All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f1,angle=90,width=8.2cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Solar spectrum observed (thick lines) at a resolution of R = 42 000 with the ELODIE spectrograph compared to synthetic spectra (thin lines) computed with revised ATLAS9 models (Sect. 2.1). Damping constants and oscillator strengths were obtained from a fit to the solar spectrum employing a) the HM74 model; b) ATLAS9 solar atmospheric model computed in this work, for which the atomic constants were fitted.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f2,angle=0,width=8.2cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Spectral region containing the MgI triplet lines computed with $T_{\rm eff} = 4000$ K, $\log\; g = 1.5$ , $[{\rm Fe/H}] = -0.1$ and $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ and +0.4. The synthetic spectra were convolved with a Gaussian of $FWHM = 1.0~{\rm \AA}$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f3,angle=-90,width=16cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Comparison of the spectrum of M67: F108 and synthetic spectrum computed with $T_{\rm eff} = 4360$ K, $\log\; g = 2.1$ , ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -0.36$ and $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ (upper panel) and residuals (lower panel). The synthetic spectra were convolved with a Gaussian of FHWM = 3.0 Å.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=14.5cm]{ms10234.f4}\par \end{figure}$ Figure 4: a) Fe5270 and b) Fe5330 (as defined by Worthey et al. 1994) vs. FWHM ( Å) for dwarfs of $T_{\rm eff} = 4500$ and 5000 K, $\log \; g = 4.5$ , ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -0.2$ and $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ and +0.4; c) Mgb and d) Mg₂ vs. FWHM ( Å) for a giant and a dwarf of $\log\; g = 2.0$ and 4.5, $T_{\rm eff} = 4500$ , ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -0.5$ and $[\alpha /{\bf Fe}] = 0.0$ and +0.4. See comments in Sect. 3.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f5,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Comparison of the index Fe5335 between the measured indices of the Worthey et al. (1994) sample and the computed indices from our fitting functions using the stellar parameters provided for that sample. The systematic shift gives the correction that converts the indices derived by the fitting functions to the Lick system.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f6,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: ln(Mgb) vs. [Fe/H] for $\log\; g = 2.5$ , $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ and effective temperatures $T_{\rm eff} = 4250$ (circles), 5250 (triangles), 6000 (downsided triangles) and 6750 K (diamonds). See comments in Sect. 3.1.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f7,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Computed vs. measured Mg₂ indices for a sample of 97 observed stars listed in Tables B.1-B.3. The solid line is a 1:1 line that would correspond to a perfect match. Standard deviation obtained: 0.006.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f8,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Computed vs. measured Fe5270 indices for the stars listed in Table B.3. Solid line: same as in Fig. 7. Standard deviation obtained: 0.07.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \psfig{file=ms10234.f9,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Computed vs. measured Fe5270 indices for the stars listed in Table B.3. Solid line: same as in Fig. 7. Standard deviation obtained: 0.09.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f2,angle=0,width=8.2cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Spectral region containing the MgI triplet lines computed with $T_{\rm eff} = 4000$ K, $\log\; g = 1.5$ , $[{\rm Fe/H}] = -0.1$ and $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ and +0.4. The synthetic spectra were convolved with a Gaussian of $FWHM = 1.0~{\rm \AA}$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f3,angle=-90,width=16cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Comparison of the spectrum of M67: F108 and synthetic spectrum computed with $T_{\rm eff} = 4360$ K, $\log\; g = 2.1$ , ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -0.36$ and $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ (upper panel) and residuals (lower panel). The synthetic spectra were convolved with a Gaussian of FHWM = 3.0 Å.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f5,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Comparison of the index Fe5335 between the measured indices of the Worthey et al. (1994) sample and the computed indices from our fitting functions using the stellar parameters provided for that sample. The systematic shift gives the correction that converts the indices derived by the fitting functions to the Lick system.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f6,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: ln(Mgb) vs. [Fe/H] for $\log\; g = 2.5$ , $[\alpha /{\rm Fe}] = 0.0$ and effective temperatures $T_{\rm eff} = 4250$ (circles), 5250 (triangles), 6000 (downsided triangles) and 6750 K (diamonds). See comments in Sect. 3.1.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f7,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 7: Computed vs. measured Mg₂ indices for a sample of 97 observed stars listed in Tables B.1-B.3. The solid line is a 1:1 line that would correspond to a perfect match. Standard deviation obtained: 0.006.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{file=ms10234.f8,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Computed vs. measured Fe5270 indices for the stars listed in Table B.3. Solid line: same as in Fig. 7. Standard deviation obtained: 0.07.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \psfig{file=ms10234.f9,angle=0,width=8.3cm} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: Computed vs. measured Fe5270 indices for the stars listed in Table B.3. Solid line: same as in Fig. 7. Standard deviation obtained: 0.09.
Open with DEXTER