1: \documentclass{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Dwarf Novae with Newly Determined Parallaxes:
6: Model Analyses of VY Aquari, RU Pegasi, and T Leonis}
7:
8: \author{R.T. Hamilton and E.M. Sion }
9: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
10: Villanova University,
11: Villanova, PA 19085,
12: e-mail: ryan.hamilton@villanova.edu,
13: edward.sion@villanova.edu}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16:
17: Using newly determined parallaxes for dwarf novae, we have derived
18: outburst accretion rates for VY Aqr, RU Peg and T Leo and for T Leo during
19: quiescence. The two short-period dwarf novae, VY Aqr and T Leo, show good
20: agreement with optically thick steady-state accretion disks in outburst,
21: whereas RU Peg shows a significant departure from a steady-state disk.
22: We have determined that the white dwarf in T Leo has T$_{eff} = 16,000 \pm
23: 1000$ K, a value consistent with long term compressional heating when
24: gravitational wave emission drives mass transfer. The white dwarf in T Leo
25: has a temperature in the same narrow range as other WZ Sge-like dwarf
26: novae.
27:
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \keywords { stars: dwarf novae -- cataclysmic variables -- stars:
31: individual (VY Aqr, RU Peg, T Leo) }
32:
33: \section{Introduction}
34:
35: Distances from accurate parallaxes for cataclysmic variables are
36: critically important to model-fitting determinations of the mass accretion
37: rates, accreting white dwarf temperatures, and the identification of the
38: source of far UV (FUV) continuum during quiescence and outburst states.
39: Recently, Thorstensen (2003) and Harrison et al. (2004) have presented new
40: parallaxes for dwarf novae from ground-based and {\it Hubble} Fine
41: Guidance Sensor (FGS) determinations respectively. These parallaxes offer
42: the opportunity to more accurately analyze the {\it IUE} archival spectra
43: of dwarf novae during outburst and quiescence. By knowing the distance,
44: model-derived accretion rates and white dwarf properties are known more
45: reliably. Only with good distances can it be known what fraction of the
46: FUV flux is being contributed by what radiating component, be it the white
47: dwarf, the boundary layer or the accretion disk. We have selected three
48: dwarf novae systems with recently measured parallaxes: VY Aquari, an SU
49: UMa system below the period gap; RU Peg, a U Gem system above the period
50: gap; and T Leo, an SU UMa system below the period gap. A summary of these
51: systems and their associated properties can be found in Table 1.
52:
53: \section{The IUE Archival Observations}
54:
55: All three systems were observed with {\it IUE} and have usable spectra
56: taken with the Short Wavelength Prime (SWP) camera covering the wavelength
57: region from 1170 - 2000 \AA. We obtained the spectra through the MAST
58: {\it IUE} archive, and then applied the Massa \& Fitzpatrick (2000) flux
59: calibrations to correct the NEWSIPS data. For VY Aquari, a characteristic
60: outburst spectrum, whose time placement is shown in the AFOEV light curve
61: in Figure 1, was chosen for analysis. The quiescent state of VY Aqr has
62: already been analyzed by Sion et al. (2003) using {\it HST} STIS spectra.
63: For the analysis of RU Peg, we chose two usable outburst spectra in the
64: MAST {\it IUE} archive: one near the peak of outburst (SWP15062), and one
65: occurring on the decline from an outburst (SWP15079) as seen in the AAVSO
66: lightcurve in Figure 2. Quiescent {\it IUE} spectra of RU Peg has already
67: been analyzed by Sion \& Urban (2002). The {\it IUE} spectra of T Leo
68: covers both the outburst and quiescent states, with outburst spectra
69: having been previously analyzed by Belle et al. (1998) and the quiescent
70: spectra available having no previous model analysis. We present a new
71: analysis of T Leo's outburst spectrum utilizing an updated grid of
72: steady-state accretion disk models and white dwarf photospheres. The time
73: placement of the outburst and quiescent spectra chosen for our analysis of
74: T Leo are shown in the AAVSO lightcurve in Figure 3. The outburst
75: spectrum is seen to occur just after peak outburst, and the quiescent
76: spectrum shown just after the return to optical quiescence.
77:
78: A summary of the {\it IUE} spectra can be found in Table 2. We have
79: listed the system name, SWP image number of the specific observation,
80: date, and exposure length. All were obtained through the large aperture
81: of {\it IUE} with the exception of SWP21720 as indicated in the table.
82:
83: \section{Synthetic Spectral Fitting Technique}
84:
85: We pursued three avenues in modeling the observations with synthetic
86: spectra: an accretion disk model alone, a single white dwarf photosphere,
87: or a combination of the two.
88:
89: For the accretion disks, we adopted models from Wade \& Hubeny (1998).
90: Using {\it IUEFIT}, a $\chi^{2}$ minimization routine, the model disk was
91: scaled and fit to the spectrum. The fitting scale factor can then be
92: shown to be related to the white dwarf distance in pc though
93: $d=100/\sqrt{(S)}$ where {\it S} is the scale factor given by the {\it
94: IUEFIT} routine, {\it d} is the system distance in pc, and the factor of
95: 100 arises from the fact that the theoretical disk fluxes are normalized
96: to a distance of 100 pc. Using this approach we have two parameters in
97: determining the goodness of a fit: a minimum $\chi^{2}$ and a scale-factor
98: distance to compare with the parallax distance.
99:
100: For single photospheres, we used the codes {\it TLUSTY} (Hubeny 1988) in
101: conjunction with {\it SYNSPEC} with {\it ROTIN3} (Hubeny \& Lanz 1995) to
102: generate synthetic photosphere spectra convolved with the {\it IUE}
103: instrumental profile. We generated a new grid of solar abundance models,
104: covering a range of temperatures from 15,000 - 50,000 K in increments of
105: 1000 K with $\log(g)$ ranging from 7.0 to 8.6 in increments of 0.2. This
106: grid of models was then applied to the observations using {\it IUEFIT}.
107: The scale factor {\it S} for the photosphere fits is related to the radius
108: of the white dwarf given by $R_{wd}=(\frac{d}{1000})\sqrt{(S)}R_{\sun}$,
109: where $R_{\sun}$ is the radius of the Sun ($6.96\times 10^{10}$ cm), {\it
110: d} is the known system distance in pc, and the factor of 1000 arises from
111: the fact that the theoretical photosphere fluxes are normalized to a
112: distance of 1000 pc. This again gives two parameters for determining the
113: goodness of the fit, $\chi^{2}$ and the white dwarf radius computed using
114: the parallax distance.
115:
116: The best fitting accretion disk and photosphere models were also combined
117: in an attempt to achieve a better fit. We used our code {\it DISKFIT},
118: which allows us to vary the accretion rate linearly between 0.1 and 10.
119: This effectively alters the contribution of the disk to the observed flux,
120: giving the underlying white dwarf a greater or lesser flux contribution
121: depending on the ratio. The fitting routine computes a scale factor that
122: is related to the system distance as given by $d=100/\sqrt{(S)}$ with
123: distance given in pc.
124:
125: \section{Model Fitting Results}
126:
127: \subsection{VY Aquari in Outburst}
128:
129: For VY Aquari, the best fitting optically thick steady-state accretion
130: disk model yields an accretion rate of $10^{-9}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$.
131: This compares to the prediction of a time averaged accretion rate of
132: approximately $5\times 10^{-10}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ for OY Car, an SU
133: UMa system with an orbital period very similar to that of VY Aqr, given by
134: Patterson (1984).
135:
136: The white dwarf mass and disk inclination used in this best fit (shown in
137: Figure 4) are $0.55$ M$_{\sun}$ and 41\degr\ respectively, giving a
138: scale-factor distance of 93 pc. This is in very good agreement with the
139: parallax distance of $97 \pm 13$ pc obtained by Thorstensen (2003). Notice
140: that this best fit agrees well with the observations, and does not show
141: any significant deviations from a steady-state disk longward of 1600 \AA.
142:
143: Note that in the case of VY Aqr, no previous mass determinations existed
144: and the inclination was uncertain. In our fitting therefore, we examined
145: the widest range of $M_{wd}$ and the inclination i. Since the
146: goodness-of-fit is sensitive to both $M_{wd}$ and i, it is most helpful to
147: know or constrain one of the two parameters. The fits are based upon both
148: the continuum slope and Lyman Alpha wings. However, an important
149: additional clue was provided by the depth of the Lyman alpha profile
150: before it is reversed by the geocoronal emission. This allowed us to rule
151: out three models having different M$_{wd}$ giving an acceptable distance and
152: $\chi^{2}$ values close to the best-fitting one.
153:
154: \subsection{RU Peg in Outburst}
155:
156: For RU Peg, our best fitting steady-state optically thick disk model
157: yields an accretion rate of $10^{-9}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ with a white
158: dwarf mass of 1.21 M$_{\sun}$ and an inclination of 41\degr\ (shown in
159: Figure 5). This accretion rate is within a factor of 10 lower than that
160: of Patterson (1984). The resulting scale factor distance of 278 pc gives
161: excellent agreement with the parallax distance of $282 \pm 20$ pc by
162: Harrison et al. (2004). However, there is a significant deviation from a
163: steady-state disk flux distribution in the observed spectrum longward of
164: 1600 \AA\ that could not be accounted for by a single disk, white dwarf
165: photosphere, or combination of the two. The poor agreement between the
166: accretion disk models and the outburst spectrum also occurred for the
167: fitting of the outburst spectrum (SWP15062) obtained two days closer to
168: peak outburst.
169:
170: \subsection{T Leo in Outburst}
171:
172: For T Leo in outburst, we found that the spectrum is best fit by a
173: steady-state optically thick disk with an accretion rate of $10^{-8}$
174: M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$, a white dwarf mass of 0.35 M$_{\sun}$, and an
175: inclination of 60\degr\ (shown in Figure 6). The resulting scale factor
176: distance of 113 pc is close to the parallax distance of $101 \pm 12$ pc by
177: Thorstensen (2003). It is interesting that the steady-state disk fit to T
178: Leo, like the fit to VY Aqr, shows good agreement with the observations.
179: There is no significant deviation from a steady-state flux distribution as
180: is seen in RU Peg.
181:
182: \subsection{ T Leo in Quiescence}
183:
184: For T Leo in quiescence, we found that the spectrum is not best fit by
185: either a single disk or white dwarf photosphere but by a combination of
186: the two. Using the mass and inclination obtained from the best fit to the
187: outburst spectrum, we found that the quiescent spectrum is best fit by the
188: combination of a white dwarf with T$_{eff}$ of 16,000 K and $\log(g)$ of
189: 7.5, an accretion disk with a white dwarf mass of 0.35 M$_{\sun}$, an
190: inclination of 60\degr\, and a combined accretion rate of $6\times
191: 10^{-11}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$. We estimate the error in our temperature
192: determination to be 1000 K. This accretion rate is within a factor of 10
193: of Patterson's (1984) time averaged rate of $10^{-11}$ M$_{\sun}$
194: yr$^{-1}$. The best fit (shown in Figure 7) also gives a scale-factor
195: distance of 101 pc, again in excellent agreement with the parallax
196: distance of $101 \pm 12$ pc by Thorstensen (2003). Our finding that the
197: white dwarf dominates the flux in the FUV wavelength range during
198: quiescence is consistent with the fact in the short period, large outburst
199: amplitude long recurrence time dwarf novae such as WZ Sge or AL Com during
200: quiescence, the accretion disk is not expected to be the major contributor
201: to the flux (Szkody et al. 2002).
202:
203: \section{Conclusions}
204:
205: We have derived accretion rates for 3 dwarf novae in outburst, and have
206: provided the first temperature determination of the white dwarf in T Leo
207: derived from the analysis of its quiescent {\it IUE} spectrum. For the
208: best accretion disk fits to the outburst spectra of VY Aquari and T Leo, a
209: steady-state optically thick accretion disk represents the observed FUV
210: energy distribution very well with no significant deviations. For RU Peg
211: in outburst, however, there is a large deviation from the observation
212: longward of 1600 \AA. This implies an additional radiating component
213: (secondary star or hot spot?) or that the temperature distribution, T(r),
214: in the disk differs from the steady-state T(r).
215:
216: The relatively low signal-to-noise of the IUE spectra introduces
217: considerable uncertainty in the accretion rates we have derived. By
218: comparison with the comparable quality IUE spectra of EM Cygni and CZ Ori
219: which were analyzed by Winter and Sion (2003) with a formal error
220: analysis, we estimate uncertainties in the accretion rates Log \.{M} of
221: $\pm 0.3$ for the three outburst spectra in this paper while for T Leo's
222: fainter spectrum in quiescence, we estimate a $\pm 0.5$ uncertainty in Log
223: \.{M}.
224:
225: The temperature of the white dwarf in T Leo is consistent with the
226: predicted range of temperature expected from long term compressional
227: heating at a rate of mass transfer driven by gravitational wave emission
228: as shown by Sion et al. (2003) and Townsley and Bildsten (2002). As seen
229: in Table 3, the effective temperature of the T Leo white dwarf agrees with
230: the white dwarf effective temperatures in dwarf novae with similar orbital
231: periods. Recently, Vrielmann et al. (2004) provided evidence from T Leo's
232: XMM-Newton X-ray light curve that it might contain a magnetic white dwarf
233: and hence be the first superoutbursting intermediate polar (IP). They
234: found a 414s signal which could be due to the rotation of the white dwarf.
235: However, it is also possible this signal could be an ordinary QPO. If T
236: Leo is an IP, our temperature for the white dwarf is one of only three
237: white dwarf temperatures known in intermediate polars.
238:
239: \acknowledgements
240:
241: We thank the many observers at AAVSO and AFOEV. We acknowledge support of
242: this research by NSF Grant AST99-01955 and NASA ADP Grant NNG04GE78G, and
243: also support by the Delaware Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
244: (NASA Grant NGT5-40024).
245:
246: \begin{thebibliography}{}
247: \bibitem[Augusteijn (1994)]{Aug1994}
248: Augusteijn, T., 1994, A\&A, 292, 481
249:
250: \bibitem[Belle et al. (1998)]{Belle1998}
251: Belle, K., Nguyen, Q., Fabian, D., Sion, E.M., Huang, M., 1998, PASP, 110, 47
252:
253: \bibitem[Downes \& Shara (1993)]{DS1993}
254: Downes, R., \& Shara, M., 1993, PASP, 105, 127
255:
256: \bibitem[Harrison et al. (2004)]{Harrison2004}
257: Harrison, T., Johnson, J., McArthur, B., Benedict, G., Szkody, P., Howell, S., Gelino, D., 2004, AJ, 127, 460
258:
259: \bibitem[Hubeny (1998)]{Hubeny1998}
260: Hubeny, I., 1988, Comput. Phys. Commun., 52, 103
261:
262: \bibitem[Hubeny \& Lanz (1995)]{HubenyLanz1995}
263: Hubeny, I., \& Lanz, T., 1995, ApJ, 439, 875
264:
265: \bibitem[Massa \& Fitzpatrick (2000)]{MassaFitz2000}
266: Massa, F., \& Fitzpatrick, E., 2000, ApJS, 126, 517
267:
268: \bibitem[Patterson (1984)]{Patterson1984}
269: Patterson, J., 1984, ApJS, 54, 433
270:
271: \bibitem[Ritter \& Kolb (2003)]{Ritter2003}
272: Ritter, H., \& Kolb, U., 2003, A\&A, 404, 301
273:
274: \bibitem[Shafter (1984)]{Shafter1984}
275: Shafter, A., 1984, Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA
276:
277: \bibitem[Shafter \& Szkody (1984)]{ShafterSzkody1984}
278: Shafter, A., \& Szkody, P., 1984, ApJ, 276, 305
279:
280: \bibitem[Sion et al. (2003)]{Sion2003}
281: Sion, E.M., Szkody, P., Cheng, F., Gänsicke, B., Howell, S, 2003, ApJ, 583, 907
282:
283: \bibitem[Sion \& Urban (2002)]{SionUrban2002}
284: Sion, E.M., \& Urban, J., 2002, ApJ, 572, 456
285:
286: \bibitem[Stover (1981)]{Stover1981}
287: Stover, R., 1981, ApJ, 249, 673
288:
289: \bibitem[Szkody et al. (2002)]{Szkody2002}
290: Szkody, P., Sion, E., Gänsicke, B., Howell, S., 2002, ASP Conf. Ser. 261, ed. B. Gänsicke, K. Beuermann, \& K. Reinsch (San Francisco: ASP), 21
291:
292: \bibitem[Thorstensen \& Taylor (1997)]{ThorstensenTaylor1997}
293: Thorstensen, J., \& Taylor, C., 1997, PASP, 109, 1359
294:
295: \bibitem[Thorstensen (2003)]{Thorstensen2003}
296: Thorstensen, J., 2003, AJ, 126, 3017
297:
298: \bibitem[Townsley \& Bildsten (2002)]{TownsleyBildsten2002}
299: Townsley, D., \& Bildsten, L., 2002, ASP Conf. Ser. 261, ed. B. Gänsicke, K. Beuermann, \& K. Reinsch (San Francisco: ASP), 31
300:
301: \bibitem[Vrielmann et al. (2004)]{Vrielmann2004}
302: Vrielmann, S., Ness, J.-U., Schmitt, J.H.M.M. 2004, A\&A, 419, 673
303:
304: \bibitem[Wade \& Hubeny (1998)]{WadeHubeny1998}
305: Wade, R., \& Hubeny, I. 1998, ApJ, 509, 350
306:
307: \end{thebibliography}
308:
309: %% Figures %%
310:
311: \clearpage
312:
313: \begin{figure}
314: \plotone{fg1.eps}
315: \caption{The AFOEV lightcurve of VY Aqr around the time
316: of the {\it IUE} observation shown, SWP21720. Points marked by an inverted triangle are
317: upper limit estimates, whereas the solid points are photometric measurements. Note the
318: large outburst amplitude ($\sim 5$ mag. ) characteristic of WZ Sge-like
319: systems.\label{fig01}}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322: \clearpage
323:
324: \begin{figure}
325: \plotone{fg2.eps}
326: \caption{The AAVSO lightcurve of RU Peg around the time
327: of the {\it IUE} observation shown, SWP15079. Points marked by an inverted triangle are
328: upper limit estimates, whereas the solid points are photometric measurements.\label{fig02}}
329: \end{figure}
330:
331: \clearpage
332:
333: \begin{figure}
334: \plotone{fg3.eps}
335: \caption{The AAVSO lightcurve of T Leo around the time
336: of the {\it IUE} observations shown, SWP33642 during outburst and SWP33699 during
337: quiescence. Points marked by an inverted triangle are upper limit estimates, whereas the
338: solid points are photometric measurements. Again note the large outburst amplitude
339: ($\sim5$ mag) typical of WZ Sge-like systems.\label{fig03}}
340: \end{figure}
341:
342: \clearpage
343:
344: \begin{figure}
345: \plotone{fg4.eps}
346: \caption{The best fitting accretion disk to the {\it IUE} spectrum SWP21720
347: for VY Aqr, having a white dwarf mass of 0.55 M$_{\sun}$, an accretion rate
348: of $10^{-9}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$, and an inclination of 41\degr. This fit gives a
349: scale-factor distance of approximately 93 pc.\label{fig04}}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: \clearpage
353:
354: \begin{figure}
355: \plotone{fg5.eps}
356: \caption{The best fitting accretion disk to the {\it IUE} spectrum SWP15079
357: for RU Peg, having a white dwarf mass of 1.21 M$_{\sun}$, an accretion rate
358: of $10^{-9}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$, and an inclination of 41\degr. This fit gives a
359: scale-factor distance of approximately 278 pc.\label{fig05}}
360: \end{figure}
361:
362: \clearpage
363:
364: \begin{figure}
365: \plotone{fg6.eps}
366: \caption{The best fitting accretion disk to the {\it IUE} spectrum SWP33642
367: for T Leo in outburst, having a white dwarf mass of 0.35 M$_{\sun}$, an
368: accretion rate of $10^{-8}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$, and an inclination of 60\degr.
369: This fit gives a scale-factor distance of approximately 113 pc.\label{fig06}}
370: \end{figure}
371:
372: \clearpage
373:
374: \begin{figure}
375: \plotone{fg7.eps}
376: \caption{The best fitting combination of an accretion
377: disk and a white dwarf photosphere to the {\it IUE} spectrum SWP33699 for T Leo in
378: quiescence. The parameters for this fit are a white dwarf mass of 0.35 M$_{\sun}$,
379: T$_{eff}$ of 16,000 K, $\log(g)$ = 7.55, an inclination of 60\degr, and a scaled
380: accretion rate of $6\times 10^{-11}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$. The white dwarf (dash-dotted
381: line) is seen to contribute the majority of the flux, 77\%, as would be expected during
382: quiescence rather than being dominated by the disk (dashed line). This combination fit
383: gives a scale-factor distance of 101 pc.\label{fig07}}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: \clearpage
387:
388: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
389: \tablewidth{0pc}
390: \tablecaption{System Parameters}
391: \tablehead{
392: \colhead{System Name}&\colhead{VY Aqr}&\colhead{RU Peg}&\colhead{T Leo}
393: }
394: \startdata
395: Subtype& SU UMa&U Gem&SU UMa\\
396: P$_{orb}$ (d)& 0.06309 \tablenotemark{a} &0.3746 \tablenotemark{f} &0.05882 \tablenotemark{i}\\
397: $\pi$ (MAS)&$10.2\pm 1.4 $\tablenotemark{b} & $3.55\pm 0.26$ \tablenotemark{g}&$9.1\pm 0.7$ \tablenotemark{b}\\
398: Distance (pc)&$97\pm 13$& $282\pm 20$&$101\pm 12$\\
399: $i$ (\degr)&30 - 40 \tablenotemark{c} &41 \tablenotemark{g} &46 - 84 \tablenotemark{d}\\
400: $M_{wd}$ (M$_{\sun}$)& 0.6 - 1.2 \tablenotemark{c}&1.21 \tablenotemark{h}& 0.35 - 0.4 \tablenotemark{i}\\
401: $\tau_{rec}$ (d) \tablenotemark{d}&350&76&420\\
402: V$_{max}$ \tablenotemark{e}&8.4 &9.0 &10.0B\\
403: V$_{min}$ \tablenotemark{e}&17.2&13.2&15.7B\\
404: \enddata
405: \tablerefs{
406: (a) \citealt{ThorstensenTaylor1997}; (b) \citealt{Thorstensen2003}; (c) \citealt{Aug1994}; (d) \citealt{Ritter2003}; (e) \citealt{DS1993}; (f) \citealt{Stover1981}; (g) \citealt{Harrison2004}; (h) \citealt{Shafter1984}; (i) \citealt{ShafterSzkody1984}
407: }
408: \end{deluxetable}
409:
410: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
411: \tablewidth{0pc}
412: \tablecaption{ {\it IUE} Observing Log}
413: \tablehead{
414: \colhead{Name}&\colhead{ {\it IUE} Spectrum}&\colhead{Date of Observation}&\colhead{
415: Exposure Length (s)}}
416: \startdata
417: VY Aqr & SWP21720 (Sm. Aperture) & 12/8/1983 & 1200\\
418: RU Peg & SWP15062 & 9/20/1981 & 600\\
419: & SWP15079 & 9/22/1981 & 840\\
420: T Leo & SWP33642 (Outburst) & 5/25/1988 & 300\\
421: & SWP33699 (Quiescence) & 6/3/1988 & 2100\\
422: \enddata
423: \end{deluxetable}
424:
425: \begin{deluxetable}{cccr}
426: \tablewidth{0pc}
427:
428: \tablecaption{WZ Sge-like Temperature Comparison}
429: \tablehead{
430: \colhead{System}&\colhead{P (hours)}&\colhead{T$_{wd}$ (K)}&\colhead{Distance (pc)}
431: }
432: \startdata
433: WZ Sge & 1.30 & 14,800& 43\\
434: AL Com& 1.36 & 16,300& 845\\
435: SW Uma& 1.36 & 14,000& 159\\
436: T Leo &1.41& 16,000& 101\\
437: BC Uma& 1.52& 15,200& 287\\
438: \enddata
439: \tablerefs{Adapted from \citealt{Szkody2002}}
440: \end{deluxetable}
441:
442:
443: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
444: \tablewidth{0pc}
445: \tablecaption{Summary of Best-Fitting Models}
446: \tablehead{
447: \colhead{System}&\colhead{M$_{wd}$}&\colhead{$\dot{M}$}&\colhead{\it i}&\colhead{Distance}\\
448: &\colhead{(M$_{\sun}$)}&\colhead{(M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$)}&\colhead{(\degr)}&\colhead{(pc)}
449: }
450: \startdata
451: VY Aqr (Outburst):& 0.55& $10^{-9}$& 41& 93&\\
452: RU Peg (Outburst):& 1.21& $10^{-9}$& 41& 278&\\
453: T Leo (Outburst): & 0.35 &$10^{-8}$& 60& 113&\\
454: & & &WD T$_{eff}$ (K)&Flux Contrib.&Dist. (pc)\\\cline{4-6}
455: T Leo (Quiescence):& 0.35 &$6 \times 10^{-11}$& 16,000 & 77\% WD & 101\\
456: & & & & 23\% Disk&\\
457: \enddata
458: \end{deluxetable}
459:
460: \end{document}
461:
462: