1: %GP LAST MODIFIED BY GP ON 9OCT05. Please, search for GP for
2: %comments.
3: %%
4: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
5: %%
6: %% Modified 2004 January 9
7: %%
8: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
9: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
10:
11: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
12: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
13: %% any data that comes before this command.
14:
15: %% The command below calls the preprint style
16: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
17: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
18: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
19: %%
20: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
21:
22: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
23:
24: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
25:
26: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
27:
28: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
29:
30: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
31: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
32: %% use the longabstract style option.
33:
34: % \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
35:
36: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
37: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
38: %% the \begin{document} command.
39: %%
40: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
41: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
42: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
43: %% for information.
44:
45: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
46: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
47:
48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
49:
50: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
51:
52: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
53: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
54: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
55: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
56: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
57: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
58:
59: \shorttitle{Metal abundances in NGC 6791}
60: \shortauthors{Villanova et al.}
61:
62: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
63: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
68: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
69: %% you desire.
70:
71: \title{NGC~6791: an exotic open cluster or the nucleus of a
72: tidally disrupted galaxy?}
73: %\footnotetext[1]{The data presented
74: %herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated
75: %as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of
76: %Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics
77: %and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the
78: %generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation}
79:
80: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
81: %% author and affiliation information.
82: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
83: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
84: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
85: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
86:
87: \author{Giovanni Carraro\altaffilmark{a,b}}
88: \affil{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520$-$8101, USA}
89: \email{gcarraro@das.uchile.cl}
90:
91:
92: \author{Sandro Villanova}
93: \affil{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova, Vicolo Osservatorio
94: 2, I$-$35122, Padova, Italy}
95: \email{villanova@pd.astro.it}
96:
97: \author{Pierre Demarque}
98: \affil{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520$-$8101, USA}
99: \email{demarque@astro.yale.edu}
100:
101: \author{M. Virginia McSwain\altaffilmark{c}}
102: \affil{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520$-$8101, USA}
103: \email{mcswain@astro.yale.edu}
104:
105: \author{Giampaolo Piotto}
106: \affil{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova, Vicolo
107: Osservatorio 2, I$-$35122, Padova, Italy}
108: \email{piotto@pd.astro.it}
109:
110: \and
111: \author{Luigi R. Bedin}
112: \affil{ESO, K. Schwarzschild Str. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany }
113: \email{lbedin@eso.org}
114:
115: %\and
116: %\author{Charles Bailyn}
117: %\affil{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520$-$8101, USA}
118: %\email{bailyn@astro.yale.edu}
119:
120:
121:
122:
123: \altaffiltext{a}{Departamento de Astr\'onomia, Universidad de Chile,
124: Casilla 36-D, Santiago de Chile, Chile}
125: \altaffiltext{b}{Andes
126: Fellow, on leave from Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di
127: Padova, Vicolo Osservatorio 2, I$-$35122, Padova, Italy}
128: \altaffiltext{c}{NSF Astronomy and Astrophysic Postdoctoral Fellow}
129:
130:
131: \begin{abstract}
132: We report on high resolution Echelle spectroscopy of 20 giant stars in
133: the Galactic old open clusters NGC 6791 obtained with Hydra
134: at the WIYN telescope. High precision radial velocity allow us to
135: isolate
136: 15 {\it bona fide} cluster members. From 10 of them we derive a
137: global [M/H]=+0.39$\pm$0.05. We therefore confirm that NGC 6791
138: is extremely metal rich, exhibits a few marginally sub-solar
139: abundance ratios, and within the resolution of our spectra does not
140: show evidences of spread in metal abundance. With these new data we re-derive
141: the cluster fundamental parameters suggesting that it is about 8 Gyr
142: old and 4.3 kpc far from the Sun.
143: The combination of its chemical properties, age, position, and Galactic
144: orbit hardly makes NGC 6791 a genuine Population I open cluster.
145: We discuss possible interpretations of the cluster peculiarities
146: suggesting that the cluster might be what remains
147: of a much larger system, whose initial potential well could have
148: been sufficient to produce high metallicity stars, and which
149: has been depopulated by
150: the tidal field of the Galaxy. Alternatively, its current
151: properties may be explained by the perturbation of the Galactic bar
152: on an object originated well inside the solar ring,
153: where the metal enrichment had been very fast.
154:
155: \end{abstract}
156:
157: \keywords{open clusters: general --- open clusters: (\objectname{NGC 6791})}
158:
159: \section{Introduction}
160: NGC~6791 is an extremely interesting and intriguing open cluster. The
161: combination of old age, small distance and high metal abundance makes
162: this cluster very attractive, and indeed in the last 40 years it has been
163: the target of intensive and numerous studies (Carney et al. 2005, and
164: references therein). A large number of optical photometric studies
165: (Stetson et al. 2003 and references therein) has been recently
166: complemented by
167: the deep ACS/HST investigation by King et al. (2005), and
168: the near IR study by Carney et al. (2005).\\
169: Since the pioneering study of Kinman (1965) it was clear that
170: NGC 6791 is a very old and very metal rich cluster.
171:
172: Its age was measured several times by using different sets of isochrones
173: (Carraro et al. 1999 and references therein), and it is probably confined
174: in the range from 8 to 12 Gyr, depending on the cluster precise
175: metal abundance. Taylor (2001, and references therein) critically reviewed
176: all the available metallicity estimates, concluding that the [Fe/H] for NGC 6791
177: should probably lie in the range +0.16 to +0.44 dex.
178: This combination of age and metallicity is unique in the Milky Way
179: open cluster population, and has been recently questioned by Bedin et al.
180: (2005), whose HST study of the White Dwarf cooling sequence supports
181: a much younger age. As these authors comment, this age discrepancy
182: may arise from defects in the White Dwarf current models, or from the poorly
183: known cluster metal abundance.\\
184:
185: Noteworthy, the cluster is also known to harbour a number of sdB/sdO stars
186: (Landsman et al. 1998, Buson et al. 2005), which may be
187: explained by a scenario
188: of a high metallicity driven wind in the Red Giant Branch phase of the
189: progenitors of these stars or, more simply, by the binarity
190: hypothesis (Green et al. 2005) .
191:
192: The UV upturn (namely the abrupt rise in the UV continuum emission
193: shortward of $\lambda \approx 2000\AA$) similar to that typical of any ellipical galaxy (Landsman et al.
194: 1998) and the highly eccentric orbit, unusual for a Population I object,
195: contribute to make this cluster even more intriguing .\\
196: In an attempt to substantially improve our knowledge of NGC ~6791,
197: we carried
198: out a spectroscopic campaign to provide radial velocities
199: and accurate metallicities of a statistically significant number of stars
200: in the cluster. In fact, current abundance determinations either lack
201: sufficient resolution or are restricted to a very small number of stars.\\
202: This new set of abundance estimates coupled with the high quality of
203: existing photometry (Stetson et al 2003) allow us to significantly
204: improve on the fundametal parameters of this cluster, and
205: better clarify its intriguing nature.
206:
207:
208: \section{Observations}
209: The observations were carried out on the night of July 28,
210: 2005 with the Hydra spectrograph
211: at the WIYN telescope at Kitt Peak observatory under photometric conditions and
212: typical seeing of 1\farcs1 arcsec.
213: The MOS consists of the Hydra positioner, which in 20 minutes
214: can place 89 fibers within the 1-degree diameter focal plane of the
215: telescope to $\approx$ 0.2 arcsec precision. This project employed the 3-arcsec
216: diameter red-optimized fiber bundle. The fibers feed a bench-mounted
217: spectrograph in a thermally isolated room. With the echelle grating and
218: Bench Spectrograph Camera the system produces a resolution of 20,000 at
219: 6000 \AA~. The wavelength coverage of 200 \AA~ around the central
220: wavelength of
221: 6000 \AA~ provides a rich array of narrow absorption lines.
222: We observed 20 RGB/clump stars with 45 min exposures,
223: for a grand total of 4.5 hours of actual photon collection time
224: on the same single star.
225: The 20 stars where selected from the Stetson et al. (2003)
226: photometric catalog to be giant stars and to have the
227: right magnitudes to be observed with the WIYN 3.6m telecope.
228: We restricted the sample to giant stars brighter than
229: V $\approx$ 15.
230: The stars are listed in Table~1, where first column reports
231: Stetson et al. (2003) numbering and column 2 Kinman (1965) numbering
232: (K65).
233: Then coordinates, magnitudes and colors are taken
234: from Stetson et al. (2003).
235: The radial velocities and spectral classification
236: have been derived in this paper, following Villanova et al. (2004).
237:
238:
239:
240: \section{Data Reduction}
241: Images were reduced using IRAF\footnote[2]{IRAF is distributed by the
242: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the
243: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
244: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.},
245: including bias subtraction, flat-field correction, frame combination,
246: extraction of spectral orders, wavelength calibration, sky subtraction
247: and spectral rectification. The single orders were merged into a
248: single spectrum. As an example, we show in Figure~2 a portion of the
249: reduced, normalized spectrum for
250: star $\#$11814 where some spectral lines are
251: identified. Some spectra have very low S/N, although all the observed
252: stars have practically the same magnitude. This could happen for two
253: reasons: the first one is an imperfect pointing of the fiber and the
254: second one a possible bad fiber-trasmission. Because of this, we
255: could not use five
256: stars for abundance measurements (see below).
257:
258:
259: \section{Radial Velocities}
260: Radial velocities (RV) for RGB and clump stars in NGC~6791 have been
261: determined many times in the past. Kinman (1965) obtained radial velocities
262: for 19 stars, and spectral type for 21. Later, RVs
263: have been measured by Geisler (1988, 12 stars), Friel et al. (1989, 9 stars),
264: Garnavich et al. (1994, 18 stars), Scott et al. (1995, 32 stars)
265: and Friel et al. (2002, 41 stars), with different resolution
266: and precision.
267:
268: \noindent
269: We derived here RVs for 20 stars (see Table~1). The
270: radial velocities of the target stars were measured using the IRAF
271: FXCOR task, which cross-correlates the object spectrum with
272: a template.
273: As template, we used a synthetic spectrum calculated by
274: SPECTRUM (see 5.2 for a description of the program) with roughly
275: the same atmospheric parameters and metallicity of the observed
276: stars. The final error in the radial velocities was typically less
277: than 0.2 km s$^{-1}$, and in many cases less than 0.1 km s$^{-1}$.
278: These errors are significantly lower than in any other previous
279: investigation. This allowed us to clean out field interlopers and
280: isolate 15 {\it bona fide} members. RVs are plotted in
281: Figure~3. Five stars have radial velocites completely different from
282: the others, and so were considered non-members, although it possible
283: that some of them are binary stars.\\
284: A few of our targets are in common with previous investigations, and
285: we can have an external check on our RV measurements.
286: For 11 stars we provide the
287: first estimate of the RV. \\
288: In general, we find that Garnavich
289: et al. (1994) RV estimates (for stars 3003, 3010, 3036, 2001, 3018 and 2008)
290: are systematically larger than ours, by about 5-7 km s$^{-1}$, although,
291: given their typical large error (5 to 15 km/sec),
292: these differences cannot be considered statistically significant.
293: Also Kinman (1965) RVs for the two stars in common with our
294: investigation (stars 2001 and 2008) are larger than our estimate.
295: The largest deviation is with respect to the RVs
296: by Friel et al. (2002), and their previous
297: measurements (Scott et al. 1995, Friel et
298: al. 1989). In this case, there are differences in some case exceeding
299: 20 km s$^{-1}$ (stars 3003 and 2008). Finally, within the errors, we
300: find a good agreement for the two stars (stars 3003 and 3010) we have in
301: common with Geisler (1988).\\
302: From the RVs of the 15 cluster members in our sample, we obtain a mean
303: radial velocity $V_r=-47.1\pm0.8$ km s$^{-1}$, in good agreement,
304: within the errors, with the values obtained by the other authors, with
305: the exception of Kinman (1965). The RV dispersion results to be
306: $\sigma_r=2.2\pm0.4$ km s$^{-1}$.
307:
308:
309: \section{ABUNDANCE ANALYSIS}
310:
311:
312: \subsection{Atmospheric parameters}
313: The atmospheric parameters were obtained from the photometric $BVI_C$
314: data of Stetson et al.
315: (2003).
316: According to
317: Stetson et al., the
318: most likely reddening and absolute distance modulus are E(B-V ) = 0.09
319: [(E(V-I) = 0.11)] and $(m-M)_0=12.79$. Effective temperatures
320: ($T_{\mathrm eff}$ )
321: were
322: obtained from the color-$T_{\mathrm eff}$ relations of Alonso et al. (1999),
323: Sekiguchi \& Fukugita (2000), and Ramirez \& Melendez (2005).
324: The temperatures, obtained from the B-V and V-I colors using the quoted
325: relations, are in agreement within 50-100 $^0K$. The gravity log(g) was
326: derived from the canonical formula :\\ $log(\frac{g}{g_{\odot}}) = 4
327: \times log(\frac{T_{\mathrm eff}}{T_{\odot}}) -
328: log(\frac{L}{L_{\odot}})+ log(\frac{M}{M_{\odot}})$ \\ In this
329: equation, the mass $M/M_{\odot}$ was derived from Straizys \&
330: Kuriliene (1981). The luminosity $L/L_{\odot}$ was derived from the
331: absolute magnitude $M_V$, adopting the distance modulus of Stetson et
332: al. (2003). The bolometric correction (BC) was derived from the
333: BC-$T_{\mathrm eff}$ relation from Alonso et al. (1999). The typical
334: error in log(g) is 0.1 dex.\\ Finally, the
335: adopted
336: microturbulence velocity is the mean of the values given by the relation
337: (Gratton et al. 1996): \\ $v_t = (1.19 \times 10^{-3}) T_{\mathrm eff} -0.90
338: log(g) -2$; \\ and the relation (Houdashelt et al. 2000): \\ $v_t = 2.22
339: - 0.322 log(g)$. \\ The typical error in $v_t$ is 0.1 $km s^{-1}$.
340:
341:
342:
343: \subsection{Abundance determination}
344: The resolution (R=17,000 at 6580\AA) of our spectra, the high metallicity of
345: the cluster, and the low temperature of the target stars cause a lot
346: of blending, and therefore it was not possible to measure the
347: equivalent width of the single spectral lines. For this reason, the
348: abundances were determinated by comparing the observed spectra with
349: synthetic ones. The synthetic spectra were calculated by running
350: SPECTRUM, the Local Thermodynamical Equilibrium (LTE) spectral synthesis program freely distributed by
351: Richard O. Gray (see Piotto et al. 2005 for the details on our
352: synthetic spectra calculation). Model atmospheres were interpolated
353: from the grid of Kurucz (1992) models by using the values of
354: $T_{\mathrm eff}$ and log(g) determined as explained in Section 5.1. We
355: analized stars with $T_{\mathrm eff} > 3900 ^0K$ because, for lower
356: temperatures, molecular bands were present, creating difficulties for
357: continuum determination. We could analyze only ten stars,
358: after rejecting the non-members and the stars which resulted to be
359: too faint and too cool.
360:
361: First of all, we compared the entire spectrum (range 6400-6760 \AA) with
362: the synthethic one in order to obtain an estimate od the global
363: metallicity [M/H]. Then, we analized single lines in order to measure
364: abundances of Fe, Ca, Ti, Ba, Al, Ni, and Si.
365:
366:
367: A preliminary lines-list was obtained
368: considering all the strongest lines present in our
369: spectra, identified using the line-list distributed
370: with SPECTRUM. The final
371: lines-list was created from the preliminary one by comparing the observed
372: solar spectrum with a sinthetic one, calculated with SPECTRUM
373: for the Sun
374: parameters ($T_{eff} = 5777 K, log(g) = 4.44, v_t = 0.8 m/s$).
375: The lines in the synthetic spectrum which did not properly match the
376: observed ones were rejected.
377: We also checked whether the preliminary line identification
378: was correct using the MOORE line database (Moore et al. 1966).
379: Table~3 shows the final list of lines we used in our analysis. The
380: resulting metallicities for each star are listed in Table~4.
381:
382: Due to the radial velocity shit, a few lines (6462.567,
383: 6475.630, 6493.781, 6532.890 \AA) overlapped with telluric lines.
384: We did not consider these lines in the abundances determination.
385:
386:
387: An example of the comparison between synthetic and observed spectra is
388: shown in Fig.~4, for the case of star $\#$11814 Finally, using the stellar
389: parameters [colors, $T_{\mathrm eff}$, and log(g)] and the absolute
390: calibration of the MK system (Straizys \& Kuriliene 1981), for each
391: star, we derived the stellar spectral classification (see Villanova et al. 2004
392: for details), which is listed
393: in Col.~9 of Table~1.\\
394:
395: \noindent
396: The weighted mean of the [Fe/H] content of the ten members
397: of NGC~6791
398: analysed in the present paper is [Fe/H] = +0.39$\pm$0.01
399: (internal error).
400: Previous investigations reported a variety of estimates for the
401: metallicity of NGC 6791. By using low resolution spectroscopy, Friel
402: \& Janes (1993) obtained [Fe/H] = +0.19$\pm$0.19 from 9 stars, and
403: Friel et al. (2002) [Fe/H] = +0.11$\pm$0.10 from moderate resolution
404: spectra of 39 stars. Because of the large errors, the first estimate
405: is compatible with our one, within one sigma, while
406: the second one is off by almost $3\sigma$.\\
407:
408: \noindent
409: Interestingly enough, our results are in very good agreement with the
410: study by Peterson \& Green (1998), who derived [Fe/H] = +0.40$\pm$0.10
411: for star $\#$2017, a cool blue horizontal branch star, using a resolution very similar to the one used in
412: the present study.\\
413:
414: \noindent
415: In conclusion, our results confirm that NGC 6791 is actually a very
416: metal rich cluster. Noteworthy, within the errors of our measurements,
417: the metallicities listed in Table~4 do not show any significant
418: abundance spread.
419:
420: \subsection{Abundance ratios}
421: Abundance ratios constitute a powerful tool to assign a cluster to a
422: stellar population (\citealt{fri03}, \citealt{car04}, \citealt{vil05}).\\
423: In Table~5 we list the abundance ratios for the observed stars in
424: NGC~6791. These values do not show any particular anomaly.
425: All the abundance ratios are solar scaled,
426: with the only exception of [Al/Fe] and [Ba/Fe], which seem to be
427: slighlty under-abundant. Our ratios are in
428: good agreement with those provided by Peterson \& Green (1998).
429:
430:
431:
432: \section{Distance and age of NGC 6791}
433: Our accurate determination of the metal content of NGC 6791
434: allows a new, more reliable estimate of the cluster
435: distance and age.\\
436: To this purpose, in this section, we are going to fit the observed
437: Color Magnitude Diagram (CMD) from Stetson et al. (2003) with both the Padova (Girardi et al. 2000) and
438: Yale-Yonsei isochrones (Yi et al. 2001; Demarque et al. 2003).
439: Previous similar studies allowed to confine the cluster age in the
440: relatively large interval between 8 and 12 Gyrs (Carraro et al. 1994,
441: Chaboyer et al. 1999,
442: King et al. 2005, Carney et al. 2005, and reference therein). As
443: discussed in Stetson et al (2003), and confirmed in this work,
444: the cluster reddening is E(B-V) =
445: 0.09$\pm$0.04. There is a large scatter in the literature on the
446: absolute distance modulus $(m-M)_o$ estimates, which range in the
447: interval between 12.6 and 13.6. These large uncertainties in both age
448: and distance have been usually ascribed to uncertainties in the
449: cluster metal abundance. The new specroscopic data presented in this
450: paper allow to put on a more solid basis these fundamental parameters.
451:
452:
453: \subsection{Padova Isochrones}
454: Our [Fe/H] = 0.39 empirical measurement, translates into a metallicity
455: Z = 0.046 (Carraro et al. 1999)
456: and implies a $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ close to 2.
457: We generated isochrones for this metallicity, and for ages ranging from 7
458: to 11 Gyrs from Girardi et al. (2000).
459: An appropriate and meaningful isochrone fit implies that all the loci
460: of the CMD, e.g. the turn-off point (TO), the sub giant branch (SGB),
461: the red giant branch (RGB), and the clump of He-burning stars must be simultaneously
462: overlapped by the models. Our best fit (by eye) estimate is shown in
463: Fig.~5 and 6, both in the V vs (B-V) and V vs (V-I) plane. In Fig.~5
464: we plot the V vs (B-V) CMD of NGC~6791, and superpose the whole set of
465: isochrones, whereas, in Fig.~6, we only show the best fit isochrone in
466: the V vs (B-V) and V vs (V-I) plane.
467:
468: The isochrone solutions in Fig.~5 have been obtained by shifting the
469: theoretical lines by $E(B-V)$ = 0.09 and $(m-M)_V$ = 13.35. Clearly ages
470: older than 9 Gyr can be ruled out, since a fit to the TO with
471: an older isochrones implies to decrease the distance modulus, but, in
472: this way, the theoretical clump would be brighter than the observed
473: one. On the other hand, also ages younger than 8 Gyr do not seem
474: possible, since a fit of the TO region with a younger
475: isochrone would result in a RGB redder than the observed one (impling
476: a reddening value significantly larger that the observational limits),
477: and also the clump magnitude would be fainter than the observed
478: counterpart.
479:
480: Only the isochrones for ages of 8 and 9 Gyr provide a good fit.
481: In details, the 9 Gyr isochrone fits well the CMD with the adopted
482: parameters, although the clump luminosity turns out to be slightly
483: brighter than the observed one.
484: On the other hand, the 8 Gyr isochrone must be shifted by $E(B-V)$ = 0.09
485: and $(m-M)_V$ = 13.45 to provide a very good fit.
486: This is shown in Fig.~6. We note that the lower MS is mismatched.
487: This is a well known problem for metal rich clusters, as extensively
488: discussed by Bedin et al. (2001), and it is likely due to problems in
489: the transformation of the models from the theoretical to the
490: observational plane.
491:
492: On the overall, however, the fit is very good, and implies for NGC 6791
493: this set of fundamental parameters:
494: 8.0$\pm$1.0 Gyr,
495: 13.07$\pm$0.05 (internal error),
496: and 0.09$\pm$0.01
497: for the age,
498: absolute distance modulus, and reddening, respectively.
499: The associated errors
500: are internal errors and have been estimated by eye. They simply reflect
501: the degree of freedom we have to displace the isochrones, still
502: achieving an acceptable fit.
503:
504:
505:
506: \subsection{Yale-Yonsei Isochrones}
507: An independent determination of the age, distance, and a constraint on
508: the reddening of NGC~6791 can be derived using the $Y^2$ isochrones
509: (Yi et al. 2001; Demarque et al. 2003). The Padova and $Y^2$
510: isochrones were both constructed using the same OPAL opacities tables.
511: Otherwise, the description of the microscopic and macroscopic physics,
512: as well as the numerical procedures, differ in many details in the two
513: sets of isochrones. The color transformations are also independently
514: derived.
515:
516: In the $Y^2$ system, in which $Z_{\odot}$ = 0.0181,
517: [Fe/H] = 0.39 corresponds to $(Y, Z)$ = (0.31, 0.04). The fit
518: is based on the main sequence (MS) position just below the TO, the position
519: of the TO point, the SGB, and the RGB color. A good fit, as shown in
520: Fig.~7, is obtained for $(m-M)_V$ = 13.35, 0.1 mag smaller than the distance modulus we
521: used for the Padova isochrone fit. The best fit is obtained by
522: assuming a reddening $E(B - V)$ = 0.13, somewhat larger than the
523: reddening adopted in the previous section, but still within the
524: estimated range
525: of previous investigations.
526: The age we derive from the $Y^2$ fit is between 8 and 9 Gyr,
527: in good agreement with the Padova age, even though one notes that the
528: position of the lower main sequence differs in the two sets of
529: isochrones. The unevolved main sequence of the Padova isochrones has
530: a steeper downward slope than the observations, whereas the opposite
531: holds for the $Y^2$ isochrones.
532:
533: Similarly, Chaboyer et al. (1999) conclude that the cluster age is 8.0
534: $\pm$ 0.5 Gyr, assuming [Fe/H] = 0.4, but using an older observational data
535: set (Kaluzny \& Rucinski 1995),
536: and a version of the Yale stellar evolution code that slightly
537: differs from the one used to construct the $Y^2$ isochrones. In an
538: analysis of their infrared photometry, Carney et al. (2005) derive an
539: age between 9 Gyr (for [Fe/H] = 0.3) and 7.5 Gyr (for [Fe/H] = 0.5),
540: also in good agreement with our result. Both the Chaboyer et
541: al. (1999) and the Carney et al. (2005) ages are consistent with the
542: Padova and $Y^2$ fits described in this paper. We should note however
543: that the Carney age estimates were obtained using the same set of
544: $Y^2$ isochrones that we used in the present work, and therefore
545: their age determination is not completely independent form our one.
546:
547:
548: Stetson et al. (2003) derive a much older age (12 Gyr) with the help
549: of unpublished VandenBerg isochrones. It appears that the large
550: difference in age is due in part to the authors' choice of a markedly
551: smaller absolute distance modulus (12.79 mag). A superposition of the $Y^2$
552: isochrones for the range 8-12 Gyr, shifted by $(m-M)_0$ = 12.79 and $E(B
553: - V)$ = 0.09 (Stetson et al. adopted values), on the CMD of NGC 6791
554: is shown in Fig.~8, for comparison purpose. Although it is not
555: possible to rule out completely the Stetson et al. (2003) fit, the
556: disagreement with other well calibrated isochrones raises questions
557: about the calibration of the VandenBerg isochrones.
558:
559:
560: An additional, independent age and distance estimate is in King et
561: al. (2005) who obtained an excellent fit of the upper main sequence,
562: TO, and SGB both of Stetson et al. (2003) groundbased CMD of NGC 6791,
563: and of their ACS/HST CMD in the F606W, F814W bands by using the Teramo
564: isochrone set by Pietrinferni et al. (2004). From both fits, King et
565: al. (2005) derived an age of $9\pm1$ Gyr, an absolute distance modulus
566: $(m-M)_0=13.0$, and a reddening E(B-V)=0.12 for a metallicity
567: [M/H]=+0.4, and Y=0.288. Also in the fit of the $m_{\mathrm F814W}$
568: vs. $m_{\mathrm F606W}$-$m_{\mathrm F814W}$ ACS/HST CMD, the Teramo
569: isochrones tends to be redder and redder going to fainter magnitudes,
570: starting from $\sim2$ magnitudes below the TO, as already noticed for
571: the Padova isochrones.
572:
573:
574:
575: \noindent
576: Finally, we must mention that the precise age of NGC~6791 also depends
577: on the adopted value of the ratio $(\Delta Y/\Delta Z)$ for galactic
578: helium enrichment. This quantity is poorly known; it may be a
579: function of Z, and may differ from system to system. Demarque et al.
580: (1992) have found that varying Y from 0.32 to 0.36 could reduce the
581: age of the cluster by as much as 15\%. The age estimate of NGC~6791
582: might have to be increased if the enrichment ratio $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$
583: is much less than 2 (isochrones for $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ near 2 were
584: assumed in the Padova, $Y^2$, Teramo, and VandenBerg fits).
585:
586: With our present
587: knowledge of the $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ parameter, we conclude that
588: the age of NGC 6791 must be in of
589: range 7.5-8.5 Gyr,
590: with a higher preference towards the higher limits.
591: We point out that, even in the unlikely event that the age of
592: NGC~6791 is as low as 7.5 Gyr, its high metallicity
593: and age
594: present a major
595: challenge to the accepted view of Galactic chemical enrichment. \\
596:
597: \noindent
598: In conclusion,
599: three sets of independent isochrones consistently inply that the age of NGC 6791
600: is around 8 Gyr, adopting the
601: metallicity and the reddening coming from observations. The difference
602: in reddening might simply ascribed to the different Helium abundance
603: adopted,
604: and to some photometric zero point error.
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610: \section{DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS}
611: The hardest point with NGC~6791 is how inside this cluster such high
612: metallicity stars could have been
613: produced. In fact, this cluster does not
614: have any counterpart in the Milky Way. We note here that Kinman
615: (1965) originally identified NGC~6791 as a globular cluster. Even if
616: this interpretation were to be adopted, the high metallicity of
617: NGC~6791, much higher than that of any Galactic globular cluster or
618: nearby dwarf galaxy, remains mysterious. \\
619:
620:
621: With Berkeley~17 and Collinder~261, NGC 6791 is one of the oldest open
622: clusters of the Galaxy (Carraro et al. 1999), but its metal abundance is incomparably
623: higher. Moroever, NGC 6791 is one of the most massive open clusters
624: (4000 $M_{\odot}$ at least). It lies at 1 kpc above the Galactic plane,
625: inside the solar ring. This combination of mass and position is hard
626: to explain, since the interaction with the dense Galactic environment
627: should strongly depopulate a typical open cluster. \\
628:
629:
630: NGC 6791 is routinely considered in the
631: studies of the
632: chemical evolution of the
633: Galactic disk, and occupies a unique position in the Galactic disk
634: radial abundance gradient (see Fig.~9). By including NGC 6791, the
635: slope of the gradient changes from -0.05 (solid line) to -0.07 (dashed
636: line). Besides, if one considers the slope defined only by clusters
637: older than 4 Gyr (Friel et al. 2002, Fig.~3, upper panel), the slope
638: doubles, from -0.06 to -0.11.\\ In the same figure, the horizontal solid
639: line indicates the epicyclical amplitude of NGC 6791 orbit (see below,
640: and Carraro \& Chiosi 1994). One can readily see how NGC 6791 is
641: quite an exotic object.
642: If, by chance, at the present time the cluster would be at different
643: orbit phase, which would put it, e.g., beyond 12 kpc,
644: there would be a drastic change and even
645: an inversion of the slope of the
646: Galactic disk abundance gradient. Finally, the position of this
647: cluster in the Galactic disk Age-Metallicity relationship (Carraro et
648: al. 1998) is puzzling as well, since the cluster significantly deviates
649: from the mean trend.\\
650:
651: In Fig~10 we present NGC~6791 Galactic orbit. This was obtained
652: by integrating back in time ( 1 Gyr) the cluster from its present
653: position and kinematics
654: using the Galaxy N-body/gasdynamical model by Fux (1997, 1999).
655: The adopted radial velocity and proper motions
656: come from Geisler (1988) and Cudworth (private comunication),
657: whereas the Galactocentric rectangular initial conditions (positions and velocities)
658: was derived as in Carraro \& Chiosi (1994).\\
659: \noindent
660: Intererstingly enough, this plot shows that the cluster moves
661: from the outer disk regions of the Milky Way, more than 20 kpc far away from the Galactic center,
662: and enters the Solar Ring
663: going as close as 6 kpc from the Galactic center.\\
664:
665: The eccentricity (e=0.59) of this orbit is quite high for a Population I
666: star cluster (Carraro \& Chiosi 1994), and it is much
667: more
668: similar to a globular cluster/dwarf galaxy orbit.
669:
670:
671: A plausible scenario is that NGC 6791 is what remains
672: (the nucleus) of a much larger system, which underwent strong tidal
673: disruption. This would explain the cluster orbit, and provide
674: a reasonable explanation for the high metallicity of its stars,
675: which could have been produced only inside a deep potential well.
676:
677: However, within the observational errors, we did not find
678: any significant abundance spread. This would mean that the bulk
679: of the stars in the cluster was produced in a single burst
680: of star formation. This fact makes more difficult
681: the capture interpretation since Local Group Galaxies
682: normally exhibit spreads in metal content and possess
683: lower metal abundance (Mateo 1998).
684: We stress however the fact that
685: our results are based on only ten stars, and that only larger
686: spectroscopic surveys can better address this particular
687: problem.\\
688:
689:
690: An alternative more conservative scenario is that the cluster was born
691: in the inner side of the Galaxy, close to the bulge, where the metal
692: enrichment has been fast.
693: Grenon (1999) studied the kinematics
694: of a group of old (10 Gyrs) metal rich $[M/H] \geq 0.30$
695: stars and suggested that they formed close to the bulge and then migrated at large
696: Galactocentric distance due to the perturbation of the Galactic bar.
697:
698: The orbit we calculated actually includs the effect of the bar, and NGC 6791
699: indeed moves well outside the solar circle.
700: NGC 6791 is very concentrated for an open cluster, and spent most of its time
701: at moderate Galactic latitude. This might help to explain
702: its survival.
703:
704:
705:
706: \acknowledgments The observations described in this paper were carried
707: out remotely from Yale University by Giovanni Carraro. We deeply
708: acknowledge Diane Harmer, George Will and Chris Hunter for support
709: and help.
710: The work of GC is
711: supported by {\it Fundacion Andes}.
712: GP and SV acknowledge the support
713: by the italian MIUR, under the program PRIN2003.
714: MVM is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics
715: Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST$-$04011460.
716: PD's research is supported in part by NASA grant
717: NAG5-13299.
718:
719:
720: \begin{thebibliography}{}
721:
722: \bibitem[Alonso et al.\/(1999)]{alo99} Alonso A., Arribas S.,
723: Mart\'inez-Roger C. 1999, \aap~ 140, 261
724:
725: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse\/(1989)]{and89} Anders E., Grevesse N. 1989,
726: GeCoA 53, 197
727:
728: \bibitem[Bedin et al.\/(2001)]{bed01}
729: Bedin L.R., Anderson J., King I.R., Piotto G. 2001,
730: \apj~ 560, L75
731:
732: \bibitem[Bedin et al.\/(2005)]{bed05}
733: Bedin L.R., Salaris M., Piotto G., King, I.R., Anderson J., Cassisi S., Momany Y. 2005,
734: \apj~ 624, L45
735:
736: \bibitem[Buson et al.\/(2005)]{bus05} Buson L.M., Bertone E., Buzzoni A., Carraro G.
737: 2005, Baltic Astronomy~, in press ({\tt astro-ph/0509772})
738:
739: \bibitem[Carney et al.\/(2005)]{car05} Carney B.W., Lee J.-W., Dodson B. 2005,
740: \aj~ 129, 656
741:
742: \bibitem[Carraro \& Chiosi\/(1994)]{car94a} Carraro G. \& Chiosi C. 1994,
743: \aap~ 288, 751
744:
745: \bibitem[Carraro et al.\/(1994)]{car94} Carraro G., Chiosi C., Bertelli G., Bressan A. 1994,
746: \aaps~ 103, 375
747:
748: \bibitem[Carraro et al.\/(1998)]{car98} Carraro G., Ng Y.K., Portinari L.
749: 1998, \mnras~ 296, 1045
750:
751: \bibitem[Carraro et al.\/(1999)]{car99} Carraro G., Girardi L., Chiosi C.
752: 1999, \mnras~ 309, 430
753:
754: \bibitem[Carraro et al.\/(2004)]{car04} Carraro G., Bresolin F., Villanova S., Matteucci F.,
755: Patat F., Romaniello M. 2004, \aj~ 128, 1676
756:
757: \bibitem[Chaboyer et al.\/(1999)]{cha99} Chaboyer B., Green E.M., Liebert J. 1999,
758: \aj~ 117, 1360
759:
760: \bibitem[Demarque et al.\/(1992)]{dem92} Demarque P., Green E.M.,
761: Guenther, D.B. 1992, \aj~ 103, 151
762:
763: \bibitem[Demarque et al.\/(2004)]{dem03}Demarque P., Woo J.-H., Kim Y.C., Yi, S.
764: 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
765:
766: \bibitem[Friel \& Janes\/(1993)]{fri93} Friel E.D., Janes K.A. 1993,
767: \aap~ 267, 75
768:
769: \bibitem[Friel et al.\/(1989)]{fri89} Friel E.D., Liu T., Janes K.A. 1989,
770: \pasp~ 101, 1112
771:
772: \bibitem[Friel et al.\/(2002)]{fri02} Friel E.D., Janes K.A., Tavarez
773: M., Jennifer S., Katsanis R., Lotz J., Hong L., Miller N. 2002,
774: \aj~ 124, 2693
775:
776: \bibitem[Friel et al.\/(2003)]{fri03} Friel E.D., Jacobson H.R.,
777: Barrett E., Fullton L., Balachandran A.C., Pilachowski C.A. 2003,
778: \aj~ 126, 2372
779:
780:
781: \bibitem[Fux\/(1997)]{fux97} Fux R. 1997, \aap~ 327, 983
782:
783: \bibitem[Fux\/(1999)]{fux99} Fux R. 1999, \aap~ 345, 787
784:
785: \bibitem[Garnavich et al.\/(1994)]{gar94} Garnavich P.M., Vandenberg D.A., Zurek D.R., Hesser J.E.
786: 1994, \aj~ 107, 1097
787:
788: \bibitem[Geisler\/(1988)]{gei88} Geisler D. 1988, \pasp~ 100, 338
789:
790: \bibitem[Girardi et al.\/(2000)]{gir00} Girardi L., Bressan A., Bertelli G.,
791: Chiosi C. 2000, \aaps~ 141, 371
792:
793: \bibitem[Gratton et al.\/(1996)]{gra96}Gratton R.G., Carretta E., Castelli F.
794: 1996, \aap~ 314, 191
795:
796: \bibitem[Green et al.\/(2005)]{gre05}Green E.M., For B.-Q., Hyde E.A. 2005,
797: in Proc. 14th European Workshop on White
798: Dwarfs, held at Kiel, July 19-23,
799: 2004, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 334, eds. D. Koester, S. Moeller (San Francisco: ASP)
800:
801: \bibitem[Grenon\/(1999)]{gre99} Grenon M. 1999 Ap\&SS 254, 331
802:
803: \bibitem[Kaluzny \& Rucinski\/(1995)]{kal95} Kaluzny J., Rucinski S.M. 1995,
804: \aaps~ 114, 1
805:
806: \bibitem[King et al.\/(2005)]{kin05} King. I.R., Bedin L.R., Piotto G., Cassisi S.,
807: Anderson J. 2005, \aj 130, 626
808:
809: \bibitem[Kinman\/(1965]{kin65} Kinman T.D., 1965, \apj~ 142, 655
810:
811:
812: \bibitem[Kurucz\/(1992)]{kur92} Kurucz R.L. 1992, in IAU Symposium 149,
813: The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed. B. Barbuy \&
814: A. Renzini (Dordrecht:Kluwer), 225
815:
816: \bibitem[Landsman et al. \/(1998)]{lan98} Landsman W., Bolihn R.C., Neff S.G., O'Connell R.W., Roberts
817: M.S., Smith A.M., Stecher T.P. 1998, \aj~ 116, 789
818:
819:
820: \bibitem[Mateo \/(1998)]{ma98} Mateo M. 1998, ARA\&A 36, 435
821:
822: \bibitem[Moore et al.\/(1966)]{Moo66} Moore C.E., Minnaert M.G.J., Houtgast J. 1996, The solar spectrum from 2935 to 8770 \AA~, United
823: States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
824:
825:
826: \bibitem[Peterson \& Green\/(1998)]{pet98} Peterson R., Green E.M. 1998,
827: \apj~ 502, L39
828:
829: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et al.\/(2004)]{Pie04}Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., and Castelli, F.,
830: 2004, \apj~ 612, 168.
831:
832: \bibitem[Piotto et al.\/(2005)]{pio05} Piotto G., Villanova S., Bedin L.R., Gratton R., Cassisi S., Momany Y.,
833: Recio-Blanco A., Lucatello S., Anderson J., King I.R., Pietrinferni A., Carraro G., \apj~ 621, 777
834:
835: \bibitem[Ramirez \& Melendez\/(2005)]{ram05}Ramirez I. \& Melendez J. 2005,
836: \apj~ 626,465
837:
838: \bibitem[Scott et al.\/(1995)]{sco95} Scott J.E., Friel E.D., Janes K.A. 1995, \aj~
839: 109, 1706
840:
841: \bibitem[Sekiguchi \& Fukugita\/(2000)]{sek00} Sekiguchi M. \& Fukugita M. 2000, \aj~ 120, 1072
842:
843: \bibitem[Stetson et al.\/(2003)]{ste03} Stetson P.B., Bruntt H., Grundahl F. 2003,
844: \pasp~ 115, 413
845:
846: \bibitem[Straizys et al. \/(1981)]{str81} Straizys V., Kuriliene G. 1981, Ap\&SS~ 80, 353
847:
848: \bibitem[Taylor\/(2001)]{tay01} Taylor B.J. 2001, \aap~ 377, 473
849:
850: \bibitem[Villanova et al.\/(2004)]{vil04} Villanova S., Baume G., Carraro G., Geminale A. 2004,
851: \aap~ 419, 149
852:
853: \bibitem[Villanova et al.\/(2005)]{vil05} Villanova S., Carraro G., Bresolin F., Patat F. 2005,
854: \aj~ 130, 652
855:
856: \bibitem[Yi et al.\/(2001)]{yi01}Yi S., Demarque P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee Y.-W., Ree C.H., Lejeune Th., Barnes S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
857:
858: \end{thebibliography}
859:
860: \clearpage
861:
862:
863:
864: \clearpage
865:
866: \begin{figure}
867: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f1.eps}
868: \caption{The CMD of NGC 6791 (from Stetson et al. 2003 photometry).
869: The upper right inset shows the position of the observed stars.}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872: \begin{figure}
873: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2.eps}
874: \caption{An example of extracted spectrum for the star $\#$1181,
875: with the main lines indicated.}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: \begin{figure}
879: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f3.eps}
880: \caption{Radial velocity distribution
881: of the 20 observed target stars.}
882: \end{figure}
883:
884: \begin{figure}
885: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f4.eps}
886: \caption{The spectrum of Fig~2. (thicker line) and a set of
887: synthetic spectra for [M/H]= -0.2, 0.0, +0.2, +0.5 and +0.7,
888: from the top to the bottom.}
889: \end{figure}
890:
891:
892: \begin{figure}
893: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f5.eps}
894: \caption{
895: Five Padova isochrones for the ages of 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
896: Gyr are fitted to the observed CMD
897: in the V vs (B-V) plane. The
898: isochrones are shifted by $E(B-V)$ = 0.09 and $(m-M)_v$ = 13.35.
899: }
900: \end{figure}
901:
902:
903: \begin{figure}
904: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f6.eps}
905: \caption{Best fit isochrone solution of the CMD of NGC 6791 with
906: the Padova models.
907: The isochrone and setting parameters are indicated in the plot.
908: }
909: \end{figure}
910:
911:
912:
913:
914: \begin{figure}
915: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f7.eps}
916: \caption{Yale-Yonsei isochrone solution for ages of 8 and 9 Gyr.
917: }
918: \end{figure}
919:
920:
921: \begin{figure}
922: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f8.eps}
923: \caption{Yale-Yonsei isochrone solution for ages of 8, 10 and 12 Gyr (from the top
924: to the bottom).
925: Note how also the two older age isochrones are clealy ruled out.
926: }
927: \end{figure}
928:
929:
930:
931:
932:
933: \begin{figure}
934: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f9.eps}
935: \caption{The Galactic disk chemical abundance radial gradient. The
936: data are from \citet{fri02}, with the exception of Berkeley~22 and
937: Berkeley~66 taken from \citet{vil05} and NGC~6791 (filled square, coming from the
938: present study). The solid line is the linear fit without NGC~6791,
939: whereas the dashed line is a linear fit to all the data points. The
940: horizontal dotted line shows the epicyclical amplitude of NGC 6791
941: orbit.}
942: \end{figure}
943:
944:
945: \begin{figure}
946: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
947: \caption{ Galactic orbit of NGC 6791 in the X-Y and meridional plane.
948: The position of the Sun is indicated.}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951:
952: \clearpage
953:
954: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
955: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
956: %\rotate
957: \tablewidth{0pt}
958: \tablecaption{OBSERVED STARS}
959: \tablehead{
960: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{K65} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{V} & \colhead{(B-I)} & \colhead{$V_{rad}$ (km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{$S/N$} & \colhead{Spectral Type}}
961: \startdata
962: 10898 & & 19:21:01.13 & +37:42:13.80 & 14.459 & 3.059 & -47.37$\pm$0.088 & 40 & K4 III \\
963: 11814 & 3003 & 19:21:04.27 & +37:47:18.90 & 13.849 & 3.233 & -46.52$\pm$0.082 & 60 & K4/5 III \\
964: 1442 & & 19:21:16.33 & +37:52:15.80 & 14.056 & 2.580 & -11.84$\pm$0.056 & 100 & \\
965: 2044 & & 19:20:30.92 & +37:48:45.30 & 14.144 & 2.917 & -5.27$\pm$0.072 & 40 & \\
966: 2423 & & 19:20:33.26 & +37:50:12.70 & 14.082 & 2.794 & -220.41$\pm$0.066 & 70 & \\
967: 2793 & 3036 & 19:20:34.86 & +37:46:30.10 & 14.538 & 2.751 & -48.00$\pm$0.108 & 30 & M1/2 III \\
968: 3369 & 3030 & 19:20:37.89 & +37:44:49.30 & 14.529 & 2.673 & -48.37$\pm$0.094 & 40 & K2/3 III \\
969: 4162 & & 19:20:40.85 & +37:46:21.80 & 14.551 & 2.687 & -52.11$\pm$0.146 & 10 & K2/3 III \\
970: 4715 & & 19:20:42.73 & +37:51:07.70 & 14.515 & 2.698 & -47.91$\pm$0.088 & 50 & K2/3 III \\
971: 5583 & & 19:20:45.58 & +37:39:51.20 & 14.602 & 2.742 & -43.62$\pm$0.196 & 10 & K3/4 III \\
972: 6940 & 3013 & 19:20:49.67 & +37:44:08.00 & 14.588 & 2.659 & -46.00$\pm$0.155 & 10 & K2/3 III \\
973: 7922 & & 19:20:52.47 & +37:50:15.80 & 14.482 & 2.671 & -48.28$\pm$0.080 & 30 & K2/3 III \\
974: 7972 & 3010 & 19:20:52.60 & +37:44:28.50 & 14.136 & 3.356 & -44.35$\pm$0.094 & 40 & K7 III \\
975: 8082 & SE-49 & 19:20:52.89 & +37:45:33.40 & 14.546 & 2.639 & -46.18$\pm$0.102 & 40 & K2/3 III \\
976: 8266 & 2001 & 19:20:53.39 & +37:48:28.40 & 13.741 & 3.395 & -47.73$\pm$0.080 & 40 & K9 III \\
977: 852 & & 19:20:22.40 & +37:51:42.40 & 14.738 & 2.748 & -67.91$\pm$0.267 & 10 & \\
978: 8563 & & 19:20:54.19 & +37:46:28.80 & 14.554 & 3.071 & -42.44$\pm$0.084 & 40 & K4 III \\
979: 8904 & 2008 & 19:20:55.11 & +37:47:16.50 & 13.862 & 3.603 & -46.91$\pm$0.098 & 30 & M0 III \\
980: 8988 & 3018 & 19:20:55.31 & +37:43:15.60 & 14.557 & 3.005 & -47.46$\pm$0.088 & 30 & K4 III \\
981: 95 & & 19:20:11.19 & +37:49:48.70 & 13.589 & 2.986 & -72.93$\pm$0.076 & 50 & \\
982: \enddata
983: \end{deluxetable}
984:
985: \clearpage
986:
987: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
988: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
989: %\rotate
990: \tablewidth{0pt}
991: \tablecaption{ADOPTED ATMOSPHERIC PARAMETERS}
992: \tablehead{
993: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{T$_{eff}$ ($^oK$)} & \colhead{log {\it g} (dex)} & \colhead{$v_t$ (km s$^{-1}$)} }
994: \startdata
995: 10898 & 4100 & 2.53 & 1.0 \\
996: 11814 & 3980 & 2.17 & 1.1 \\
997: 2793 & 3760 & 2.02 & 1.1 \\
998: 3369 & 4400 & 2.79 & 1.0 \\
999: 4162 & 4370 & 2.78 & 1.0 \\
1000: 4715 & 4360 & 2.76 & 1.0 \\
1001: 5583 & 4300 & 2.75 & 1.0 \\
1002: 6940 & 4400 & 2.81 & 1.0 \\
1003: 7922 & 4390 & 2.77 & 1.0 \\
1004: 7972 & 3920 & 2.23 & 1.1 \\
1005: 8082 & 4410 & 2.81 & 1.0 \\
1006: 8266 & 3900 & 2.04 & 1.2 \\
1007: 8563 & 4080 & 2.55 & 1.0 \\
1008: 8904 & 3830 & 2.01 & 1.2 \\
1009: 8988 & 4130 & 2.60 & 1.0 \\
1010: \enddata
1011: \end{deluxetable}
1012:
1013:
1014: \clearpage
1015:
1016: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1017: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1018: %\rotate
1019: \tablewidth{0pt}
1020: \tablecaption{LINELIST}
1021: \tablehead{}
1022: \startdata
1023: 6408.016\ FeI & 6411.650\ FeI & 6419.980\ FeI & 6421.350\ FeI & 6436.430\ FeI\\
1024: 6439.075\ CaI & 6449.808\ CaI & 6455.598\ CaI & &6464.661\ FeI \\
1025: 6469.123\ FeI & 6469.210\ FeI & 6471.662\ CaI & &6481.880\ FeI\\
1026: 6491.561\ Ti2 & 6494.980\ FeI & 6496.897\ BaII& &6498.950\ FeI\\
1027: 6499.650\ CaI & 6501.691\ TiI & 6518.380\ FeI & 6527.202\ SiI &NiI\\
1028: 6554.230\ TiI & 6556.070\ TiI & 6569.230\ FeI & 6572.779\ CaI & 6574.240\ FeI\\
1029: 6575.020\ FeI & 6581.221\ FeI & 6593.880\ FeI & 6606.970\ TiII & 6608.030\ FeI\\
1030: 6609.120\ FeI & 6625.041\ FeI & 6627.560\ FeI & 6633.440\ FeI & 6633.760\ FeI\\
1031: 6634.100\ FeI & 6643.640\ NiI & 6646.980\ FeI & 6663.231\ FeI & 6663.450\ FeI\\
1032: 6677.955\ FeI & 6677.990\ FeI & 6698.673\ AlI & 6703.570\ FeI & 6705.101\ FeI\\
1033: 6705.131\ FeI & 6710.310\ FeI & 6713.760\ FeI & 6715.410\ FeI & 6717.681\ CaI\\
1034: 6721.848\ SiI & 6725.390\ FeI & 6733.160\ FeI & 6737.980\ FeI & 6741.628\ SiI\\
1035: 6743.120\ TiI & 6743.185\ TiI & 6750.150\ FeI & & \\
1036: \enddata
1037: \end{deluxetable}
1038:
1039: \clearpage
1040:
1041: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
1042: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1043: \tablewidth{0pt}
1044: \tablecaption{MEAN STELLAR ABUNDANCES}
1045: \tablehead{
1046: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{[M/H]} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{[CaI/H]} & \colhead{[Ti/H]} & \colhead{[Ba/H]} & \colhead{[Si/H]} & \colhead{[Ni/H]} & \colhead{[Al/H]} }
1047: \startdata
1048: 10898 & 0.37$\pm$0.06 & 0.38$\pm$0.08 & 0.33$\pm$0.12 & 0.38$\pm$0.02 & & 0.42 & 0.32 & 0.20\\
1049: 11814 & 0.39$\pm$0.09 & 0.34$\pm$0.08 & 0.32$\pm$0.08 & 0.34$\pm$0.05 & & 0.39$\pm$0.03 & 0.29$\pm$0.14& 0.23\\
1050: 3369 & 0.41$\pm$0.09 & 0.37$\pm$0.09 & 0.35$\pm$0.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.07 & 0.19 & 0.42 & 0.36 & 0.18\\
1051: 4715 & 0.39$\pm$0.07 & 0.36$\pm$0.05 & 0.33$\pm$0.07 & 0.35$\pm$0.02 & 0.18 & 0.41$\pm$0.02 & 0.42 & 0.23\\
1052: 7922 & 0.39$\pm$0.02 & 0.39$\pm$0.07 & 0.33$\pm$0.14 & 0.36$\pm$0.02 & & 0.37$\pm$0.09 & 0.40 & 0.22\\
1053: 7972 & 0.40$\pm$0.09 & 0.39$\pm$0.05 & 0.35$\pm$0.06 & 0.34$\pm$0.05 & 0.20 & 0.39 & 0.41 & 0.26\\
1054: 8082 & 0.42$\pm$0.04 & 0.38$\pm$0.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.07 & 0.38$\pm$0.07 & 0.14 & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.23\\
1055: 8266 & 0.37$\pm$0.05 & 0.37$\pm$0.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.07 & 0.37 & 0.24 & 0.39 & 0.31 & 0.19\\
1056: 8563 & 0.38$\pm$0.08 & 0.38$\pm$0.06 & 0.32$\pm$0.03 & 0.36$\pm$0.04 & 0.32 & 0.42 & 0.37 & 0.25\\
1057: 8988 & 0.36$\pm$0.06 & 0.40$\pm$0.07 & 0.35$\pm$0.10 & 0.31$\pm$0.07 & 0.22 & 0.39 & 0.34 & \\
1058: \enddata
1059: \end{deluxetable}
1060:
1061:
1062: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
1063: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1064: \tablewidth{0pt}
1065: %\rotate
1066: \tablecaption{ABUNDANCE RATIOS}
1067: \tablehead{
1068: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{[Ca/Fe]} & \colhead{[Ti/Fe]} & \colhead{[Ba/Fe]} & \colhead{[Si/Fe]} & \colhead{[Ni/Fe]}
1069: & \colhead{[Al/Fe]}}
1070: \startdata
1071: 10898 & 0.38$\pm$0.08 & -0.05 & 0.00 & & +0.04 & -0.06 & -0.18\\
1072: 11814 & 0.34$\pm$0.08 & -0.02 & 0.00 & & +0.05 & -0.05 & -0.11\\
1073: 3369 & 0.37$\pm$0.09 & -0.02 & +0.01 & -0.14 & +0.05 & -0.01 & -0.19\\
1074: 4715 & 0.36$\pm$0.05 & -0.03 & -0.01 & -0.15 & +0.05 & +0.06 & -0.13\\
1075: 7922 & 0.39$\pm$0.07 & -0.06 & -0.03 & & -0.02 & +0.01 & -0.17\\
1076: 7972 & 0.39$\pm$0.05 & -0.04 & -0.05 & -0.15 & 0.00 & +0.02 & -0.13\\
1077: 8082 & 0.38$\pm$0.05 & 0.00 & 0.00 & -0.22 & -0.02 & -0.02 & -0.15\\
1078: 8266 & 0.37$\pm$0.05 & +0.01 & 0.00 & -0.12 & +0.02 & +0.02 & -0.18\\
1079: 8563 & 0.38$\pm$0.06 & -0.06 & -0.06 & 0.00 & +0.04 & -0.01 & -0.13\\
1080: 8988 & 0.40$\pm$0.07 & -0.05 & -0.06 & -0.13 & -0.01 & -0.01 & \\
1081: \enddata
1082: \end{deluxetable}
1083:
1084:
1085:
1086: \end{document}
1087:
1088: