1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Evolution of LS 5039
4: %
5: %
6: % Revision history:
7: %
8: % January 28, 2002: Submitted to ApJL
9: %
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: %\documentclass{aastex}
13: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
14: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
15: %\voffset 0.7truein
16:
17: \newcommand{\myemail}{gies@chara.gsu.edu}
18:
19: \shorttitle{Wind Accretion and Evolution of LS~5039}
20: \shortauthors{McSwain \& Gies}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \received{}
25: \accepted{}
26:
27: \title{Wind Accretion and Binary Evolution of the Microquasar LS~5039}
28:
29: \author{M. V. McSwain\altaffilmark{1} and
30: D. R. Gies\altaffilmark{1}}
31:
32: \affil{Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy\\
33: Department of Physics and Astronomy \\
34: Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303\\
35: Electronic mail: mcswain@chara.gsu.edu, gies@chara.gsu.edu}
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory,
38: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, operated by the Association
39: of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with
40: the National Science Foundation.}
41:
42: \slugcomment{submitted to ApJL}
43: \paperid{}
44:
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: There is much evidence to suggest that stellar wind capture, rather than
49: Roche lobe overflow, serves as the accretion mechanism onto the compact
50: secondary object in the massive X-ray binary LS~5039. The lack of
51: significant emission combined with only a modest X-ray flux provide
52: observational evidence that no large-scale mass transfer is occurring
53: (consistent with our estimate of the
54: radius of the O6.5~V((f)) optical star that is smaller than
55: its critical Roche radius). Here we determine the mass loss rate of the
56: optical star from the broad, residual emission in the H$\alpha$ profile.
57: Using a stellar wind accretion model for a range in assumed primary
58: mass, we compute the predicted X-ray luminosity for the system. We
59: compare our results to the observed X-ray luminosity to determine the mass
60: of the compact object for each case. The companion appears to be a
61: neutron star with a mass between 1 and $3 M_\odot$. With our new
62: constraints on the masses of both components, we discuss their
63: implications on the evolution of the system before and after the supernova
64: event that created the compact companion. The binary experienced significant mass loss
65: during the supernova, and we find that the predictions for the resulting runaway velocity
66: agree well with the observed peculiar space velocity.
67: LS~5039 may be the fastest runaway object among known massive
68: X-ray binaries.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \keywords{binaries: spectroscopic --- stars: early-type ---
72: stars: individual (LS~5039, RX~J1826.2$-$1450) --- X-rays: binaries}
73:
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75:
76: \section{Introduction} % Section 1
77:
78: LS~5039 is a relatively faint ($V = 11.3$) and massive star of
79: type O6.5~V((f)) \citep{cla01} that is
80: one of only a few confirmed massive X-ray binaries (MXRBs)
81: with associated radio emission \citep{rib99}.
82: It has radio-emitting relativistic
83: jets characteristic of galactic microquasars, and
84: it is probably a high energy gamma ray source as well \citep{par00}.
85: We recently discovered that the system is a short period binary ($P = 4.117 \pm
86: 0.011$ d) with the highest known eccentricity ($e = 0.41\pm0.05$)
87: among O star binaries with comparable periods \citep{mcs01a}.
88: This high eccentricity probably results from the huge mass
89: loss that occurred with the supernova (SN) explosion that gave
90: birth to the compact star in the system \citep{bha91,nel99}.
91: Binaries that suffer large mass loss in a SN are expected
92: to become runaway stars, and recently both we \citep{mcs01b} and
93: \citet{rib02} found that LS~5039 has a relatively large proper
94: motion that indicates that the binary has a record-breaking
95: peculiar space velocity among MXRBs.
96:
97: Reliable estimates for the masses of the components of the binary
98: are of key importance for any discussion about the evolution
99: of this remarkable system. Here we present an investigation
100: of the possible mass range for the X-ray star based on
101: a stellar wind accretion model for the
102: X-ray production (\S2). This analysis relies on our observations
103: of the wind emission effects in the H$\alpha$ profile and the
104: wind models of \citet{pul96}. We then apply our derived
105: mass estimates for both stars to determine the probable masses
106: and orbital parameters prior to the SN based on the system's
107: current eccentricity (\S3). We find that the predicted
108: and observed runaway velocities are in good agreement,
109: and, thus, LS~5039 provides the best verification to date
110: of model predictions about the outcome of a SN explosion
111: in a massive binary.
112:
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114:
115: \section{X-ray Fueling by Wind Accretion} % Section 2
116:
117: The X-ray production in MXRBs results from
118: mass accretion through a Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) stream or by
119: Bondi-Hoyle accretion from the stellar wind of the luminous
120: primary \citep{kap98}. The systems experiencing RLOF
121: usually have large X-ray luminosities and striking optical
122: emission lines. However, LS~5039 has a modest X-ray flux
123: \citep{rib99} and no obvious emission lines \citep{cla01,mcs01a},
124: and we show below that the O-star is probably smaller
125: than its critical Roche surface. Thus, we can safely assume
126: that most of the mass accretion in LS~5039 occurs through capture of
127: the primary's stellar wind flow.
128:
129: The wind accretion luminosity of MXRBs depends on the
130: system separation, wind velocity law, mass loss rate,
131: and mass of the accretor \citep{lam76}. If
132: we can estimate these binary and wind parameters from
133: spectroscopy, then the mass of the compact star can be
134: found by comparing the predicted and observed X-ray
135: luminosities, $L_X$. Here we present such an analysis
136: based on the mass loss rate derived from our observations
137: of the H$\alpha$ profile \citep{mcs01a}. All the
138: parameters needed in this analysis ultimately depend
139: on the assumed mass of the O-star primary that is
140: poorly constrained at the moment. The simplest assumption
141: is that the primary has a mass typical of single stars
142: of its spectral classification, approximately $40 M_\odot$
143: (see the mass calibration of
144: \citet{hp89} and the study of comparable stars in the
145: young binary, DH~Cep, by \citet{pen97}). On the other
146: hand, there is evidence that the primaries in
147: MXRBs may be undermassive for their luminosity \citep{kap01},
148: and in extreme cases, their mass may be a factor of three
149: lower than the mass derived by comparing their position
150: in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram with evolutionary tracks.
151: Thus, we show here the results of a wind accretion model
152: for LS~5039 based on a range in assumed primary mass of
153: 10 -- $40 M_\odot$.
154:
155: \citet{pul96} show how the H$\alpha$ profile in O-stars grows
156: from a pure absorption feature to a strong emission line with
157: increasing stellar wind mass loss rate, and they present
158: a scheme to estimate the mass loss rate based on the observed
159: equivalent width, $W_\lambda$, of H$\alpha$. We observed
160: the H$\alpha$ line in the spectrum of LS~5039 over three runs
161: in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with the Coude Feed Telescope at
162: Kitt Peak National Observatory (see \citet{mcs01a} for details),
163: and we show in Figure~1 the average profile from each run
164: after shifting each spectrum to the rest frame and
165: convolving the 1998 and 2000 spectra to the resolution of
166: the 1999 run ($R=\lambda / \triangle\lambda = 4000$).
167: The H$\alpha$ profile appears to be filled in by broad, residual
168: emission that appears as shallow emission peaks in the wings
169: (perhaps also present in the vicinity of
170: \ion{He}{1} $\lambda 6678$ and \ion{He}{2} $\lambda 6683$).
171: The emission was apparently stronger during the 1998 and
172: 1999 runs, and we compare in Figure~1 these profiles with the
173: deeper absorption observed in 2000 ({\it dotted lines}).
174: The net equivalent width over the entire emission and
175: absorption blend was 2.22, 2.15, and 3.10 \AA ~($\pm 10\%$)
176: for the average profiles from 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively.
177: We use the mean of these values, 2.49 \AA , in the analysis below.
178: We see no evidence in our spectra of variations in the
179: residual emission with orbital phase, and so we can
180: reliably assume that this weak emission forms in the wind
181: of the primary (and not, for example, in a gas stream or
182: accretion disk in which we would observe orbital
183: variations in radial velocity).
184:
185: \placefigure{fig1} % Figure 1 - H-alpha profiles
186:
187: We need estimates of the underlying photospheric component
188: of absorption equivalent width, effective temperature,
189: $T_{\rm eff}$, radius, $R_O$, and wind velocity law
190: in order to derive a mass loss rate from the
191: observed equivalent widths using the wind models of
192: \citet{pul96} (see their Table~7). We adopted the
193: spectral classification calibration of \citet{hp89}
194: to estimate $T_{\rm eff} = 40.5\pm2$~kK and
195: $\log g = 4.0\pm0.2$ for the O6.5~V((f)) primary,
196: which is in reasonable agreement with the
197: results from Str\"{o}mgren photometry by
198: \citet{kil93} and with the values of these parameters
199: derived by \citet{pul96} for similar stars.
200: The radius, $R_O$, follows from $\log g$ and the
201: assumed mass, $M_O$. We assumed the wind velocity
202: law usually applied to O-stars:
203: $v(r) = v_\infty (1 - R_O/r)^\beta$
204: with $\beta = 0.8$, $v_\infty = 2.6 v_{\rm esc}$,
205: $v_{\rm esc} = (2 (1-\Gamma) G M_O / R_O)^{1/2}$,
206: and $\Gamma = 2.6\times 10^{-5} (L_O/L_\odot) / (M_O/M_\odot)$
207: \citep{hp89,pul96,lam99}. The final parameter to
208: be set is the appropriate photospheric absorption
209: equivalent width. Unfortunately, \citet{pul96} only
210: give one value of $W_\lambda = 3.29$~\AA ~that is specified
211: for a model photosphere with $T_{\rm eff} = 40$~kK
212: and $\log g = 3.7$. While this effective temperature is
213: nearly applicable here, we expect the equivalent width
214: will be larger in our $\log g = 4.0$ case since the
215: Stark broadening of the Balmer lines increases with gravity.
216: We used the NLTE models of \citet{aue72} to estimate that
217: the H$\alpha$ equivalent width should be $10\%$ stronger
218: at $\log g = 4.0$ compared to $\log g = 3.7$
219: (for $T_{\rm eff} = 40$~kK), and we pro-rated accordingly the
220: photospheric equivalent width given by \citet{pul96}.
221: Our derived estimates of $R_O$, $v_\infty$, and
222: mass loss rate $\log \dot{M}$ are given for several
223: assumed values of $M_O$ in Table~1. The mass loss
224: rate values are close to the average found for O6.5~V
225: stars by \citet{hp89}, $\log \dot{M} = -6.3$
226: (in units of $M_\odot$~y$^{-1}$).
227:
228: \placetable{tab1} % Table 1 - Stellar parameters versus M_O
229:
230: We next calculated the predicted X-ray luminosity for a range in assumed
231: secondary mass, $M_X$, using the wind accretion model of \citet{lam76}
232: (using the wind velocity law noted above). Their expression
233: for the X-ray accretion luminosity is
234: $$L_X = (3\times 10^{13} L_\odot) ~\zeta S_a M_X / M_\odot$$
235: where the efficiency factor for the conversion of accreted matter
236: to X-ray flux is $\zeta \approx 0.1$. The accretion rate is
237: $$S_a = \pi r_a^2 \dot{M} / (4\pi a^2)$$
238: for a separation $a$ and an accretion radius
239: $$r_a = 2 G M_X / v_{\rm rel}^2$$
240: where $v_{\rm rel}$ is the flow velocity of the wind relative to
241: the accreting star (see their eq.~10a).
242: Given the two assumed masses and the known period,
243: we determined the time-averaged separation of the binary
244: and then calculated $L_X$ using our estimates
245: of the wind speed and mass loss rate from above.
246: A sample result is shown in Figure~2 for the average
247: and extreme values of the derived mass loss rate
248: (from the 1999 and 2000 H$\alpha$ equivalent widths)
249: for a test primary mass of $M_O = 25 M_\odot$.
250:
251: \placefigure{fig2} % Figure 2 - L_X versus M_X
252:
253: The observed value of $L_X$ depends on the assumed distance.
254: We used the magnitude $V=11.35\pm 0.1$ and reddening $E(B-V)=1.2\pm0.1$
255: from \citet{cla01}, and then estimated the star's angular diameter
256: by comparing the unreddened magnitude with model magnitudes
257: from \citet{kur94} for the adopted $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$
258: (calibrated with the fundamental $T_{\rm eff}$
259: data of \citet{cod76}). The distance is then found
260: from the working value of the stellar radius,
261: $d = 0.32~R_O/ R_\odot$~kpc. The observed X-ray luminosity
262: was adjusted from the measurements of \citet{rib99} who
263: assumed a distance of 3.1~kpc. This prorated estimate
264: of $L_X$ is shown as the shaded region in Figure~2.
265: The estimated mass of the secondary is found where
266: the predicted wind accretion luminosity matches the observed $L_X$.
267:
268: We repeated the wind accretion calculation for a grid of
269: assumed O-star masses, and our final results are
270: listed in Table~1 and plotted in a mass diagram in Figure~3.
271: The results are relatively insensitive to our assumptions
272: about $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$. We found, for example,
273: that models made using $\log g = 3.7$ led to lower mass loss
274: rates but also lower wind velocities, so that the wind accretion
275: rates changed very little. Because the slope $d L_X / d M_X$
276: is relatively large (see Fig.~2), the details of the accretion
277: model (for example, the value of the efficiency parameter, $\zeta$)
278: do not greatly affect the implied secondary masses.
279: In fact, the largest uncertainty in the results comes from the
280: variation in H$\alpha$ equivalent width between observing runs,
281: which presumably reflects significant changes in the stellar
282: wind mass loss rate. Table~1 also lists the size of the Roche
283: radius at periastron, and we find that the O-star fits
284: comfortably within its Roche lobe over the full range in assumed mass.
285: Our results indicate that the secondary has a mass between
286: 1 and $3 M_\odot$ (based on the extremes of the observed
287: H$\alpha$ equivalent width and adopted primary mass range),
288: and, thus, the secondary is probably a neutron star.
289:
290: \placefigure{fig3} % Figure 3 - Mass diagram
291:
292: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
293:
294: \section{A Supernova in a Binary} % Section 3
295:
296: The catastrophe of a SN explosion in a massive binary has
297: two immediate consequences. First, the system acquires a large eccentricity
298: that is directly related to the amount of mass lost in the SN event.
299: The periastron separation in the altered orbit corresponds to the
300: pre-supernova semi-major axis. Second, by conservation of momentum,
301: we expect the entire system to attain a runaway velocity that again
302: depends on the mass lost in the SN. We demonstrate here that
303: the values of the observed eccentricity and the probable masses
304: derived above indicate that a huge amount of mass was lost in the
305: SN event that formed LS~5039.
306:
307: We can use the observed eccentricity to
308: relate the pre- and post-SN orbital parameters
309: if we make the following reasonable assumptions:
310: (1) the pre-SN orbit was circular (almost certainly the case
311: for such a short period and evolved system),
312: (2) any kick velocity imparted to the remnant core due to asymmetries in
313: the explosion was relatively small \citep{nel99},
314: (3) the primary suffered only minor ablation of mass in the
315: explosion so that its pre- and post-SN mass is the same \citep{fry81}, and
316: (4) the system has experienced little or no tidal reduction of
317: the orbital eccentricity since the SN event.
318: \citet{bha91} and \citet{nel99} give the expressions
319: required to calculate the pre-SN parameters, and
320: we list in Table~2 the resulting orbital and physical
321: parameters for an eccentricity $e=0.41\pm 0.05$ \citep{mcs01a}
322: and the masses derived in \S2. Table~2 gives the
323: pre-SN period, $P^{\rm initial}$,
324: semi-major axis, $a^{\rm initial}$,
325: SN precursor mass, $M_2^{\rm initial}$, and
326: the mass lost in the SN, $\triangle M_2$.
327:
328: \placetable{tab2} % Table 2 - Pre/Post SN parameters
329:
330: The first striking result is the large mass loss that
331: occurred in the SN in LS~5039. Some 5 - $17 M_\odot$ was
332: lost in the explosion, amounting to more than 81\% of
333: the precursor's mass. This is much larger than the
334: typical inferred mass loss fraction of 35\% found
335: by \citet{nel99} for black hole X-ray binaries.
336: The SN precursor had a smaller mass than the primary
337: at the time of the explosion, so the system was not
338: in danger of total disruption \citep{nel99}.
339:
340: The pre-SN orbit was very compact and the stars were in close proximity.
341: We list in Table~2 the sizes of the Roche radii
342: in the pre-SN stage. These radii are quite restrictive,
343: and we find that the primary overfills the Roche lobe in
344: the higher mass solutions. However, the current radius $R_O$
345: given in Table~2 may be larger than the radius at the
346: time of the SN if the primary has evolved to a larger size
347: since then. Nevertheless, the secondary's Roche radius is
348: also quite small, and it is possible that the system was
349: in a contact or over-contact configuration at the
350: time of the SN. Some kind of close interaction must have
351: occurred since by the time of the SN the mass ratio had
352: reversed and the separation had been increasing \citep{wel01}.
353: Given this evidence of a pre-SN interaction, the
354: observed C deficiency of the primary \citep{mcs01a}
355: probably results from nuclear-processed gas transferred from the SN progenitor.
356: The currently faster than synchronous rotation of the primary \citep{mcs01a}
357: may correspond to the synchronous rate in the shorter period,
358: pre-SN configuration.
359:
360: \placetable{tab2} % Table 2 - Pre/Post SN parameters
361:
362: Finally, we list in Table~2 the predicted system runaway velocity, $v_{\rm sys}$,
363: based on conservation of momentum (with errors propagated from
364: the uncertainty in the observed eccentricity). The predictions
365: suggest that the system should have a runaway velocity in excess
366: of 100 km~s$^{-1}$. Although the systemic velocity along the
367: line of sight is unexceptional \citep{mcs01a}, the tangential
368: velocity does appear to be large. The system has a proper motion of
369: $\mu_\alpha = 4.8 \pm 2.4$ mas~y$^{-1}$ and
370: $\mu_\delta = -12.2 \pm 2.3$ mas~y$^{-1}$
371: in the Tycho-2 catalogue \citep{hog00}, and
372: \citet{rib02} have recently used optical and radio astrometry
373: to find an improved estimate of
374: $\mu_\alpha = 4.7 \pm 1.1$ mas~y$^{-1}$ and
375: $\mu_\delta = -10.6 \pm 1.0$ mas~y$^{-1}$.
376: We used the latter measurement together with the systemic
377: radial velocity from \citet{mcs01a} (adjusted to the
378: velocity offset of the \ion{O}{3} $\lambda 5592$ line that
379: presumably forms deep in the photosphere and is less
380: affected by expansion in the atmosphere) to find the peculiar
381: component of space motion, $v_{\rm pec}$ (following the methods described
382: in \citet{ber01}), and this quantity is listed in the
383: final row of Table~2. We find that there is satisfying
384: agreement between the predicted and observed space velocities,
385: especially towards the higher mass range. Note that if
386: the eccentricity had decreased since the the explosion,
387: then the predicted velocities would be lower than the
388: observed velocities, which is contrary to the results in
389: Table~2. This strengthens our assumption that little or no
390: circularization has occurred in LS~5039 since the SN.
391:
392: The example of LS~5039 provides a strong confirmation of
393: the predictions made about the eccentricity and runaway velocity
394: that result from a SN explosion in a binary, and we find
395: that both the observed eccentricity and peculiar space velocity
396: can be consistently explained by our derived set of pre- and
397: post-SN parameters. On the other hand, the system may be exceptional
398: among MXRBs in the huge amount of mass lost in the SN.
399: Indeed, LS~5039 appears to be the fastest runaway object
400: known among the MXRBs \citep{kap01}.
401: The example of LS~5039 hints that there are
402: other similar systems with low X-ray luminosity and small
403: radial velocity variations, but this class of ``X-ray quiet''
404: SN descendants will be difficult to detect \citep{gar80}.
405:
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407:
408: \acknowledgments
409:
410: We thank the KPNO staff, and in particular Diane Harmer
411: and Daryl Willmarth, for their assistance in making these
412: observations with the KPNO Coude Feed Telescope.
413: Institutional support has been provided from the GSU College
414: of Arts and Sciences and from the Research Program Enhancement
415: fund of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia,
416: administered through the GSU Office of the Vice President
417: for Research.
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420:
421: % References
422:
423: \clearpage
424:
425: \begin{thebibliography}{}
426:
427: \bibitem[Auer \& Mihalas(1972)]{aue72}
428: Auer, L. H., \& Mihalas, D. 1972, \apjs, 24, 193
429: \bibitem[Berger \& Gies(2001)]{ber01}
430: Berger, D. H., \& Gies, D.~R. 2001, \apj, 555, 364
431: \bibitem[Bhattacharya \& van den Heuvel(1991)]{bha91}
432: Bhattacharya, D., \& van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, Physics Rep., 203, 1
433: \bibitem[Clark et al.(2001)]{cla01}
434: Clark, J. S., et al. 2001, \aap, 376, 476
435: \bibitem[Code et al.(1976)]{cod76}
436: Code, A. D., Bless, R. C., Davis, J., \& Brown, R. H.
437: 1976, \apj, 203, 417
438: \bibitem[Fryxell \& Arnett(1981)]{fry81}
439: Fryxell, B. A., \& Arnett, W. D. 1981, \apj, 243, 994
440: \bibitem[Garmany et al.(1980)]{gar80}
441: Garmany, C. D., Conti, P. S., \& Massey, P.
442: 1980, \apj, 242, 1063
443: \bibitem[Hog et al.(2000)]{hog00}
444: Hog, E., et al. 2000, \aap, 355, L27
445: \bibitem[Howarth \& Prinja(1989)]{hp89}
446: Howarth, I. D., \& Prinja, R. K. 1989, \apjs, 69, 527
447: \bibitem[Kaper(1998)]{kap98}
448: Kaper, L. 1998, in Boulder-Munich II, Properties of Hot, Luminous
449: Stars (A.S.P. Conf. Ser. 131), ed. I. D. Howarth
450: (San Francisco: A.S.P.), 427
451: \bibitem[Kaper(2001)]{kap01}
452: Kaper, L. 2001, in The Influence of Binaries on
453: Stellar Population Studies, ed. D. Vanbeveren
454: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 125
455: \bibitem[Kilkenny(1993)]{kil93}
456: Kilkenny, D. 1993, South African Astron. Obs. Circ., 15, 53
457: \bibitem[Kurucz(1994)]{kur94}
458: Kurucz, R. L. 1994, Solar Abundance Model Atmospheres for
459: 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 km/s, Kurucz CD-ROM No.\ 19 (Cambridge, MA:
460: Smithsonian Astrophysical Obs.)
461: \bibitem[Lamers \& Cassinelli(1999)]{lam99}
462: Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., \& Cassinelli, J. P. 1999,
463: Introduction to Stellar Winds (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
464: \bibitem[Lamers et al.(1976)]{lam76}
465: Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., van den Heuvel, E. P. J.,
466: \& Petterson, J. A. 1976, \aap, 49, 327
467: \bibitem[McSwain et al.(2001a)]{mcs01a}
468: McSwain, M. V., Gies, D. R., Riddle, R. L.,
469: Wang, Z., \& Wingert, D. W. 2001a, \apj, 558, L43
470: \bibitem[McSwain et al.(2001b)]{mcs01b}
471: McSwain, M. V., Gies, D. R., Riddle, R. L.,
472: Wang, Z., \& Wingert, D. W. 2001b, AAS Meeting 199, \#05.04
473: \bibitem[Nelemans et al.(1999)]{nel99}
474: Nelemans, G., Tauris, T. M., \& van den Heuvel, E. P. J.
475: 1999, \aap, 352, L87
476: \bibitem[Paredes et al.(2000)]{par00}
477: Paredes, J. M., Mart\'{i}, J., Rib\'{o}, M., \& Massi, M.
478: 2000, Science, 288, 2340
479: \bibitem[Penny et al.(1997)]{pen97}
480: Penny, L. R., Gies, D. R., \&
481: Bagnuolo, W. G., Jr. 1997, \apj, 483, 439
482: \bibitem[Puls et al.(1996)]{pul96}
483: Puls, J., et al. 1996, \aap, 305, 171
484: \bibitem[Rib\'{o} et al.(2002)]{rib02}
485: Rib\'{o}, M., Paredes, J. M., Romero, G. E., Benaglia, P., Mart\'{i}, J.,
486: Fors, O., \& Garc\'{i}a-S\'{a}nchez, J. 2002, \aap, in press
487: (astro-ph/0201254)
488: \bibitem[Rib\'{o} et al.(1999)]{rib99}
489: Rib\'{o}, M., Reig, P., Mart\'{i}, J., \& Paredes, J. M. 1999, \aap, 347, 518
490: \bibitem[Wellstein et al.(2001)]{wel01}
491: Wellstein, S., Langer, N., \& Braun, H. 2001, \aap, 369, 939
492: \end{thebibliography}
493:
494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
495:
496: % Figures
497:
498: \clearpage
499:
500: % Figure 1
501: \begin{figure}
502: %\plotone{f1.eps}
503: \caption{The average spectrum of LS~5039 after shifting for orbital
504: motion and convolution to the resolution of the 1999 spectra.
505: The 2000 average spectrum is also plotted with
506: the same offsets as the 1998 and 1999 averages
507: ({\it dotted lines}) to emphasize the greater residual
508: H$\alpha$ $\lambda 6563$ emission observed in the first two runs.}
509: \label{fig1}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512: % Figure 2
513: \begin{figure}
514: %\plotone{f2.eps}
515: \caption{The predicted X-ray luminosity from wind accretion for
516: an assumed O-star mass of $25 M_\odot$ and a range of masses for the
517: companion. The solid line illustrates the result for the average
518: mass loss rate calculated for $M_O = 25 M_\odot$ ($\log \dot{M} = -6.3$
519: for mass loss in $M_\odot$~y$^{-1}$) while the dot-dashed line and
520: dashed line show the results for the strongest and weakest mass loss
521: rates (from the 1999 and 2000 runs, respectively; $\log \dot{M}$ is
522: labelled in each case). The shaded region
523: gives the estimated X-ray luminosity based on a distance of 2.6~kpc
524: (the estimated distance for $M_O = 25 M_\odot$) and
525: the observed X-ray fluxes reported by \citet{rib99}.
526: The best match occurs for $M_X=1.9 M_\odot$ in this case.}
527: \label{fig2}
528: \end{figure}
529:
530: % Figure 3
531: \begin{figure}
532: %\plotone{f3.eps}
533: \caption{The mass plane diagram for LS~5039 with the constraints from
534: the wind accretion model. The thick, solid line shows the estimated
535: relationship between assumed O-star mass and the mass of the X-ray source.
536: The surrounding shaded regions show how the solutions change if we adopt
537: the higher mass loss rate from the 1999 observations (lower $M_X$ required
538: to obtain the same observed X-ray luminosity) or the lower mass loss rate
539: from the 2000 spectra (upper $M_X$ limit). Lines of constant orbital
540: inclination are shown as thin, solid lines. The dashed line indicates
541: the lower limit on $M_X$ established by the lack of X-ray or optical
542: eclipses \citep{rib99,cla01}.}
543: \label{fig3}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
547: % Tables
548:
549: \clearpage
550:
551: % Table 1 - Sample Stellar Parameter range
552:
553: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
554: \tablewidth{0pc}
555: \tablecaption{Range in Stellar Parameters\label{tab1}}
556: \tablehead{
557: \colhead{Parameter} &
558: \colhead{$M_O = 10 M_\odot$} &
559: \colhead{$M_O = 20 M_\odot$} &
560: \colhead{$M_O = 30 M_\odot$} &
561: \colhead{$M_O = 40 M_\odot$} }
562: \startdata
563: $R_O$ ($R_\odot$) \dotfill & 5.2 & 7.4 & 9.1 & 10.5 \\
564: $v_\infty$ (km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill & 2018 & 2400 & 2656 & 2854 \\
565: $\log \dot{M}$ ($M_\odot$ y$^{-1}$)\dotfill &$-6.7$&$-6.4$&$-6.2$&$-6.1$\\
566: $M_X$ ($M_\odot$) \dotfill & 1.2 & 1.7 & 2.1 & 2.4 \\
567: $R_O{\rm (Roche)}$ ($R_\odot$) \dotfill & 8.0 & 10.5 & 12.2 & 13.6 \\
568: $d$ (kpc) \dotfill & 1.7 & 2.4 & 2.9 & 3.3 \\
569: \enddata
570: \end{deluxetable}
571: \clearpage
572:
573: %%%%%%%%%
574: % Table 2 - Pre-/Post-SN Parameters
575:
576: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
577: \tablewidth{0pc}
578: \tablecaption{Binary Parameters\label{tab2}}
579: \tablehead{
580: \colhead{Parameter} &
581: \colhead{$M_O = 10 M_\odot$} &
582: \colhead{$M_O = 20 M_\odot$} &
583: \colhead{$M_O = 30 M_\odot$} &
584: \colhead{$M_O = 40 M_\odot$} }
585: \startdata
586: $P^{\rm initial}$ (d) \dotfill & 1.56 & 1.56 & 1.56 & 1.56 \\
587: $a^{\rm initial}$ ($R_\odot$) \dotfill & 14.2 & 17.7 & 20.2 & 22.2 \\
588: $M_2^{\rm initial}$ ($M_\odot$) \dotfill & 5.7 & 10.6 & 15.2 & 19.8 \\
589: $\triangle M_2$ ($M_\odot$) \dotfill & 4.6 & 8.9 & 13.2 & 17.4 \\
590: $R_O$ ($R_\odot$) \dotfill & 5.2 & 7.4 & 9.1 & 10.5 \\
591: $R_O{\rm (Roche)}^{\rm initial}$ ($R_\odot$)\dotfill & 6.1 & 7.7 & 8.9 & 9.8 \\
592: $R_2{\rm (Roche)}^{\rm initial}$ ($R_\odot$)\dotfill & 4.7 & 5.8 & 6.5 & 7.1 \\
593: $v_{\rm sys}$ (predicted) (km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill &$120\pm10$&$154\pm13$&$178\pm15$&$197\pm17$\\
594: $v_{\rm pec}$ (observed) (km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill &$83\pm13$&$118\pm17$&$145\pm21$&$168\pm24$\\
595: \enddata
596: \end{deluxetable}
597: \clearpage
598:
599: %M_p,post 10 20 30 40
600: %M_s,post 1.16780 1.68240 2.09040 2.41670
601: %M_s,pre 5.74660 10.5722 15.2475 19.8075
602: %P_pre 1.56478
603: %a_pre 14.2115 17.7291 20.2043 22.1733
604: %R_p,pre 5.23442 7.40258 9.06627 10.4688
605: %R_roche,p 6.07719 7.71309 8.86054 9.77545
606: %R_roche,s 4.71987 5.76717 6.50800 7.09565
607: %d 1.66690 2.35730 2.88710 3.33380
608: %v_run (predicted) 119.687 153.810 177.650 196.666
609: %v_run (observed) 83.001058 117.99507 145.11764 167.93816
610: %v_run (errors) 12.765763 17.346962 20.949420 24.017886
611:
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: % Figures
614:
615: \clearpage
616:
617: \setcounter{figure}{0}
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \plotone{f1.eps}
621: \caption{}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624: \begin{figure}
625: \plotone{f2.eps}
626: \caption{}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}
630: \plotone{f3.eps}
631: \caption{}
632: \end{figure}
633:
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635:
636: \end{document}
637: