In Figs. 1-3 we compare the PHOENIX synthetic spectra with ATLAS9 spectra for a range of effective temperatures with fixed solar abundances. Note that while Kurucz 92 uses the [Anders & Grevesse(1989)Anders and Grevesse] solar abundances, we use the more recent solar abundances given in Table 5 of [Jaschek & Jaschek(1995)Jaschek and Jaschek]. The changes in the abundances will introduce small but systematic differences between the Kurucz 92 models and our model structures and between the spectra because the abundances of the key elements C, N, O, and Fe are different. The PHOENIX spectra have been degraded by convolution with a Gaussian kernel to more closely resemble the resolution of the ATLAS9 spectra. The spectra for the Kurucz models were obtained using the IDL routine KURGET1 and the corresponding database of models available in the IUE reduction and data analysis package IUERDAF.
In general, our models agree well with the ATLAS9 spectra for
effective temperatures higher than about . We expect better
agreement between PHOENIX and ATLAS9 spectra for higher effective
temperatures since we have included the latest version of Kurucz atomic line
list into PHOENIX and atomic lines dominate the overall opacity in
this temperature range.
The remaining differences between the spectra are probably caused by
the slightly different abundances, different methods for treating the
line blanketing (ODF in ATLAS9 versus direct opacity sampling in
PHOENIX), the fact that the ODF's in the ATLAS9 models were
constructed using a previous version of the Kurucz line lists,
and by differences in the treatment of, e.g., scattering and
b-f and f-f opacities. These different treatments alter the
model structures, resulting in systematic variations between the spectra.
In the ultraviolet (UV), the two model grid spectra differ in several
regions (cf. Fig. 1), which might in part be due to the fact that
the ATLAS9 spectra are based on ODF's. The general features of the
UV spectra are similar. Some of the features in the PHOENIX spectrum are deeper than the ATLAS9 features. This could partly
be due to the different abundances and to changes in the atomic line list
itself since the calculation of the ATLAS9 models.
We compare the models in the region of the H I Balmer lines in
Fig. 2. The lines widths agree well, however, the H I lines
in the PHOENIX spectrum seem to be a little deeper than the ATLAS9 lines. This is probably simply an artifact of the ODF versus opacity
sampling treatment of the lines. In addition, we have inserted wavelength
points in the cores on the H I lines. For comparison, we also show the
PHOENIX spectrum at its original resolution with the fluxes scaled
by a factor of 0.5. The opacity sampling method results in many more
line features appearing in the spectrum, similar to ATLAS12 results
shown in [Castelli & Kurucz(1994)Castelli and Kurucz]. Figure 1 compares our models to
Kurucz 92 for ,
and for solar abundances. The
differences between the spectra are essentially the same over the whole
range of gravities and are therefore not shown. The PHOENIX spectra
show less flux in some UV regions (e.g., around
) and the UV
lines are generally deeper than in the ATLAS9 spectra. The flux that
is intercepted in the UV is redistributed into the Paschen continuum so
that the total energy flux through the atmosphere is given by
. Thus, the differences in the spectra are probably caused mainly
by a larger UV opacity in the opacity sampling PHOENIX models.
For lower effective temperatures, the differences between the PHOENIX and the ATLAS9 spectra become larger. In Fig. 3 we show a
more detailed comparison between models with ,
and solar abundances. The figure clearly shows the spectral regions where
the two spectra do not agree well. In particular, the ``pseudo-continuum''
between about
and
lies at about a 10% lower flux
level in the ATLAS9 spectrum than in the PHOENIX spectrum. In
the optical spectral region between
and about
the
PHOENIX spectrum shows a number of molecular bands (due to TiO and VO?)
that are not seen in the ATLAS9 spectrum. These bands are more important
in the VLMS and Brown Dwarf range of the NextGen grid. The Kurucz TiO
line list results in much weaker TiO features and different band shapes
than the Jørgensen TiO list that we use [Schweitzer(1995)Schweitzer]. This
is more important for lower effective temperatures and will cause more
significant deviations between the PHOENIX and the ATLAS9 models.
There are also discrepancies between the spectra in the near infrared
(NIR) spectral region. The CO bands are somewhat different, which is
probably caused by the ODF versus opacity sampling treatment of the line
blanketing of the calculations. The CO line data that we use
are very similar to the Kurucz CO line list [Schweitzer(1995)Schweitzer]. We include
water lines in the model calculations and the spectral synthesis, which
is not included in the ATLAS9 models. This causes the differences in
the molecular absorption band around , this feature is due to
a strong water vapor band. Therefore, it is likely that the differences for low
effective temperatures can be explained mainly by the different opacity
data used in PHOENIX and ATLAS9. At effective temperatures as high
as
, differences between the number of molecules and the
molecular data used in the EOS's of PHOENIX and ATLAS9 are probably unimportant. At lower temperatures, however, the larger
EOS of PHOENIX will likely increase the differences
between the two sets of models.