1: %\documentclass[aasms4]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

4: \documentclass[apjpt4]{aastex}

5: \usepackage{psfig}

6: 

7: \setcounter{figure}{0}

8: \setcounter{table}{0}

9: % new commands

10: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{\,$\rm{M_{\odot}}$}} 

11: \newcommand{\Rsun}{\mbox{\,$\rm{R_{\odot}}$}} 

12: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mbox{\,$\rm{L_{\odot}}$}} 

13: \newcommand{\Tsun}{\mbox{\,$T_{\odot}$}}

14: \newcommand{\Xsun}{\mbox{\,$\rm{X_{\odot}}$}}

15: \newcommand{\Tstar}{\mbox{\,$T_{*}$}}

16: \newcommand{\Teff}{\mbox{\,$T_{eff}$}}

17: \newcommand{\Rstar}{\mbox{\,$R_{*}$}} 

18: \newcommand{\Reff}{\mbox{\,$R_{2/3}$}} 

19: \newcommand{\Minit}{\mbox{\,$M_{init}$}} 

20: \newcommand{\vturb}{\mbox{\,$v_{turb}$}}

21: \newcommand{\vrad}{\mbox{\,$v_{rad}$}}

22: \newcommand{\logg}{\mbox{\,$\log{g}$}}

23: \newcommand{\logN}{\mbox{\,$\log{N}$}}

24: \newcommand{\E}[1]{\mbox{\,$\rm x 10^{#1}$}}

25: \newcommand{\XH}{\mbox{\,$X_{H}$}}

26: \newcommand{\XHe}{\mbox{\,$X_{He}$}}

27: \newcommand{\XC}{\mbox{\,$X_{C}$}}

28: \newcommand{\XN}{\mbox{\,$X_{N}$}}

29: \newcommand{\XO}{\mbox{\,$X_{O}$}}

30: \newcommand{\XSi}{\mbox{\,$X_{Si}$}}

31: \newcommand{\XS}{\mbox{\,$X_{S}$}}

32: \newcommand{\XP}{\mbox{\,$X_{P}$}}

33: \newcommand{\XFe}{\mbox{\,$X_{Fe}$}}

34: \newcommand{\XNi}{\mbox{\,$X_{Ni}$}}

35: \newcommand{\Htwo}{\mbox{\rm{H}$_2$}}

36: \newcommand{\HI}{\mbox{\rm{\ion{H}{1}}}}

37: \newcommand{\HII}{\mbox{\rm{\ion{H}{2}}}}

38: \newcommand{\He}{\ion{He}{0}}

39: \newcommand{\HeI}{\ion{He}{1}}

40: \newcommand{\HeII}{\ion{He}{2}}

41: \newcommand{\CI}{\ion{C}{1}}

42: \newcommand{\CII}{\ion{C}{2}}

43: \newcommand{\CIII}{\ion{C}{3}}

44: \newcommand{\CIV}{\ion{C}{4}}

45: \newcommand{\NI}{\ion{N}{1}}

46: \newcommand{\NII}{\ion{N}{2}}

47: \newcommand{\NIII}{\ion{N}{3}}

48: \newcommand{\NIV}{\ion{N}{4}}

49: \newcommand{\NV}{\ion{N}{5}}

50: \newcommand{\NVI}{\ion{N}{6}}

51: \newcommand{\OI}{\ion{O}{1}}

52: \newcommand{\OII}{\ion{O}{2}}

53: \newcommand{\OIII}{\ion{O}{3}}

54: \newcommand{\OIV}{\ion{O}{4}}

55: \newcommand{\OV}{\ion{O}{5}}

56: \newcommand{\OVI}{\ion{O}{6}}

57: \newcommand{\NeIII}{\ion{Ne}{3}}

58: \newcommand{\NeIV}{\ion{Ne}{4}}

59: \newcommand{\NeV}{\ion{Ne}{5}}

60: \newcommand{\NeVI}{\ion{Ne}{6}}

61: \newcommand{\MgII}{\ion{Mg}{2}}

62: \newcommand{\MgV}{\ion{Mg}{5}}

63: \newcommand{\SiII}{\ion{Si}{2}}

64: \newcommand{\SiIII}{\ion{Si}{3}}

65: \newcommand{\SiIV}{\ion{Si}{4}}

66: \newcommand{\SiV}{\ion{Si}{5}}

67: \newcommand{\PIV}{\ion{P}{4}}

68: \newcommand{\PV}{\ion{P}{5}}

69: \newcommand{\SII}{\ion{S}{2}}

70: \newcommand{\SIII}{\ion{S}{3}}

71: \newcommand{\SIV}{\ion{S}{4}}

72: \newcommand{\SV}{\ion{S}{5}}

73: \newcommand{\SVI}{\ion{S}{6}}

74: \newcommand{\SVII}{\ion{S}{7}}

75: \newcommand{\PII}{\ion{P}{2}}

76: \newcommand{\ArIV}{\ion{Ar}{4}}

77: \newcommand{\ArV}{\ion{Ar}{5}}

78: \newcommand{\ArVI}{\ion{Ar}{6}}

79: \newcommand{\FeII}{\ion{Fe}{2}}

80: \newcommand{\FeIII}{\ion{Fe}{3}}

81: \newcommand{\FeIV}{\ion{Fe}{4}}

82: \newcommand{\FeV}{\ion{Fe}{5}}

83: \newcommand{\FeVI}{\ion{Fe}{6}}

84: \newcommand{\FeVII}{\ion{Fe}{7}}

85: \newcommand{\FeVIII}{\ion{Fe}{8}}

86: \newcommand{\FeIX}{\ion{Fe}{9}}

87: \newcommand{\FeX}{\ion{Fe}{10}}

88: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}

89: \newcommand{\eg}{\emph{e.g.}}

90: \newcommand{\ie}{\emph{i.e.}}

91: \newcommand{\doublet}{$\lambda\lambda$}

92: \newcommand{\singlet}{$\lambda$}

93: \newcommand{\res}{\mbox{\,$\Delta\lambda$}}

94: \newcommand{\MV}{\mbox{\,$M_{V}$}} 

95: \newcommand{\Mv}{\mbox{\,$M_{v}$}} 

96: \newcommand{\vmag}{\mbox{\,$m_{v}$}}

97: \newcommand{\ebmv}{\mbox{\,$E_{b-v}$}}

98: \newcommand{\EBMV}{\mbox{\,$E_{\rm{B-V}}$}}

99: \newcommand{\Av}{\mbox{\,$A_v$}}

100: \newcommand{\AV}{\mbox{\,$A_{\rm{V}}$}}

101: \newcommand{\Rv}{\mbox{\,$R_v$}}

102: \newcommand{\RV}{\mbox{\,$R_{\rm{V}}$}}

103: \newcommand{\tlusty}{TLUSTY}

104: \newcommand{\synspec}{SYNSPEC}

105: \newcommand{\degree}[1]{\mbox{\,${#1}^o$}}

106: \newcommand{\Halpha}{H$\alpha$}

107: \newcommand{\Hbeta}{H$\beta$}

108: \newcommand{\Hgamma}{H$\gamma$}

109: \newcommand{\Hdelta}{H$\delta$}

110: \newcommand{\Hepsilon}{H$\epsilon$}

111: \newcommand{\Hzeta}{H$\zeta$}

112: \newcommand{\Lya}{Ly$\alpha$}

113: \newcommand{\Lyb}{Ly$\beta$}

114: \newcommand{\Lyg}{Ly$\gamma$}

115: \newcommand{\Lyd}{Ly$\delta$}

116: \newcommand{\Lye}{Ly$\epsilon$}

117: \newcommand{\Lyz}{Ly$\zeta$}

118: \newcommand{\Zsun}{\mbox{\,$\rm{Z_{\odot}}$}}

119: %Nebular Variables

120: \newcommand{\Telec}{\mbox{\,$T_{e}$}}

121: \newcommand{\nelec}{\mbox{\,$n_{e}$}}

122: % units and such

123: \newcommand{\kK}{\mbox{\,$\rm{kK}$}}

124: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{\,$\rm{km\:s^{-1}}$}}

125: \newcommand{\gunit}{\mbox{\,$\rm{cm\:s^{-2}}$}}

126: \newcommand{\Msunyr}{\mbox{\,$\rm{M_{\odot}\:yr^{-1}}$}}

127: \newcommand{\flam}{\mbox{\,$\rm{erg\:s^{-1}\:cm^{-2}\:\AA^{-1}}$}}

128: \newcommand{\fnu}{\mbox{\,$\rm{erg\:s^{-1}\:cm^{-2}\:\Hz^{-1}}$}}

129: %

130: 

131: \def\star{Lo~1}

132: 

133: \begin{document}

134: 

135: \title{A FAR-UV SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF THE CENTRAL STAR OF

136:   THE PLANETARY NEBULA LONGMORE~1\footnote{Based on observations made with

137:   the NASA-CNES-CSA Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer and data

138:   from the MAST archive. FUSE is operated for NASA by the Johns

139:   Hopkins University under NASA contract NAS5-32985.}}

140: 

141: \author{J.E. Herald, L. Bianchi}

142: \vspace{1mm}

143: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University}

144: \authoraddr{3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218-2411}

145: \email{herald@pha.jhu.edu,bianchi@pha.jhu.edu}

146: \received{2004 January 19}

147: \accepted{2004 February 20}

148: 

149: \begin{abstract}

150: 

151: We have performed a non-LTE spectroscopic analysis using far-UV and UV

152: data of the central star of the planetary nebula K1-26 (Longmore 1),

153: and found $\Teff = 120\pm10$~kK, $\logg =

154: 6.7^{+0.3}_{-0.7}$~\gunit, and $y \simeq 0.10$.  The temperature is

155: significantly hotter than previous results based on optical line

156: analyses, highlighting the importance of analyzing the spectra of such

157: hot objects at shorter wavelengths.  The spectra show metal lines

158: (from, \eg, carbon, oxygen, sulfur, and iron).  The signatures of most

159: elements can be fit adequately using solar abundances, confirming the

160: classification of \star\ as a high gravity O(H) object.  Adopting a distance of

161: 800~pc, we derive $\Rstar \simeq 0.04 $~\Rsun, $L \simeq 250 $~\Lsun,

162: and $M \simeq 0.6$~\Msun.  This places the object on the white dwarf

163: cooling sequence of the evolutionary tracks with an age of

164: $\tau_{evol} \simeq 65$~kyr.

165: 

166: \end{abstract}

167: 

168: \keywords{Planetary nebulae: individual (Longmore~1) --- stars:

169:   atmospheres --- stars: individual (Longmore 1) ---  stars: post-AGB

170:   --- stars: white dwarf   }

171: 

172: 

173: 

174: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{sec:intro}

175: 

176: Longmore 1 (K1-26, PK 255-59 1, hereafter \star) was originally

177: discovered by \citet{longmore:77} as a PN having a notably large

178: angular size ($\sim400$\arcsec).  The spectra of its central star show

179: both hydrogen and \HeII\ absorption features, with no evidence of a

180: stellar wind in its UV or optical spectra \citep{patriarchi:91,

181: kaler:85, mendez:85}.  Because of its high galactic latitude ($b

182: \simeq -\degree{60}$), the reddening toward \star\ is thought to be minimal

183: \citep{kaler:85}.  Based on its optical spectrum, \citet{mendez:85}

184: termed \star\ an ``hgO(H)'' star - a high gravity object with very

185: broad Balmer absorptions.  Such objects can lie on the white-dwarf

186: cooling tracks, but can also be non-post-AGB objects.  A distance of

187: $D=800$~pc \citep{ishida:87} implies a nebular radius of $\sim0.8$~pc,

188: suggesting that \star\ is a quite evolved CSPN (most PN have radii

189: $\lesssim 0.5$~pc --- \citealp{cahn:92}).

190: 

191: Hot central stars of planetary nebulae (CSPN) emit most of their

192: observable flux in the Far-UV range.  We have observed the central

193: star of \star\ with the \emph{Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer}

194: (FUSE) satellite in the 905---1187~\AA\ range.  Using this data as

195: well as archive \emph{International Ultraviolet Explorer} (IUE) data

196: (1150---3300~\AA), we determined the parameters of the central star

197: through stellar modeling, and discuss evolutionary implications.

198: 

199: Parameters of \star\ compiled from previous literature are listed in

200: Table~\ref{tab:lit_params}.

201: 

202: 

203: 

204: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTION}\label{sec:obs}

205: 

206: Table~\ref{tab:obs} lists the spectra utilized in this paper.  \star\

207: was observed as part of FUSE's cycle 1 program P133 (Bianchi).  The IUE

208: data were retrieved from the MAST archive.  The observed spectra will

209: be presented in \S~\ref{sec:modeling}.

210: 

211: 

212: FUSE covers the wavelength range of 905--1187~\AA\ at a spectral

213: resolution of $\lesssim$ 30,000. The flux calibration accuracy of FUSE

214: is $\lesssim 10$~\% \citep{sahnow:00}.  It is described by

215: \citet{moos:00} and its on-orbit performance is discussed by

216: \citet{sahnow:00}. FUSE collects light concurrently in four different

217: channels (LiF1, LiF2, SiC1, and SiC2).  Each channel is recorded by

218: two detectors, each divided into two segments (A \& B) covering

219: different subsets of the above range with some overlap.

220: 

221: The FUSE spectra were taken through the LWRS

222: (30\arcsec$\times$30\arcsec) aperture.  These data, taken in

223: ``time-tag'' mode, have been calibrated using the most recent FUSE

224: data reduction pipeline, efficiency curves and wavelength solutions

225: (CALFUSE v2.2). We combined the data from different segments, weighted

226: by detector sensitivity, and rebinning to a uniform dispersion of

227: 0.05~\AA\ (which is probably close to the actual resolution since the

228: data were taken in the early part of the mission).  Bad areas of the

229: detectors, and those regimes affected by an instrumental artifact

230: known as ``the worm'' (FUSE Data Handbook v1.1), were excluded.  For

231: part of the first observation, telescope alignment problems moved the target

232: out of the LiF2/SiC2 aperture.  This also appears to have happened

233: with the SiC2 detector halfway through the second observation.  We

234: thus omitted data taken during these target drifts for the affected

235: detectors.

236: 

237: Four IUE spectra of the central star of \star\ are available, however

238: it appears that one (SWP20275) missed the central star.  The only

239: high-resolution spectrum (SWP39146) is under-exposed and was not

240: used.  The two remaining low resolution long wavelength and short

241: wavelength spectra are in agreement in the region of overlap.  The IUE

242: spectra are relatively featureless and are mainly used to fit the

243: continuum flux distribution.

244: 

245: \section{MODELING}\label{sec:modeling}

246: 

247: Modeling of \star\ consisted of two parts: modeling the hot central

248: star, and modeling the sight-line hydrogen (atomic and molecular).  We

249: describe each in turn.  A virtue of its location significantly

250: outside the Galactic plane is a low reddening, which we determine, by

251: fitting the continuum slope, to be $\EBMV < 0.01$ (we use a value of $\EBMV = 0$

252: throughout this paper).  The data, as well as the

253: model fits, are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:fuv} and \ref{fig:uv}.  We

254: determine the radial velocity of \star\ to be $\vrad = 100 \pm

255: 10$~\kms\ using stellar absorption line features in the long

256: wavelength FUSE range ($>1050$~\AA) such as \CIV\ \singlet 1169.0 and

257: \CIV\ \singlet 1107.6.

258: 

259: \subsection{The Central Star Model}\label{sec:wd}

260: 

261: To model the white dwarf central star, we used the \tlusty\ code to

262: calculate the stellar atmosphere, and \synspec\ to calculate the

263: synthetic flux \citep{hubeny:88, hubeny:92, hubeny:94, hubeny:95}.  \tlusty\

264: calculates the atmospheric structure assuming radiative and

265: hydrostatic equilibrium, and a plane-parallel geometry, in

266: non-LTE (NLTE) conditions.  In the case of hot (\Teff

267: $\gtrsim$ 50~kK) white dwarfs, LTE calculations are not appropriate,

268: and result in significant deviations from NLTE calculations

269: (see, \eg, \citealp{dreizler:96, werner:96, werner:91,

270: napiwotzki:97}). This is because in such hot objects, the populations of

271: the ions are mainly determined by the intense radiation field despite

272: the high gravities. 

273: 

274: The FUSE spectrum shows features of hydrogen, helium, and metals (\eg,

275: C, O, Fe, and S), with \OVI\ \doublet 1032,38 being especially

276: prominent.  Test models indicated that the solar abundance ratio for

277: H/He (as found by \citealp{mendez:85}) was adequate.  We thus

278: constructed a grid of solar abundance models varying \Teff\ and \logg,

279: treating hydrogen and helium in NLTE to calculate the structure of the

280: atmosphere.  Once \Teff\ and \logg\ were determined adequately, they

281: were held fixed, and the CNO elements were varied

282: individually in NLTE to constrain their abundances and ensure that

283: neglect of their NLTE treatment did not alter the derived \Teff\ and

284: \logg.

285: 

286: The atomic data used come from TOPBASE, the data-base of the Opacity

287: Project \citep{cunto:93}.  \tlusty\ makes use of the concept of

288: ``superlevels'', where levels of similar energy are grouped together

289: and treated as a single level in the rate equations (after

290: \citealp{anderson:89}).  The number of levels+superlevels used for the

291: NLTE model ions were: \HI(8+1), \HeI (24+0), \HeII (20+0), \CIII (34+12),

292: \CIV (35+2), \NIV(15+8), \NV(21+4), \OIV (39+31), \OV (34+6), and \OVI

293: (15+5).  Ne, Na, Mg, Si, S, Ar, Ca, and Fe were allowed to contribute

294: to the total number of particles and charge but their opacity

295: contribution was neglected in the model atmosphere calculation.  We

296: have adopted \synspec's values for solar abundances, which are taken

297: from \citet{grevesse:98}.

298: 

299: As previously mentioned, a solar hydrogen to helium ratio appeared

300: adequate to fit the \HeII\ and H Lyman spectrum.

301: The gravity was constrained by fitting mainly the wings of these features, as

302: demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:logg}.  To determine the effective

303: temperature, the FUV-UV continuum shape, as well as FUV spectral

304: features of hydrogen, helium and metals (mainly oxygen and carbon)

305: were used as diagnostics.  The parameters of our ``best'' fit model for the

306: CSPN of \star\ are: $\Teff=120\pm10$~kK,

307: $\logg=6.7^{+0.3}_{-0.7}$~\gunit.  Solar values for the metal

308: abundances were found to be adequate, except for oxygen, for which the

309: solar value underproduced the strong \OVI\ \doublet 1032,38 feature

310: (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:OVI}).  We found that an oxygen abundance enriched

311: 5 times with respect to the solar value ($\XO = 5 \Xsun$ by mass)

312: produced a good fit, however some of the other oxygen features then

313: appeared a bit strong.  For temperatures $\Teff \simeq 100-120~$~kK,

314: the \OVI\ feature is at its strongest, thus higher or lower

315: temperatures require an even greater oxygen enrichment.

316: Unless otherwise stated, the model spectrum shown in the

317: figures and what we refer to as ``our model'' has the parameters

318: $\Teff=120$~kK, $\logg = 6.7$~\gunit, $\XO=5\Xsun$, with the

319: abundances of all other elements set to their solar values.

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: \subsection{Modeling \Htwo\ and \HI\ absorption toward \star}\label{sec:htwo}

324: 

325: The FUSE spectrum of \star\ (Fig.~\ref{fig:fuv}) displays a series of 

326: absorption features corresponding to the hydrogen Lyman sequence.  The

327: cores of these features are attributable to absorption from sight-line

328: hydrogen.  These cores are velocity shifted with respect to the

329: broader, stellar Lyman absorption features by $\simeq 100$~\kms, which

330: corresponds to our measured radial velocity for the CSPN lines.

331: Thus these features are interstellar in origin (rather than

332: circumstellar).

333: 

334: The effects of \HI\ absorption were applied to the model

335: spectrum in the following manner.  For a given column density ($N$)

336: and gas temperature ($T$), the absorption profile of each line is

337: calculated by multiplying the line core optical depth ($\tau_0$) by

338: the Voigt profile $[H(a,x)]$ where $x$ is the frequency in Doppler

339: units and $a$ is the ratio of the line damping constant to the Doppler

340: width (the ``b'' parameter).  The observed flux is then $F_{obs} =

341:  \exp{[-\tau_{0}H(a,x)]} \times F_{intrinsic}$.

342: 

343: Because the \HI\ column density determination is insensitive to

344: temperature, we determine $N(\HI)$ by assuming $T(\HI)=80$~K

345: (corresponding to the mean temperature of the ISM ---

346: \citealp{hughes:71}) and $\vturb = 10$~\kms\ and fitting the Lyman

347: profiles of the FUSE data.  Doing so, we derive

348: $\log{N(\HI)}=20.3^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$~cm$^{-2}$.

349: 

350: The FUSE spectrum also shows some weak absorption features from

351: intervening molecular hydrogen, which originate from the Lyman ($B^1

352: \Sigma^+_u$--$X^1 \Sigma^+_g$) and Werner ($C^1 \Pi^{\pm}_u$--$X^1

353: \Sigma^+_g$) sequences (these are marked in Fig.~\ref{fig:fuv}).  We

354: applied the effects of different \Htwo\ models in a similar manner as

355: the \HI, again assuming a gas temperature of 80~K.  We derive a

356: relatively small column density of

357: $\log{N(\Htwo)}=14.9\pm0.2$~cm$^{-2}$.  The low column density is

358: probably a consequence of the high galactic latitude of \star, and is

359: consistent with our determination of $\EBMV < 0.01$~mag, based on

360: typical relations between \EBMV\ and \Htwo\ column densities in the

361: ISM found by \citet{bohlin:78}.

362: 

363: Our stellar model spectrum, with hydrogen absorptions corresponding

364: to $\log{N(\HI)}=20.3$~cm$^{-2}$ and

365: $\log{N(\Htwo)}=14.9$~cm$^{-2}$ applied, is shown in

366: Fig.~\ref{fig:fuv}.

367: 

368: \section{DISCUSSION}\label{sec:discussion}

369: 

370: 

371: Our derived model parameters for the central star and sight-line

372: hydrogen are presented in Table~\ref{tab:wd_param}.  Scaling our model

373: flux to the observed flux yields $\Rstar/D$, the ratio of the stellar

374: radius to the distance.  This value, using a distance of $D=800$~pc

375: \citep{ishida:87}, yields a radius of $\Rstar \simeq 0.037$~\Rsun\ and

376: a corresponding luminosity of $L \simeq 250$~\Lsun.  The model flux

377: then yields a corresponding visual magnitude of $V = 15.5$~mag, in

378: good agreement with the measured value of $V = 15.4$~mag

379: \citep{kaler:85}.  Because we can only constrain the gravity rather

380: loosely, we cannot derive a meaningful value for the mass of the

381: central star without appealing to stellar evolution tracks.  As

382: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:wd}, the \OVI\ doublet may indicate an oxygen

383: enriched atmosphere.  Usually, in CSPN, oxygen enrichment is associated

384: with helium-rich objects (\ie, helium-burners), and is often

385: accompanied by carbon-enrichment.  However, the abundances of the

386: other elements in \star\ do not appear to be much different than the

387: solar values, which is characteristic of many H-burning CSPN.

388: Therefore, we compared our derived effective temperature and

389: luminosity with both the hydrogen- and helium-burning (solar abundance)

390: tracks of \citet{vassiliadis:94}.  The H-burning tracks indicate a

391: current core mass of $M_c = 0.633$~\Msun, and an initial mass of 2.0~\Msun,

392: with the uncertainties of our parameters encompassing the

393: (\Minit,$M_c$) = (1.5,0.597) and (2.5,0.677) tracks as well.  So, from

394: the H-burning evolutionary models, we derive (\Minit,$M_c$) =

395: ($2.0\pm0.5$,$0.63\pm0.04$)~\Msun\ and a post-AGB age

396: $\tau_{evol}\sim$60~kyr.  In a similar fashion, we derive

397: (\Minit,$M_c$) = ($1.5\pm0.5$,$0.60\pm0.04$)~\Msun,

398: $\tau_{evol}\sim$70~kyr from comparison with the He-burning tracks.

399: 

400: The derived stellar parameters of \star\ are similar to those of the

401: hotter, higher-gravity O(H) stars in the sample of central stars for

402: old PN classified by \citet{napiwotzki:99}.  Thus, we confirm the

403: \citet{mendez:85} classification of \star\ as a hgO(H) star.

404: 

405: \citet{mendez:85} performed a non-LTE analysis of its optical spectrum

406: and obtained $\Teff = 65\pm10$~kK, $\logg = 5.7\pm0.3$~\gunit, and

407: $y=0.10\pm0.03$ for the central star.  We have calculated a TLUSTY

408: model with these parameters and find it fails to match the FUV data

409: for multiple reasons.  When this model is scaled to match the UV

410: continuum level, it significantly underproduces the FUV continuum

411: level.  It also fails to duplicate many of the FUV diagnostics, most

412: notably the strong \OVI\ \doublet 1032,38 feature.  Similarly,

413: \citet{hoare:96}, from an analysis of the optical and extreme

414: ultraviolet spectra of the CSPN NGC~1360, found a temperature

415: significantly higher than the results of \citet{mendez:85}, which were

416: based on optical data only.  Our significantly higher derived

417: temperature and gravity illustrate the importance of considering the

418: FUV wavelength regime when modeling such hot CSPN, where they emit the

419: majority of their observable flux (\ie, longwards of the Lyman limit)

420: as well as display their strongest stellar features.

421: 

422: \section{CONCLUSIONS}\label{sec:conclusions}

423: 

424: We have analyzed FUV and UV spectra of \star, a hot CSPN notable for

425: its relatively high galactic latitude and thus having a minimal reddening.

426: Its FUSE spectrum, aside from showing hydrogen and helium lines, shows

427: strong \OVI\ \doublet 1032,38 signatures, perhaps indicating an

428: oxygen-enriched object.  

429: 

430: We have modeled the FUSE and IUE spectrum of this object to determine

431: parameters of $\Teff = 120$~kK, $\logg = 6.7$~\gunit, $\Rstar =

432: 0.04$~\Rsun, $L = 250$~\Lsun, and $M \simeq 0.6$~\Msun.  The

433: temperature is much higher than that derived by \citet{mendez:85} from

434: an optical-line analysis ($\Teff = 65\pm10$~kK), and illustrates the

435: importance of the FUV-UV range in the analysis of hot CSPN.  These

436: parameters confirm the \citet{mendez:85} classification of \star\ as a

437: high-gravity O(H) star.  Comparison of our parameters to evolutionary

438: tracks indicate a post-AGB age of $\sim 65$~kyr.  We also measure

439: $\vrad \simeq 100$~\kms\ for the \star\ PN system.

440: 

441: 

442: \acknowledgements 

443: 

444: We thank Terry Lanz and Ivan Hubeny for their help with the \tlusty\

445: code.  We thank Stephan McCandliss for making his \Htwo\ molecular

446: data and tools available.  We also are grateful to the referee, Klaus

447: Werner, for his constructive comments.  The SIMBAD database was used

448: for literature searches.  This work has been funded by NASA grant NAG

449: 5-9219 (NRA-99-01-LTSA-029).  The IUE data presented in this paper

450: were obtained from the Multimission Archive (MAST) at the Space

451: Telescope Science Institute (STScI). STScI is operated by the

452: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under

453: NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is

454: provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and

455: by other grants and contracts.

456: 

457: %--------------------bibliography---------------------------------------

458: 

459: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

460: %\bibliography{astro_refs}

461: 

462: \begin{thebibliography}{27}

463: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

464: 

465: \bibitem[{Anderson(1989)}]{anderson:89}

466: Anderson, L.~S. 1989, \apj, 339, 588

467: 

468: \bibitem[{Bohlin {et~al.}(1978)Bohlin, Savage, \& Drake}]{bohlin:78}

469: Bohlin, R.~C., Savage, B.~D., \& Drake, J.~F. 1978, \apj, 224, 132

470: 

471: \bibitem[{Cahn {et~al.}(1992)Cahn, Kaler, \& Stanghellini}]{cahn:92}

472: Cahn, J.~H., Kaler, J.~B., \& Stanghellini, L. 1992, \aaps, 94, 399

473: 

474: \bibitem[{Cunto {et~al.}(1993)Cunto, Mendoza, Ochsenbein, \&

475:   Zeippen}]{cunto:93}

476: Cunto, W., Mendoza, C., Ochsenbein, F., \& Zeippen, C.~J. 1993, \aap, 275, 5

477: 

478: \bibitem[{Dreizler \& Werner(1996)}]{dreizler:96}

479: Dreizler, S. \& Werner, K. 1996, \aap, 314, 217

480: 

481: \bibitem[{Grevesse \& Sauval(1998)}]{grevesse:98}

482: Grevesse, N. \& Sauval, A.~J. 1998, \ssr, 85, 161

483: 

484: \bibitem[{Hoare {et~al.}(1996)Hoare, Drake, Werner, \& Dreizler}]{hoare:96}

485: Hoare, M.~G., Drake, J.~J., Werner, K., \& Dreizler, S. 1996, \mnras, 283, 830

486: 

487: \bibitem[{Hubeny(1988)}]{hubeny:88}

488: Hubeny, I. 1988, Comput. Phys. Comm., 52, 103

489: 

490: \bibitem[{Hubeny {et~al.}(1994)Hubeny, Hummer, \& Lanz}]{hubeny:94}

491: Hubeny, I., Hummer, D.~G., \& Lanz, T. 1994, \aap, 282, 157

492: 

493: \bibitem[{Hubeny \& Lanz(1992)}]{hubeny:92}

494: Hubeny, I. \& Lanz, T. 1992, \aap, 262, 501

495: 

496: \bibitem[{Hubeny \& Lanz(1995)}]{hubeny:95}

497: ---. 1995, \apj, 493, 875

498: 

499: \bibitem[{Hughes {et~al.}(1971)Hughes, Thompson, \& Colvin}]{hughes:71}

500: Hughes, M.~P., Thompson, A.~R., \& Colvin, R.~S. 1971, \apjs, 23, 323

501: 

502: \bibitem[{Ishida \& Weinberger(1987)}]{ishida:87}

503: Ishida, K. \& Weinberger, R. 1987, \aap, 178, 227

504: 

505: \bibitem[{Kaler \& Feibelman(1985)}]{kaler:85b}

506: Kaler, J.~B. \& Feibelman, W.~A. 1985, \apj, 297, 724

507: 

508: \bibitem[{Kaler \& Lutz(1985)}]{kaler:85}

509: Kaler, J.~B. \& Lutz, J.~H. 1985, \pasp, 97, 700

510: 

511: \bibitem[{Kohoutek \& Laustsen(1977)}]{kohoutek:77}

512: Kohoutek, L. \& Laustsen, S. 1977, \aap, 61, 761

513: 

514: \bibitem[{Longmore(1977)}]{longmore:77}

515: Longmore, A.~J. 1977, \mnras, 178, 251

516: 

517: \bibitem[{M\`{e}ndez {et~al.}(1985)M\`{e}ndez, Kudritzki, \& Simon}]{mendez:85}

518: M\`{e}ndez, R.~H., Kudritzki, R.~P., \& Simon, K.~P. 1985, \aap, 142, 289

519: 

520: \bibitem[{Moos {et~al.}(2000)Moos, Cash, \& Cowie}]{moos:00}

521: Moos, H.~W., Cash, W.~C., \& Cowie, L.~L. 2000, \apj, 538, 1

522: 

523: \bibitem[{Napiwotzki(1997)}]{napiwotzki:97}

524: Napiwotzki, R. 1997, \aap, 322, 256

525: 

526: \bibitem[{Napiwotzki(1999)}]{napiwotzki:99}

527: ---. 1999, \aap, 350, 101

528: 

529: \bibitem[{Patriarchi \& Perinotto(1991)}]{patriarchi:91}

530: Patriarchi, P. \& Perinotto, M. 1991, \aaps, 91, 325

531: 

532: \bibitem[{Sahnow {et~al.}(2000)Sahnow, Moos, \& Ake}]{sahnow:00}

533: Sahnow, D.~J., Moos, M.~W., \& Ake, T.~B. 2000, \apj, 538, 7

534: 

535: \bibitem[{Vassiliadis \& Wood(1994)}]{vassiliadis:94}

536: Vassiliadis, E. \& Wood, P.~R. 1994, \apj, 92, 125

537: 

538: \bibitem[{Werner(1996)}]{werner:96}

539: Werner, K. 1996, \aap, 309, 861

540: 

541: \bibitem[{Werner {et~al.}(1991)Werner, Heber, \& Hunger}]{werner:91}

542: Werner, K., Heber, U., \& Hunger, K. 1991, \aap, 244, 437

543: 

544: \bibitem[{West \& Kohoutek(1985)}]{west:85}

545: West, R.~M. \& Kohoutek, L. 1985, \apjs, 60, 91

546: 

547: \end{thebibliography}

548: 

549: \newpage

550: %---------------------figures-------------------------------------------

551: 

552: \begin{figure}[htbp]

553: \begin{center}

554: \epsscale{0.70}

555: \rotatebox{0}{\plotone{fg1.eps}}

556: \caption{FUV: The FUSE spectrum of \star\ is shown (black) along with

557:   our stellar model (described in \S~\ref{sec:wd}), both with (green/light gray) and without

558:   (red/dark gray) our hydrogen absorption model applied.  Prominent

559:   stellar features are marked with black labels, interstellar

560:   absorption features and airglow lines with red/gray labels. The

561:   Lyman features consist of a broader, stellar component, and a

562:   narrower, interstellar component, separated by $\simeq 100$~\kms\ in

563:   velocity space (the \Lyb\ emission is airglow).  All spectra have been

564:   convolved with a Gaussian of 0.25~\AA\ for clarity.  Virtually all

565:   the stellar and hydrogen features are well-matched -- most

566:   non-matched features are of interstellar origin.}

567: \label{fig:fuv}

568: \end{center}

569: \end{figure}

570: 

571: \clearpage

572: 

573: \begin{figure}[htbp]

574: \begin{center}

575: \epsscale{.3}

576: \rotatebox{270}{\plotone{fg2.eps}}

577: \caption{FUV-UV (FUSE and IUE) spectra of \star\ are shown (black)

578:   along with our stellar models (red/dark gray) with our

579:   hydrogen absorption model applied (convolved with a 3~\AA\ Gaussian).

580:   The model, with no reddening applied, does a good job

581:   at matching the observed flux distribution.

582:   }

583: \label{fig:uv}

584: \end{center}

585: \end{figure}

586: 

587: \clearpage

588: 

589: 

590: \begin{figure}[htbp]

591: \begin{center}

592: \epsscale{.3}

593: \rotatebox{270}{\plotone{fg3.eps}}

594: \caption{Constraining the gravity: A portion of the FUSE spectrum is

595:   shown (black), along with our stellar model ($\Teff = 120$~kK) with

596:   $\logg=6.0$~\gunit\ (dashed red/dark gray) and $\logg=7.0$~\gunit\ (green/light

597:   gray).  Based on the wings of the \Lyd, \Lyg, and the \HeII\

598:   features, the gravity lies between these two values.  We derive

599:   $\logg = 6.7^{+0.3}_{-0.7}$~\gunit. }

600: \label{fig:logg}

601: \end{center}

602: \end{figure}

603: 

604: \clearpage

605: 

606: \begin{figure}[htbp]

607: \begin{center}

608: \epsscale{.5}

609: \rotatebox{270}{\plotone{fg4.eps}}

610: \caption{Constraining the oxygen abundance: The FUSE spectrum in the

611:   region of \OVI\ \doublet 1032,38 (black) is shown, along with a

612:   stellar model with solar oxygen abundance (dashed red/dark gray) and

613:   a model with oxygen enriched 10 times with respect to the solar

614:   value (green/light gray).  The former underproduces the \OVI\

615:   doublet, while the latter overproduces the feature.  Our final

616:   model, with an oxygen abundance of 5 times the solar value, fits the

617:   the \OVI\ doublet well (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fuv}).  }

618: \label{fig:OVI}

619: \end{center}

620: \end{figure}

621: 

622: \clearpage

623: 

624: %---------------------tables--------------------------------------------

625: 

626: \newpage

627: \input{tb1}

628: \newpage

629: \input{tb2}

630: \newpage

631: \input{tb3} 

632: 

633: 

634: \end{document}

635: 

636: 

637: