1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,epsf]{aastex}
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{COMPONENT MASSES OF THE YOUNG SPECTROSCOPIC BINARY UZ TAU E}
9:
10:
11: \author{{L. PRATO\altaffilmark{1}, M. SIMON\altaffilmark{2},
12: T. MAZEH\altaffilmark{3},
13: S. ZUCKER\altaffilmark{3}, AND I. S. MCLEAN\altaffilmark{1}}}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA,
16: Los Angeles, CA 90095-1562; lprato@astro.ucla.edu}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, SUNY,
18: Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University,
20: Tel Aviv, Israel}
21:
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: We report estimates of the masses of the component stars
26: in the pre$-$main-sequence spectroscopic binary UZ Tau E. These results
27: come from the combination of our measurements of the mass ratio,
28: $M_2/M_1=0.28\pm$0.01, obtained using high resolution $H$-band spectroscopy,
29: with the total mass of the system, (1.31$\pm$0.08)(D/140pc) $M_{\odot}$,
30: derived from millimeter observations of the circumbinary disk \citep{sim00}.
31: The masses of the primary and secondary
32: are (1.016$\pm$0.065)(D/140pc) $M_{\odot}$
33: and (0.294$\pm$0.027)(D/140pc) $M_{\odot}$, respectively. Using the
34: orbital parameters determined from our six epochs of observation, we
35: find that the inclination of the binary orbit, 59.8$\pm$4.4 degrees, is
36: consistent with that determined for the circumbinary disk from
37: the millimeter observations, indicating
38: that the disk and binary orbits are probably coplanar.
39:
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \keywords{binaries: spectroscopic --- stars: pre$-$main-sequence}
44:
45:
46: \section{Introduction}
47:
48: This letter reports on the most recent progress in our efforts to
49: convert pre$-$main-sequence (PMS) single-lined
50: spectroscopic binaries (SB1s) to double-lined
51: systems (SB2s) in order to (1) provide dynamical mass
52: data for the calibration of young star evolutionary models, and
53: (2) to help determine the unbiased, low-mass PMS mass ratio
54: distribution of SB2s \citep{pra02}.
55: Dynamical mass ratios have almost exclusively been measured
56: in visible light and show a distribution weighted strongly
57: towards unity. Because this is probably a selection
58: effect, given that the detection of a spectroscopic secondary is far
59: easier for flux, and therefore mass, ratios close to unity
60: \citep{maz02}, the
61: underlying astrophysical distribution of the mass ratio values
62: is unknown. In \citet{pra02} we applied infrared (IR)
63: spectroscopy to the problem of identifying the secondary stars in
64: PMS SB1s because these low-mass companions are red
65: and thus are more readily detectable in IR light.
66: This project is an endeavor to convert all known, PMS SB1s
67: to SB2s. \citet{pra02} show that this approach yields the
68: smallest mass-ratios ever derived for PMS SB systems. To date,
69: all of the IR-converted SB2s display values of
70: $q=M_2/M_1<0.6$ \citep{ste01, pra02}.
71:
72: We have applied this IR approach to UZ Tau E,
73: identified as a 19.1 day period SB1 by \citet{mat96}. It
74: forms a hierarchical quadruple with UZ Tau W, itself
75: a 0$\farcs$34 binary, $\sim$4$''$ to the west \citep{sim95}.
76: Together with GW Ori, DQ Tau \citep{mat91, mat97}, and V4046 Sgr
77: \citep{qua00}, UZ Tau E is one of only 4 classical T Tauri star SBs known.
78: Emission line and color diagnostics indicate that accretion is
79: occurring on to the stars in UZ Tau E \citep{ken95} despite
80: the expected formation of a gap in its circumbinary disk
81: \citep{art94}. The presence
82: of the circumbinary disk around the UZ Tau E SB enabled
83: \citet{sim00} to measure the distance dependent, total binary
84: mass by mapping the Keplerian rotation of the $^{12}$CO gas in
85: the disk. Thus, with the determination of the mass ratio, we
86: are able to calculate the component stellar masses and
87: orbital inclination.
88: In \S 2 we briefly describe our observations and
89: data reduction. The analysis
90: and results appear in \S 3. Section 4 provides a brief discussion.
91:
92:
93: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
94:
95: $H$-band observations were made with the Keck II
96: near-IR spectrometer, NIRSPEC, a cross-dispersed,
97: cryogenic echelle spectrometer employing a 1024 $\times$ 1024 ALADDIN
98: InSb array detector \citep{mcl98, mcl00}. The
99: resolving power was $R = 24,000$ and $R = 30,000$ for the non-adaptive
100: optics (non-AO) and AO modes, respectively. For AO mode observations,
101: dispersion solutions were derived using arc lamp lines. Otherwise
102: we used night sky OH lines \citep{rou00}.
103: Integration times for a single exposure were usually
104: 300 s. Further details about the observations are
105: provided in \citet{pra02}.
106:
107: The data were reduced using REDSPEC, software designed at UCLA
108: for the analysis of NIRSPEC
109: data\footnote{See:
110: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/nirspec/redspec/index.html}.
111: For the analysis described here we used only order 49.
112: The central wavelength of this order is $\sim$1.55 $\mu$m; order 49
113: is almost completely free from terrestrial absorption lines.
114: Table 1 provides a log of the observations; column (1) gives the UT date,
115: column (2) the observing mode (i.e. non-AO or AO), and column (3)
116: the modified Julian day of the observation.
117:
118:
119: \section{Analysis and Results}
120:
121: Figure 1 shows the spectra from the six epochs of observations.
122: These were analyzed as described in \citet{maz02} and \citet{pra02}
123: using the two-dimensional cross-correlation
124: program TODCOR \citep{zuc94} and our library of stellar
125: templates. For every epoch
126: of observation, the secondary star spectrum was detected; velocities
127: for the primary and secondary stars appear in columns (4) and (5)
128: of Table 1. Uncertainties in the velocities reflect the addition
129: in quadrature of the internal uncertainty in the TODCOR analysis
130: and the $\pm$1 km s$^{-1}$ uncertainty between
131: our velocity reference frame, as estimated from the template star
132: radial velocities, and that of others \citep{pra02}.
133:
134: The stellar templates that produced the maximum
135: correlation in the TODCOR analysis were either GL 763 or GL 752A for
136: the primary, and GL 213 or GL 402, rotationally broadened
137: to 25$-$30 km s$^{-1}$, for the secondary. The Centre de Donn\'ees
138: astronomiques de Strasbourg (SIMBAD) lists
139: GL 763 and GL 752A with spectral types of M0 and M3, respectively,
140: however, GL 752A is probably misclassified.
141: Figure 1 of \citet{pra02} shows the spectra in our template library;
142: at 1.55 $\mu$m, the spectrum of GL 752A appears to be earlier than M3
143: and is better matched to an M0 or M1.5 star. We therefore regard the
144: best fitting primary templates as consistent with the M1
145: visible light spectral
146: classification given by \citet{ken95} for the entire UZ Tau E system.
147: The spectral types of the best fitting secondary templates are both M4.
148:
149: The average 1.55 $\mu$m flux ratio is $H_2/H_1=0.47$.
150: As discussed in \citet{pra02}, the cross-correlation analysis yields
151: component velocities that are very reliable because they are based on
152: many spectral lines. However, estimates of spectral type and flux ratio
153: must be regarded as only representative because of the mismatch in
154: surface gravity and metallicity between the main-sequence star
155: templates and the PMS targets.
156:
157: The SB1 results reported by \citet{mat96} give
158: the orbital period, $P=19.1$ days, the eccentricity, $e=0.28$, the
159: projected primary semi-major axis, $a_1sini=0.03$ AU, and the primary
160: semi-amplitude, $K_1=17$ km s$^{-1}$.
161: We derived the orbital elements of the UZ Tau E
162: SB2 by a least-squares minimization. The phases which
163: appear in column (6) of Table 1 were calculated using our
164: value for the period derived from this procedure,
165: $P=19.048\pm$0.011 days. Figure 2 shows the orbital fit to the observed
166: velocities and Table 2 lists our orbital elements in standard
167: notation following \citet{hei78}. We derive
168: a mass ratio of $q=M_2/M_1=0.289\pm0.025$. Our results are
169: in excellent agreement with the parameters in common
170: measured by \citet{mat96}.
171:
172: By measuring the Keplerian rotation of the UZ Tau E circumbinary disk,
173: \citet{sim00} determined $M_{total}=(1.31\pm0.08)(D/140 pc) M_{\odot}$
174: for the binary. This scales with
175: distance because it depends on the radial scale of the disk.
176: Combining $M_{total}$ with $q$,
177: derived here, we obtain the orbital inclination
178: ($sini=0.864\pm0.039)(140$/D pc)$^{1/3}$, or $i=59.8\pm$4.4
179: degrees for $D=140$ pc \citep{ken94}, and the component masses,
180: $M_1=1.016\pm0.065 M_{\odot}$ and $M_2=0.294\pm0.027 M_{\odot}$.
181:
182: \section{Discussion}
183:
184: The inclination of the UZ Tau E circumbinary disk measured by its
185: $^{12}$CO J=2$-$1 rotation is, for $D=140$ pc, 56 $\pm$2 degrees;
186: the apparent projected inclination
187: of the disk in 1.3 mm continuum emission is 54 $\pm$3 degrees
188: \citep{sim00}. This is consistent, within the uncertainties, with
189: our derived value, $i=59.8\pm$4.4 degrees ($D=140$ pc), for the orbit
190: of the spectroscopic binary. The
191: range of values is $i=56-65$ degrees for $D=160-120$ pc.
192: This consistency between the orbital and circumbinary disk
193: inclinations indicates that the stellar orbit and the disk are
194: probably coplanar.
195:
196: Figure 3 shows the components of UZ Tau E plotted on the H-R
197: diagram. The M1 primary and M4 secondary were assigned
198: effective temperatures of 3700$\pm$150 K and 3300$\pm$150 K, respectively,
199: from the conversion presented in Figure 5 of \citet{luh00}.
200: Using $H_{total}=8.46$ mag for the SB2, corrected
201: for $A_V=1.49$ mag \citep{ken95} and
202: apportioned according to the flux ratio, $H_2/H_1=0.47$ (\S 3),
203: we obtained the component $H$-band magnitudes.
204: Applying the appropriate bolometric correction,
205: 2.31 mag for the M1 and 2.44 mag for the M4 \citep{har94, tok00},
206: then enabled the calculation of the component luminosities,
207: $L_1=0.63^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ $L_{\odot}$
208: and $L_2=0.28^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ $L_{\odot}$. The large uncertainties in
209: $L_1$ and $L_2$ are domianted by the $\pm$20 pc uncertainty in
210: the location of UZ Tau E along the line of sight to the Taurus SFR.
211: The luminosity ratio, $L_2/L_1=0.44\pm0.18$, is
212: approximately equal to the $H$-band flux ratio \citep{pra02}.
213:
214: The PMS evolutionary tracks of \citet{bar98} and \citet{pal99}
215: are shown in Figure 3. Both sets of tracks indicate that the system is
216: relatively young, $\sim$1$\times$10$^6$ years. For both sets of tracks, the
217: secondary star lies within 1 $\sigma$ of the mass track appropriate
218: to its derived dynamical mass; however, the primary star appears on mass
219: tracks with a value 3$-$4 $\sigma$ smaller than its dynamically
220: derived mass. The model-based mass ratios, $q=0.52\pm0.23$ for
221: the tracks of \citet{bar98} and $q=0.38\pm0.23$ for those of \citet{pal99},
222: are consistent with the dynamical mass ratio, $q=0.29\pm0.03$ to within
223: 1 $\sigma$, but this is a result of the propagation of the uncertainties
224: in the track-derived masses, which are as high as $\sim$50 \%.
225:
226: It is unlikely that the source of this discrepancy
227: lies in the simple application of the $H$-band flux
228: ratio to apportion the component luminosities, even
229: though this ratio is uncertain (\S 3), because the mass of
230: an M1 star is relatively insensitive to
231: luminosity on the tracks of both \citet{bar98} and \citet{pal99}.
232: We can rule out contamination by a third component in the UZ Tau E
233: system on the basis of our cross-correlation analysis as well as
234: mm-wave and near-IR imaging of the system (e.g., Dutrey et al. 1996).
235:
236: Several origins for this discrepancy are possible.
237: (1) UZ Tau E may be
238: on the near side of the Taurus star forming region at a distance
239: of $\sim$120 pc. The total mass of the SB2 system as derived by
240: \citet{sim00} is a function of distance.
241: (2) The mass of the spectroscopic system
242: measured by \citet{sim00} may be an overestimate if a dense ring
243: of circumbinary material with a radius of a few AU is present in the disk.
244: (3) The rotation of the circumbinary disk may be non-Keplerian.
245: (4) The main-sequence templates may be poorly matched to the
246: PMS objects and hence yield incorrect spectral types.
247: (5) Given the complexities of the calculations of PMS evolution at
248: very young ages, some uncertainties may also be expected in the
249: theoretical tracks.
250:
251: To test the plausibility of the first two possibilities listed above
252: we combine a 20 pc (14 \%) underestimate in
253: the distance to UZ Tau E and a 5 \% overestimate in the total stellar
254: mass measured at millimeter wavelengths, resulting from the
255: presence of an undetected dense ring of material within the
256: UZ Tau E circumbinary disk, similar to the structure in
257: the circumbinary disk of GG Tau \citep{gui99}.
258: We now derive $M_{total}=1.07\pm0.07$ $M_{\odot}$,
259: yielding $M_1=0.83\pm0.05$ $M_{\odot}$
260: and $M_2=0.24\pm0.02$ $M_{\odot}$. The revised dynamical value of $M_1$
261: still departs by 2$-$3 $\sigma$ from the
262: location of the star on the H-R diagram. The difference in the
263: dynamical and model values for $M_2$ is still $<$1 $\sigma$.
264:
265: The low-surface gravity expected in a young, PMS star may cause
266: its spectrum to appear to be later than the object's mass would
267: indicate \citep{whi99, luh00}. However, precisely to
268: account for such an effect, we have used the
269: spectral type to effective temperature conversion of the \citet{luh00}
270: to place the SB2 components on the H-R diagram. In addition,
271: agreement between the tracks and the dynamically measured
272: secondary star mass is inconsistent with this interpretation.
273: On the Baraffe tracks, the UZ Tau E secondary appears to be slightly {\it more}
274: massive than expected from the dynamical data. On the tracks of
275: Palla \& Stahler, it is slightly less massive than expected, but for both
276: sets of tracks, the discrepancy in the position of the secondary is $<$1
277: $\sigma$ (Figure 3). To investigate
278: this phenomenon further, observations and analyses of the type we report
279: here are required to connect stars of well-determined mass with the
280: appropriate spectral types and effective temperatures.
281:
282: DQ Tau is also a short period (16 day) classical T Tauri SB2
283: \citep{mat97}. It is remarkable in that accretion onto the central
284: stars from a circumbinary disk is regulated by the
285: eccentric orbit of the stars. Most photometric studies of
286: UZ Tau E have not isolated the system from UZ Tau W; it is unclear
287: if photometric
288: variability synchronized with the period of the SB2 is present.
289: If the discrepancy between our
290: dynamical mass measurement and the masses obtained from the
291: H-R diagram is attributable to unusual accretion processes,
292: it is difficult to understand how such would cause a star to
293: appear {\it less} massive, i.e. appear to have
294: a later spectral type, than the dynamical measurement implies.
295:
296: \citet{qua00} studied the components in another classical T Tauri
297: SB2, V4046 Sgr, a 2.4 d period system, and found a discrepancy
298: between the mass ratio determined dynamically, $q=0.94$, and from an
299: evolutionary model, $q=0.80$. However, deriving uncertainties for their
300: observed and theoretical mass ratio, from their Table 1 and
301: Figure 3, respectively, we find that their numbers are consistent
302: to within 1 $\sigma$ and therefore are not discrepant. The total mass
303: of the V4046 Sgr SB2 has not been measured dynamically so the
304: individual stellar masses are not known.
305:
306: \citet{qua00} suggest that the unusual behavior in V4046 Sgr might be
307: attributable to the distorted structure of stars in such a short period
308: binary. However, in UZ Tau E, with an orbital period of $\sim$19 d,
309: the tidal effects will be much smaller. With an orbital semimajor axis
310: of $\sim$33 $R_{\odot}$, there is only a weak interaction between the
311: 2$-$3 $R_{\odot}$ radius components.
312: Unfortunately, it is not possible at the present time to deconvolve
313: the effects of metallicity, rotation, and surface gravity
314: simultaneously for blended components of an SB2. A combination of
315: some of the factors discussed above may ultimately be responsible
316: for the inconsistencies discussed in this letter.
317: Clarification of the questions raised here may
318: require very high spatial resolution orbital mapping with future
319: facilities such as the {\it Space Interferometry Mission}.
320:
321:
322: \section{Acknowledgements}
323:
324: Almost every single Keck observing assistant helped with some
325: epoch of these observations; we are grateful for their expertise.
326: We thank the staff and support scientists for their logistical
327: and technical assistance, in particular, Barbara Schaefer,
328: Randy Cambell, and David Le Mignant for their help with the
329: 2001, August 31 service observations. We thank Anne Dutrey and
330: Stephane Guilloteau for helpful discussions, and an anonymous
331: referee for comments which improved this paper.
332: This research was supported in part
333: by NSF Grants AST 98-19694 and AST 02-05427 (to M. S.).
334: Data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck
335: Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership
336: between the California
337: Institute of Technology, the University of California, and NASA.
338: The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the
339: W. M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to extend special thanks to those
340: of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain we are
341: privileged to be guests. This research has made use of the SIMBAD
342: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
343:
344:
345:
346: \begin{thebibliography}{}
347:
348: \bibitem[Artymowicz \& Lubow(1994)]{art94} Artymowicz, P., \&
349: Lubow, S. H. 1994, \apj, 421, 651
350:
351: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(1998)]{bar98} Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G.,
352: Allard, F., and Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, \aap, 337, 403
353:
354: \bibitem[Dutrey et al.(1996)]{dut96} Dutrey, A., et al. 1996, \aap, 309, 493
355:
356: \bibitem[Guilloteau et al.(1999)]{gui99} Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A.,
357: \& Simon, M. 1999, \aap, 348, 570
358:
359: \bibitem[Hartigan et al.(1994)]{har94} Hartigan, P., Strom, K. M.,
360: \& Strom, S. E. 1994, \apj, 427, 961
361:
362: \bibitem[Heintz(1978)]{hei78} Heintz, W. D. 1978, Double Stars
363: (Dordrecht: Reidel)
364:
365: \bibitem[Kenyon et al.(1994)]{ken94} Kenyon, S. J., Dobrzycka, D.,
366: \& Hartmann, L. 1994, \aj, 108, 1872
367:
368: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1995)]{ken95} Kenyon, S. J., \&
369: Hartmann, L. 1995, \apjs, 101, 117
370:
371: \bibitem[Luhman(2000)]{luh00} Luhman, K. L. 2000, \apj, 544, 1044
372:
373: \bibitem[Mathieu(1994)]{mat94} Mathieu, R.D. 1994, \araa, 32, 465
374:
375: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.(1991)]{mat91} Mathieu, R.D., Adams, F. C.,
376: \& Latham, D. W. 1991, \aj, 101, 2184
377:
378: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.(1996)]{mat96} Mathieu, R.D., Mart\'{\i}n, E. L.,
379: \& Magazzu, A. 1996, BAAS, 188, 6005
380:
381: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.(1997)]{mat97} Mathieu, R.D., et al.
382: 1997, \aj, 113, 1841
383:
384: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(2002)]{maz02} Mazeh, T., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 1007
385:
386: \bibitem[McLean et al.(1998)]{mcl98} McLean, I. S., et al. 1998,
387: SPIE, 3354, 566
388:
389: \bibitem[McLean et al.(2000)]{mcl00} McLean, I. S., et al. 2000,
390: SPIE, 4008, 1048
391:
392: \bibitem[Palla \& Stahler(1999)]{pal99} Palla, F., \& Stahler, S. W.
393: 1999, \apj, 525, 772
394:
395: %\bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(1990)]{pin90} Pinsonneault, M. H.,
396: %Kawaler, S. D., \& Demarque, P. 1990, \aaps, 74, 501
397:
398: \bibitem[Prato et al.(2002)]{pra02} Prato, L., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 863
399:
400: \bibitem[Quast et al.(2000)]{qua00} Quast, G. R., Torres, C. A. O.,
401: de La Reza, R., da Silva, L., \& Mayor, M. 2000, in IAU Symp. 200
402: Poster Proceedings, Birth and Evolution of Binary Stars,
403: ed. B. Reipurth \& H. Zinnecker (Potsdam: Astrophys. Inst.), 28
404:
405: \bibitem[Rousselot et al.(2000)]{rou00} Rousselot, P., Lidman, C.,
406: Cuby, J.-G., Moreels, G., \& Monnet, G. 2000, \aap, 354, 1134
407:
408: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2000)]{sim00} Simon, M., Dutrey, A.,
409: \& Guilloteau, S. 2000, \apj, 545, 1034
410:
411: \bibitem[Simon et al.(1995)]{sim95} Simon, M., et al. 1995, \apj, 443, 625
412:
413: \bibitem[Steffen et al.(2001)]{ste01} Steffen A., et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 997
414:
415: \bibitem[Tokunaga(2000)]{tok00} Tokunaga, A. T. 2000, in Astrophysical
416: Quantities, ed. A. N. Cox (New York: Springer-Verlag), 143
417:
418: \bibitem[Torres \& Ribas(2002)]{tor02} Torres, G., \& Ribas, I.
419: 2002, \apj, 567, 1140
420:
421: \bibitem[White et al.(1999)]{whi99} White, R.J., Ghez, A. M.,
422: Reid, I. N., \& Schultz, G. 1999, \apj, 520, 811
423:
424: \bibitem[Zucker \& Mazeh(1994)]{zuc94} Zucker, S.,
425: \& Mazeh, T. 1994, \apj, 420, 806
426:
427: \end{thebibliography}
428:
429: \clearpage
430:
431: \pagestyle{empty}
432:
433: \begin{deluxetable}{lccrrl}
434: \tablewidth{0pt}
435: \tablecaption{Summary of Observations and Analysis\label{tbl-1}}
436: \tablehead{
437: \colhead{UT Date of} & \colhead{Mode of} & \colhead{Modified Julian Day} &
438: \colhead{$v_{primary}$} & \colhead{$v_{secondary}$ } & \colhead{$~$} \\
439: \colhead{Observation} & \colhead{Observations} & \colhead{(2,450,000$+$)} &
440: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{Phase}}
441: \startdata
442: 2000 Nov 11 & non-AO & 1859.6 & 5.8$\pm$1.04 & 44.2$\pm$1.49 & 0.776 \\
443: 2001 Jan 5 & AO & 1914.2 & 15.0$\pm$1.12 & 11.7$\pm$1.64 & 0.643 \\
444: 2001 Aug 4 & non-AO & 2125.6 & 8.5$\pm$1.04 & 39.8$\pm$1.49 & 0.745 \\
445: 2001 Aug 31 & AO & 2152.6 & 21.8$\pm$1.04 & -11.0$\pm$1.72 & 0.163 \\
446: 2001 Oct 10 & non-AO & 2192.6 & 27.2$\pm$1.08 & -23.7$\pm$2.33 & 0.264 \\
447: 2002 Feb 6 & non-AO & 2311.2 & 27.4$\pm$1.12 & -31.5$\pm$1.89 & 0.492 \\
448: \enddata
449:
450: \end{deluxetable}
451:
452: \clearpage
453:
454: \pagestyle{empty}
455:
456: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
457: \tablewidth{0pt}
458: \tablecaption{Orbital Elements and Derived Properties
459: of UZ Tau E \label{tbl-2}}
460: \tablehead{}
461: \startdata
462: $P = 19.048 \pm 0.011$ days\\
463: $\gamma = 14.8 \pm 0.6$ km s$^{-1}$\\
464: $K_1 = 17.4 \pm 1.4$ km s$^{-1}$\\
465: $K_2 = 60.2 \pm 3.0$ km s$^{-1}$\\
466: $e = 0.237 \pm 0.030$ \\
467: $\omega = 220.5 \pm 7.6$ degrees\\
468:
469: \medskip
470: $T = 2,452,092.45 \pm 0.44$ MJD\\
471: $M_1 sin^3 i = 0.655 \pm 0.098 M_{\odot}$\\
472: $M_2 sin^3 i = 0.190 \pm 0.031 M_{\odot}$\\
473: $q = M_2/M_1 = 0.289 \pm 0.025$ \\
474: $a_1 sin i = (4.42 \pm 0.35) \times 10^6$ km\\
475:
476: \medskip
477: $a_2 sin i = (15.31 \pm 0.71) \times10^6$ km\\
478: $M\tablenotemark{a}_{total} = 1.31 \pm 0.08 M_{\odot}$ for D$=$140 pc\\
479: $M_1 = 1.016 \pm 0.065 M_{\odot}$ for D$=$140 pc\\
480: $M_2 = 0.294 \pm 0.027 M_{\odot}$ for D$=$140 pc\\
481: $i = 59.8 \pm 4.4$ degrees for D$=$140 pc\\
482: \enddata
483:
484: \tablenotetext{a}{Data from \citet{sim00}}
485: \end{deluxetable}
486:
487: \clearpage
488:
489: \figcaption[f1.eps]{Six epochs of order 49 NIRSPEC spectra of
490: the UZ Tau E spectroscopic binary.
491: No heliocentric or radial velocity corrections have been applied.
492: The spectral continuum has been flattened.}
493:
494: \figcaption[f2.eps]{Radial velocity as a function of phase
495: for UZ Tau E. The circles represent primary star data and
496: the diamonds secondary star data. The best fit to the
497: data is shown as a solid line for the primary star and a
498: dashed line for the secondary. A dotted, horizontal line
499: indicates the center of mass velocity of the system. The
500: uncertainties in the velocities (Table 1) are smaller than
501: the plotting symbols.}
502:
503: \figcaption[f3.eps]{The H-R diagram showing the components of
504: the UZ Tau E system on the tracks of \citet{bar98}
505: and \citet{pal99}. The spectral type to temperature conversion
506: for the component M1 and M4 stars was made using the
507: scale defined by \citet{luh00}. Uncertainties in $T_{eff}$
508: correspond to one spectral subclass. The derivation of the
509: luminosities is described in the text. In the upper panel,
510: the mixing length parameter, $\alpha$, is 1.0 for $M<0.6 M_{\odot}$
511: and 1.9 for $M>0.6 M_{\odot}$.}
512:
513: \clearpage
514:
515:
516: \begin{figure}
517: \figurenum{1}
518: \plotone{f1.eps}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \figurenum{2}
523: \plotone{f2.eps}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527: \figurenum{3}
528: \plotone{f3.eps}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531:
532: \end{document}
533: