4.6 Article

A DEEP PROPER MOTION CATALOG WITHIN THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY FOOTPRINT. II. THE WHITE DWARF LUMINOSITY FUNCTION

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/10

关键词

stars: luminosity function, mass function; white dwarfs

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST 06-07480]
  2. NSF
  3. NASA [AST-1312678, NNX14AF65G]
  4. NFS [AST-0602288]
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. U.S. Department of Energy
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  9. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  10. Max Planck Society
  11. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  12. [NAG W-2166]
  13. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  14. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1312678] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A catalog of 8472 white dwarf (WD) candidates is presented, selected using reduced proper motions from the deep proper motion catalog of Munn et al. Candidates are selected in the magnitude range 16 < r < 21.5 over 980 square degrees, and 16 < r < 21.3 over an additional 1276 square degrees, within the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) imaging footprint. Distances, bolometric luminosities, and atmospheric compositions are derived by fitting SDSS ugriz photometry to pure hydrogen and helium model atmospheres (assuming surface gravities log g = 8). The disk white dwarf luminosity function (WDLF) is constructed using a sample of 2839 stars with 5.5 < M-bol < 17, with statistically significant numbers of stars cooler than the turnover in the luminosity function. The WDLF for the halo is also constructed, using a sample of 135 halo WDs with 5 < M-bol < 16. We find space densities of disk and halo WDs in the solar neighborhood of 5.5 +/- 0.1 x 10(-3) pc(-3) and 3.5 +/- 0.7 x 10(-5) pc(-3), respectively. We resolve the bump in the disk WDLF due to the onset of fully convective envelopes in WDs, and see indications of it in the halo WDLF as well.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据