All Figures

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{2252fig1.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 1: A schematic representation of the geometries of the disk models studied in this work. The shadow cast by the inner rim is shaded light.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig2.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 2: The spectral energy distributions of the DD04 flaring (full curve), DD04 self-shadowed (dashed curve) and CG97 (dotted curve) models. The full grey curve represents the DD04 flaring model, wherethe silicate resonances between 8 and 25 $\mu$ m have artificially beenremoved from the opacity table (see also Sect. 3.3.2 and Fig. 6).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig3.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Radial intensity profiles of the DD04 flaring, DD04 self-shadowed and CG97 models ( upper panel). The lower panel shows the normalized cumulative flux distribution of the models. The three regions of the disk that we distinguish ("bright inner rim'', "intermediate shadowed region'', and "outer disk'') are indicated for the DD04 flaring model (in the DD04 self-shadowed model, the intermediate shadowed region extends somewhat further outward).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.78cm,clip]{2252fig4.ps} % } \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Simulated visibility curves V(B) of a CG97, a DD04 flaring, and a DD04 self-shadowed disk model (from top to bottom, for $V(\lambda )$ curves of these models see Fig. 5). We show model visibilities at three different wavelengths. x₁ and x₂ denote optimum baselines to distinguish between the various models (see Sect. 3.4).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{2252fig5.ps} % } \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Visibility curves $V(\lambda )$ of a CG97, a DD04 flaring, and a DD04 self-shadowed disk model (for V(B) curves of these models see Fig. 4). We show the predicted behaviour of the visibility as a function of wavelength $V(\lambda )$ , for several different baselines. The wavelengthregions that are inaccessible from the ground are shaded grey.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig6.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: The effect of the increased dust opacity in the silicate feature on the visibilities. The full lines show the visibility curves of theDD04 flaring model, the dashed lines show the visibility curves of the same model, where the silicate resonances have been removed inthe opacities prior to the ray tracing.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig7.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: A diagnostic diagram used to distinguish between models with (DD04) and without (CG97) a bright inner rim, and between models with a flaring (DD04 flaring) and self-shadowed (DD04 self-sh) outer disk geometry. On the horizontal axis we plot the slope of the visibility curves between two appropriately chosen "normalized'' baseline lengths x₁ and x₂ (x_i=B_i/d, where B_i is the baseline in m and d is the distance to the star in pc, see Sect. 3.4 for how x₁ and x₂ are best chosen). On the vertical axis we plot the predicted visibility at the longest baseline. The CG97 models have a much steeper slope than the DD04 models. The DD04 self-shadowed model has a much higher visibility than the DD04 flaring model. In the upper left corner we have indicated the uncertainties due to the limited precision of the visibility measurements, where we have assumed a 1% accuracy in visibility. In grey symbols we have plotted where in the diagram the various models end up if we artificially remove the silicate feature (as we did in Fig. 6). This can be regarded as an upper limit for the uncertainty due to mineralogy.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.7cm,clip]{2252fig1.eps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 1: A schematic representation of the geometries of the disk models studied in this work. The shadow cast by the inner rim is shaded light.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig2.ps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 2: The spectral energy distributions of the DD04 flaring (full curve), DD04 self-shadowed (dashed curve) and CG97 (dotted curve) models. The full grey curve represents the DD04 flaring model, wherethe silicate resonances between 8 and 25 $\mu$ m have artificially beenremoved from the opacity table (see also Sect. 3.3.2 and Fig. 6).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.78cm,clip]{2252fig4.ps} % } \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Simulated visibility curves V(B) of a CG97, a DD04 flaring, and a DD04 self-shadowed disk model (from top to bottom, for $V(\lambda )$ curves of these models see Fig. 5). We show model visibilities at three different wavelengths. x₁ and x₂ denote optimum baselines to distinguish between the various models (see Sect. 3.4).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{2252fig5.ps} % } \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Visibility curves $V(\lambda )$ of a CG97, a DD04 flaring, and a DD04 self-shadowed disk model (for V(B) curves of these models see Fig. 4). We show the predicted behaviour of the visibility as a function of wavelength $V(\lambda )$ , for several different baselines. The wavelengthregions that are inaccessible from the ground are shaded grey.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{2252fig6.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: The effect of the increased dust opacity in the silicate feature on the visibilities. The full lines show the visibility curves of theDD04 flaring model, the dashed lines show the visibility curves of the same model, where the silicate resonances have been removed inthe opacities prior to the ray tracing.
Open with DEXTER