bev Oke, and many other
576: people who have worked to make the Keck Telescope and HIRES and LRIS
577: a reality and to operate and maintain the Keck Observatory.
578: We are grateful to the W. M. Keck Foundation for the vision to fund
579: the construction of the W. M. Keck Observatory.
580: We thank R. Gratton for providing a detailed description
581: of his automatic equivalent width measuring program and R. Pogge
582: for providing the Gaussian profile fitting routine.
583: Partial support to MMB was provided by a Theodore Dunham, Jr. grant
584: for Research in Astronomy and the National Science Foundation under
585: grant AST-9624680 to MMB and grant AST-9819614 to JGC.
586:
587: \appendix
588: \section{Errors in the Equivalent Widths}
589:
590: The equivalent width of a line is defined as:
591: $$ W_{\lambda} = \int \frac{g(\lambda)}{cont(\lambda)} d\lambda
592: = \sum_{i} \frac{g(\lambda_{i})}{cont(\lambda_{i})} \Delta \lambda $$
593: where, $g(\lambda)$ is the flux of the spectrum, $cont(\lambda)$ is the
594: continuum level, and $\Delta \lambda $ is the step that can be made
595: arbitrarily small to better approximate the integral.
596: In this case, $g(\lambda)$ is the Gaussian profile of the line,
597: given by:
598: $$ g(\lambda) = P \times exp \left[
599: \frac{-(\lambda-\lambda_{cen})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}} \right] $$
600: where $P$ is the peak of the Gaussian, $\lambda_{cen}$ is the central
601: wavelength, and $\sigma$ is the dispersion of the Gaussian.
602: %Note that:
603: %$$ \sigma = \frac{FWHM}{2\sqrt{2ln2}} $$
604: If the equivalent width is computed through out the summation then the error
605: in the equivalent width, $\sigma_{w}$ will be the quadratic summation of the
606: errors in the individual points times the step:
607: $$ \sigma_{W_{\lambda}}^{2} = \sum_{i} (\sigma_{i}\times \Delta \lambda)^{2} $$
608: where:
609: $$ \sigma_{i}^{2} =
610: \left[ \frac{\partial w}{\partial g} \sigma_{gi} \right]^{2} +
611: \left[ \frac{\partial w}{\partial cont} \sigma_{cont} \right]^{2} $$
612: $$ \sigma_{i}^{2} =
613: \left[ \frac{1}{cont(\lambda_{i})} \sigma_{gi} \right]^{2} +
614: \left[ \frac{g(\lambda_{i})}{cont(\lambda_{i})^{2}} \sigma_{cont} \right]^{2} $$
615: If we assume that the continuum level is equal to one then:
616: $$ \sigma_{i}^{2} = \sigma_{gi}^{2} + g(\lambda_{i})^{2} \sigma_{cont}^{2} $$
617: Since the Gaussian depends on three parameters:
618: $$ \sigma_{gi}^{2} =
619: \left[ \frac{\partial g}{\partial P} \sigma_{P} \right]^{2} +
620: \left[ \frac{\partial g}{\partial \lambda_{cen}} \sigma_{\lambda_{cen}} \right]^{2} +
621: \left[ \frac{\partial g}{\partial \sigma} \sigma_{\sigma} \right]^{2} $$
622: $$ \sigma_{gi}^{2} =
623: \left[ \frac{g(\lambda_{i})}{P} \sigma_{P} \right]^{2} +
624: \left[ \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})}{\sigma^{2}} g(\lambda_{i}) \ \sigma_{\lambda_{cen}} \right] ^{2} +
625: \left[ \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{2}}{\sigma^{3}} g(\lambda_{i}) \ \sigma_{\sigma} \right]^{2} $$
626: $$ \sigma_{gi}^{2} = g(\lambda_{i})^{2} \times \left[
627: \frac{\sigma_{P}^{2}}{P^{2}} +
628: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{2}}{\sigma^{4}} \sigma_{\lambda_{cen}}^{2} +
629: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{4}}{\sigma^{6}} \sigma_{\sigma}^{2} \right] $$
630: Finally:
631: $$\sigma_{i}^{2} = g(\lambda_{i})^{2} \times \left[
632: \frac{\sigma_{P}^{2}}{P^{2}} +
633: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{2}}{\sigma^{4}} \sigma_{\lambda_{cen}}^{2}
634: +
635: \frac{(\lambda_{i} - \lambda_{cen})^{4}}{\sigma^{6}} \sigma_{\sigma}^{2} +
636: \sigma_{cont}^{2} \right] $$
637:
638: \clearpage
639:
640: \begin{thebibliography}{}
641:
642: \bibitem[Arp \& Hartwick(1971)]{arp71} Arp, H. C. \& Hartwick, F. D. A., 1971,
643: \apj, 167, 499
644:
645: \bibitem[Auman \& Woodrow(1975)]{aum75} Auman, J. R. \& Woodrow, J. E. J.,
646: 1975, \apj, 197, 163
647:
648: \bibitem[Bard \etal(1991)]{bar91} Bard, A., Kock, A., \& Kock, M.,
649: 1991, \aap, 248, 315
650:
651: \bibitem[Bard \& Kock(1994)]{bar94} Bard, A., \& Kock, M., 1994,
652: \aap, 282, 1014
653:
654: \bibitem[Bi\'emont \etal(1991)]{bie91} Bi\'emont, E., Baudoux, M.,
655: Kurucz, R. L., Ansbacher, W., \& Pinnimgton, E. H., 1991, \aap, 249, 539
656:
657: \bibitem[Blackwell \etal(1979)]{bla79} Blackwell, D. E., Petford, A. D.,
658: \& Shallis, M. J., 1979, \mnras, 186, 657
659:
660: \bibitem[Blackwell \etal(1980)]{bla80} Blackwell, D. E., Shallis, M. J.,
661: \& Simmons, G. J., 1980, \aap, 81, 340
662:
663: \bibitem[Blackwell \etal(1982a)]{bla82a} Blackwell, D. E., Petford, A. D.,
664: Shallis, M. J., \& Simmons, G. J., 1982$a$, \mnras, 199, 43
665:
666: \bibitem[Blackwell \etal(1982b)]{bla82b} Blackwell, D. E., Petford, A. D.,
667: \& Simmons, G. J., 1982$b$, \mnras, 201, 595
668:
669: \bibitem[Blackwell \etal(1986)]{bla86} Blackwell, D. E., Booth, A. J.,
670: Haddock, D. J., Petford, A. D., \& Leggett, S. K., 1986, \mnras, 220, 549
671:
672: \bibitem[Briley \& Cohen(2001)]{bri01} Briley, M. M. \& Cohen, J. G., 2001,
673: \aj, submitted
674:
675: \bibitem[Cannon \etal(1998)]{can98} Cannon, R. D., Croke, B. F. W.,
676: Bell, R. A., Hesser, J. E. \& Stathakis, R. A., 1998, \mnras, 298, 601
677:
678: \bibitem[Castilho \etal(2000)]{cas00} Castilho, B. V., Pasquini, L., Allen, D. M.,
679: Barbuy, B., \& Molaro, P., 2000, \aap, 361, 92
680:
681: \bibitem[Charbonnel(1994)]{cha94} Charbonnel, C., 1994, \aap, 282, 811
682:
683: \bibitem[Charbonnel(1995)]{cha95} Charbonnel, C., 1995, \apjl, 453, L4
684:
685: \bibitem[Cohen(1979)]{coh79} Cohen, J. G., 1979, \apj, 223, 487
686:
687: \bibitem[Cohen(1983)]{coh83} Cohen, J. G., 1983, \apj, 270,654
688:
689: \bibitem[Cohen(1999)]{coh99} Cohen, J. G., 1999, \aj, 117, 2434
690:
691: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2001)]{coh01} Cohen, J. G., Briley, M. M., \&
692: Behr, B. B., 2001 (Paper I)
693:
694: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(1986)]{gra86} Gratton, R. G., Quarta, M. L.,
695: \& Ortolani, S., 1986, \aap, 169, 208
696:
697: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(1999)]{gra99} Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., Eriksson,
698: K., \& Gustafsson, B., 1999, \aap, 350, 955
699:
700: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(2001)]{gra01} Gratton, R. G., Bonifacio, P.,
701: Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., Castellani, V., Centurion, M., Chieffi, A.,
702: Claudi, R., Clementini, G., D'Antona, F., Desidera, S., Francois, P.,
703: Grundahl, F., Lucatello, S., Molaro, P., Pasquini, L., Sneden, C., Spite, F.,
704: \& Straniero, O., 2001, \aap, submitted
705:
706: \bibitem[Holweger \etal(1991)]{hol91} Holweger, H., Bard, A., Kock, A., \&
707: Kock, M., 1991, \aap, 249, 545
708:
709: \bibitem[King \etal(1998)]{kin98} King, J. R., Stephens, A., Boesgaard, A. M.,
710: \& Deliyannis, C. P., 1998, \apj, 115, 666
711:
712: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993b)]{kur93a} Kurucz, R. L., 1993$a$, ATLAS9 Stellar
713: Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s Grid, (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13)
714:
715: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993b)]{kur93b} Kurucz, R. L., 1993$b$, SYNTHE Spectrum
716: Synthesis Programs and Line Data (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 18)
717:
718: \bibitem[Lambert \etal(1996)]{lam96} Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., Lemke, M.,
719: \& Drake, J., 1996, \apjs, 103, 183
720:
721: \bibitem[Leep \etal(1987)]{lee87} Leep, E. M., Oke, J. B., \&
722: Wallerstein, G., 1987, \aj, 92, 338
723:
724: \bibitem[May \etal(1974)]{may74} May, M., Richter, J., \& Wichelmann, J.,
725: 1974, \aaps, 18, 405
726:
727: \bibitem[O'Brian \etal(1991)]{obr91} O'Brian, T. R., Wickliffe, M. E.,
728: Lawler, J. E., Whaling, W., \& Brault, J. W., 1991, J. Opt. Soc. Am., B8, 1185
729:
730: \bibitem[Sneden(1973)]{sne73} Sneden, C., 1973, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Texas
731:
732: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(1991)]{sne91} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F.,
733: \& Langer, G. E., 1991, \aj, 102, 2001
734:
735: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(1994)]{sne94} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E.,
736: Prosser, C. F., \& Shetrone, M. D., 1994, \aj, 107, 1773
737:
738: \bibitem[Suntzeff \& smith(1991)]{sun91} Suntzeff, N. B. \& Smith, V. V.,
739: 1991, \apj, 381, 160
740:
741: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Mengel(1979)]{swe79} Sweigart, A. V. \& Mengel, J. G.,
742: 1979, \apj, 229, 624
743:
744: \bibitem[Th\'evenin(1989)]{the89} Th\'evenin, F., 1989, \aaps, 77, 137
745:
746: \bibitem[Th\'evenin(1990)]{the90} Th\'evenin, F., 1990, \aaps, 82, 179
747:
748: \bibitem[Th\'{e}venin \& Idiart(1999)]{the99} Th\'evenin, F. \& Idiart, T. P.,
749: 1999, \apj, 521, 753
750:
751: \bibitem[Wolnik \etal(1971)]{wol71} Wolnik, S. J., Berthel, R. O., \&
752: Wares, G. W., 1971, \apj, 166, L31
753: \end{thebibliography}
754:
755: \clearpage
756:
757: %
758: % Table1
759: %
760: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}
761: \rotate
762: %\small
763: %\footnotesize
764: %\scriptsize
765: \tablenum{1}
766: \tablewidth{0pt}
767: \tablecaption{Stellar Parameters for the M71 Sample}
768: \label{tab1}
769: \tablehead{
770: \colhead{ID\tablenotemark{a}} &
771: \colhead{\teff} &
772: \colhead{\grav} &
773: \colhead{\mtv \tablenotemark{b}} &
774: \colhead{${\rm N_{Fe I}}$ \tablenotemark{b}} &
775: \colhead{${\rm \fe_{Fe I}}$ \tablenotemark{b}} &
776: \colhead{\mtv \tablenotemark{c}} &
777: \colhead{${\rm N_{Fe I}}$ \tablenotemark{c}} &
778: \colhead{${\rm \fe_{Fe I}}$ \tablenotemark{c}} &
779: \colhead{${\rm N_{Fe II}}$ \tablenotemark{d}} &
780: \colhead{${\rm \fe_{Fe II}}$ \tablenotemark{d}} \\
781: \colhead{} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(km/s)} &
782: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(km/s)} & \colhead{} &
783: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}
784: }
785: \startdata
786: 1--45 & 3950 & 0.90 & 1.48 & 59 &--0.74 $\pm$ 0.03 &
787: 1.46 & 187 &--0.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.61 $\pm$ 0.11\\
788: I & 4150 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 67 &--0.69 $\pm$ 0.03 &
789: 1.37 & 186 &--0.76 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.88 $\pm$ 0.07\\
790: 1--66 & 4250 & 1.35 & 1.80 & 68 &--0.83 $\pm$ 0.03 &
791: 1.32 & 179 &--0.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.86 $\pm$ 0.09\\
792: 1--64 & 4200 & 1.35 & 1.57 & 61 &--0.76 $\pm$ 0.03 &
793: 1.34 & 187 &--0.74 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.73 $\pm$ 0.09\\
794: 1--56 & 4525 & 1.60 & 0.81 & 25 &--0.63 $\pm$ 0.04 &
795: 1.19 & 127 &--0.56 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2 &--0.83 $\pm$ 0.14\\
796: 1--95 & 4550 & 1.65 & 1.00 & 79 &--0.68 $\pm$ 0.03 &
797: 1.18 & 184 &--0.67 $\pm$ 0.03 & 8 &--0.87 $\pm$ 0.05\\
798: 1--81 & 4550 & 1.75 & 1.50 & 77 &--0.71 $\pm$ 0.03 &
799: 1.18 & 180 &--0.64 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--1.05 $\pm$ 0.05\\
800: 1--1 & 4700 & 2.05 & 0.89 & 55 &--0.62 $\pm$ 0.03 &
801: 1.11 & 134 &--0.67 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.86 $\pm$ 0.05\\
802: 1--80\tablenotemark{e,f}
803: & 5300 & 2.45 & ... & 28 &--0.68 $\pm$ 0.04\tablenotemark{g}&
804: 1.61 & 71 &--0.69 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.92 $\pm$ 0.05\\
805: 1--87\tablenotemark{e}
806: & 5300 & 2.45 & 1.62 & 68 &--0.58 $\pm$ 0.03 &
807: 1.61 & 128 &--0.60 $\pm$ 0.03 & 9 &--0.83 $\pm$ 0.05\\
808: 1--94\tablenotemark{e}
809: & 5300 & 2.45 & ... & 42 &--0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\tablenotemark{g}&
810: 1.61 & 94 &--0.77 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.81 $\pm$ 0.05\\
811: 1--60 & 4900 & 2.30 & 0.70 & 49 &--0.77 $\pm$ 0.03 &
812: 1.02 & 119 &--0.80 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.70 $\pm$ 0.05\\
813: 1--59 & 4600 & 2.30 & 1.50 & 62 &--0.79 $\pm$ 0.03 &
814: 1.16 & 141 &--0.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.70 $\pm$ 0.05\\
815: G53476\_4543 & 4900 & 2.65 & 0.83 & 94 &--0.64 $\pm$ 0.03 &
816: 1.02 & 174 &--0.68 $\pm$ 0.03 & 7 &--0.84 $\pm$ 0.05\\
817: 2--160 & 5100 & 2.70 & 1.10 & 68 &--0.59 $\pm$ 0.03 &
818: 0.92 & 145 &--0.54 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.97 $\pm$ 0.08\\
819: G53447\_4707 & 5175 & 2.75 & 1.35 & 90 &--0.62 $\pm$ 0.03 &
820: 0.89 & 155 &--0.57 $\pm$ 0.03 & 7 &--0.86 $\pm$ 0.05\\
821: G53445\_4647 & 5050 & 2.85 & 0.54 & 50 &--0.54 $\pm$ 0.03 &
822: 0.95 & 112 &--0.65 $\pm$ 0.03 & 6 &--0.85 $\pm$ 0.05\\
823: G53447\_4703 & 5000 & 3.00 & 0.90 & 62 &--0.72 $\pm$ 0.03 &
824: 0.97 & 125 &--0.77 $\pm$ 0.03 & 4 &--0.80 $\pm$ 0.05\\
825: G53425\_4612 & 5150 & 3.15 & 1.40 & 36 &--0.77 $\pm$ 0.03 &
826: 0.90 & 80 &--0.73 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2\tablenotemark{h} &--0.91 $\pm$ 0.08\\
827: G53477\_4539 & 5150 & 3.15 & ... & 56 &--0.66 $\pm$ 0.03\tablenotemark{g}&
828: 0.90 & 119 &--0.70 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.90 $\pm$ 0.05\\
829: G53457\_4709 & 5200 & 3.35 & 1.24 & 58 &--0.78 $\pm$ 0.03 &
830: 0.88 & 93 &--0.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5\tablenotemark{h} &--0.76 $\pm$ 0.11\\
831: G53391\_4628 & 5100 & 3.35 & ... & 55 &--0.74 $\pm$ 0.03\tablenotemark{g}&
832: 0.92 & 106 &--0.84 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5 &--0.81 $\pm$ 0.07\\
833: G53417\_4431 & 5800 & 4.05 & ... & 19 &--0.66 $\pm$ 0.03\tablenotemark{g}&
834: 0.60 & 38 &--0.68 $\pm$ 0.04 & 3\tablenotemark{h} &--0.61 $\pm$ 0.12\\
835: G53392\_4624 & 5800 & 4.05 & ... & 23 &--0.81 $\pm$ 0.04\tablenotemark{g}&
836: 0.60 & 36 &--0.81 $\pm$ 0.03 & 3\tablenotemark{h} &--0.66 $\pm$ 0.08\\
837: G53414\_4435 & 5900 & 4.15 & ... & 5 &--0.82 $\pm$ 0.12\tablenotemark{g}&
838: 0.55 & 13 &--0.83 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2\tablenotemark{h} &--0.58 $\pm$ 0.17 \\
839: \enddata
840: \tablenotetext{a}{Identifications are from \citet{arp71}
841: or are assigned based on the J2000 coordinates, rh rm rs.s dd dm dd becoming
842: Grmrss\_dmdd.}
843: \tablenotetext{b}{Set of weak Fe I lines.}
844: \tablenotetext{c}{Set of all good Fe I lines.}
845: \tablenotetext{d}{Set of all good Fe II lines.}
846: \tablenotetext{e}{RHB star.}
847: \tablenotetext{f}{Appears to show rotation (Paper I).}
848: \tablenotetext{g}{Computed with \mtv\ from the set of all good Fe I lines.}
849: \tablenotetext{h}{Includes additional Fe II lines selected by hand.}
850: \end{deluxetable}
851:
852: \clearpage
853:
854: %
855: % Table2
856: %
857: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
858: \tablenum{2}
859: \tablewidth{0pt}
860: %\small
861: %\footnotesize
862: %\scriptsize
863: \tablecaption{Sensitivity of ${\rm \fe_{Fe I}}$ on Stellar Parameters}
864: \label{tab2}
865: \tablehead{
866: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\Delta$\teff} & \colhead{$\Delta$\grav} &
867: \colhead{$\Delta$\mtv} & \colhead{$\Delta$\fe}\\
868: \colhead{}
869: & \colhead{+ 100 K} & \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} &
870: \colhead{+ 0.2 \kms} & \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} }
871: \startdata
872: 4250/1.0/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & +0.04 & +0.02 &--0.08\tablenotemark{b} & --0.03 \\
873: 5000/2.5/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & +0.09 & +0.01 &--0.06\tablenotemark{b} & --0.01 \\
874: 5500/4.0/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & +0.08 & +0.02 &--0.03\tablenotemark{b} & --0.01 \\
875: \enddata
876: \tablenotetext{a}{\teff/\grav/\mtv}
877: \tablenotetext{b}{This is for the set of good Fe I lines.
878: It is smaller by a factor of 3 for the set of weak Fe I lines.}
879: \end{deluxetable}
880:
881: %
882: % Table3
883: %
884: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
885: \tablenum{3}
886: \tablewidth{0pt}
887: %\small
888: %\footnotesize
889: %\scriptsize
890: \tablecaption{Sensitivity of ${\rm \fe_{Fe II}}$ on Stellar Parameters}
891: \label{tab3}
892: \tablehead{
893: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\Delta$\teff} & \colhead{$\Delta$\grav} &
894: \colhead{$\Delta$\mtv} & \colhead{$\Delta$\fe}\\
895: \colhead{}
896: & \colhead{+ 100 K} & \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} &
897: \colhead{+ 0.2 \kms} & \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} }
898: \startdata
899: 4250/1.0/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & --0.12 & +0.11 & --0.04 & --0.07 \\
900: 5000/2.5/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & --0.02 & +0.09 & --0.03 & --0.04 \\
901: 5500/4.0/1.0\tablenotemark{a} & --0.03 & +0.08 & --0.02 & --0.03 \\
902: \enddata
903: \tablenotetext{a}{\teff/\grav/\mtv}
904: \end{deluxetable}
905:
906:
907: \clearpage
908: %
909: % Table4
910: %
911: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
912: \tablenum{4}
913: \tablewidth{0pt}
914: %\small
915: %\footnotesize
916: %\scriptsize
917: \tablecaption{\fe\ for Each Group of Stars}
918: \label{tab4}
919: \tablehead{
920: \colhead{Star group} & \colhead{$<V>$} & \colhead{$N_{stars}$} &
921: \colhead{$<\fe_{FeI}>$} & \colhead{$<\fe_{FeII}>$} }
922: \startdata
923: RGB at or above RHB & 13.46 & 10 & $-0.71\pm$0.07 & $-0.83\pm$0.12 \\
924: RHB & 14.50 & 3 & $-0.68\pm$0.07 & $-0.86\pm$0.05 \\
925: RGH below RHB & 15.92 & 9 & $-0.69\pm$0.09 & $-0.85\pm$0.06 \\
926: MS TO & 17.76 & 3 & $-0.78\pm$0.06 & $-0.64\pm$0.13 \\
927: \enddata
928: \end{deluxetable}
929:
930: \clearpage
931:
932: %figcaptions
933:
934: \begin{figure}
935: \epsscale{0.7}
936: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
937: \plotone{fig1.ps}
938: \caption[fig1.ps]{Strongest observed Fe I lines for M71-1-45. The observed
939: lines are plotted with a solid line, and the corresponding Gaussian profile
940: is plotted with a dashed line. The \ew\ of each line is indicated in the
941: botton left corner of each pannel.
942: \label{fig1}}
943: \end{figure}
944:
945: \begin{figure}
946: \epsscale{0.7}
947: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
948: \plotone{fig2.ps}
949: \caption[fig2.ps]{Central depth times wavelength versus \ew\ relations for
950: M71-I (one of the most luminous and coolest stars in our sample),
951: M71-G53476\_4543 (a star of medium luminosity and temperature), and
952: M71-G53392\_4624 (one of the faintest and hottest stars in our sample).
953: The solid curve is a second order fit obtained after several
954: iterations of rejection of points deviating by 2$\sigma$ or more.
955: The points used in the fit are shown in black.
956: \label{fig2}}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959: \begin{figure}
960: \epsscale{0.7}
961: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
962: \plotone{fig3.ps}
963: \caption[fig3.ps]{Central depth times wavelength versus \ew\ relations for
964: M71-I (one of the most luminous and coolest stars in our sample),
965: M71-G53476\_4543 (a star of medium luminosity and temperature), and
966: M71-G53392\_4624 (one of the faintest and hottest stars in our sample).
967: Solid squares denote identified Fe II lines and
968: the solid curve is the second order fit obtained for Fe I lines
969: and shown in Figure 2.
970: \label{fig3}}
971: \end{figure}
972:
973:
974: \begin{figure}
975: \epsscale{0.7}
976: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
977: \plotone{fig4.ps}
978: \caption[fig4.ps]{Photometric \teff\ versus spectroscopic \teff\ for the
979: M71 sample. The solid line indicates the ideal case when the photometric and
980: spectroscopic \teff\ have the same value. The scatter around the solid line is
981: about 150 K. The only RHB star for which \teff\ can be determined
982: spectroscopically is marked with an open circle.
983: \label{fig4}}
984: \end{figure}
985:
986: \begin{figure}
987: \epsscale{0.7}
988: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
989: \plotone{fig5.ps}
990: \caption[fig5.ps]{The difference between \fe\ computed with the derived
991: \mtv\ for the set of weak Fe I lines and with \mtv\ from the set of all good
992: Fe I lines is plotted with respect to \teff.
993: The solid line indicates equality.
994: The only RHB star for which \mtv\ can be determined spectroscopically
995: is marked with an open circle.
996: \label{fig5}}
997: \end{figure}
998:
999: \begin{figure}
1000: \epsscale{0.7}
1001: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1002: \plotone{fig6.ps}
1003: \caption[fig6.ps]{\mtv\ determined for the set of all good Fe I lines
1004: is shown as a function of \teff.
1005: The solid line is the linear fit weighted by the errors.
1006: The RHB stars are excluded from the fit and are marked with circles.
1007: The scatter around the solid line is about 0.2 \kms.
1008: \label{fig6}}
1009: \end{figure}
1010:
1011: \begin{figure}
1012: \epsscale{0.7}
1013: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1014: \plotone{fig7.ps}
1015: \caption[fig7.ps]{[Fe/H] from Fe I (upper panel) and Fe II (lower panel) against
1016: photometric \teff. The solid lines are linear fits weighted by the errors.
1017: In both cases, \fe\ shows no dependence with \teff. The dashed lines indicate the
1018: mean \fe\ with their respective error plotted as an error bar at 3925 K.
1019: Note that $<\fe_{Fe I}> = -0.71 \pm 0.08$ and $<\fe_{Fe II}> = -0.84 \pm 0.12$.
1020: The RHB stars are marked with a open circles.
1021: \label{fig7}}
1022: \end{figure}
1023:
1024: \begin{figure}
1025: \epsscale{0.7}
1026: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1027: \plotone{fig8.ps}
1028: \caption[fig8.ps]{Difference between [Fe/H] from Fe I and Fe II against \teff.
1029: The solid line, which is nearly flat, is a linear fit weighted by the errors.
1030: The dashed line indicates the mean difference with its respective error plotted
1031: as an error bar at 3925 K. Note that the mean difference is $-0.13 \pm 0.18$.
1032: The RHB stars are marked with a open circles.
1033: \label{fig8}}
1034: \end{figure}
1035:
1036:
1037:
1038: \end{document}
1039: