All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{2941f1a.ps}\par\vspace*{2m... ...2mm} \hspace*{1mm} \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{2941f1c.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Ages and present masses of the 1152 clusters identified in Paper II. Top: original data, where every point represents a cluster. Middle: same data as in the top panel overplotted with the grid used to bin the data. Above the dark line are the bins not affected by the detection limit. Bottom: logarithmic density plot of the same sample, where dark regions represent more clusters. The right hand scale shows how the grey values correspond to the logarithm of number. The line in all three plots is the 90% completeness limit ( F439W = 22.6 mag).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{2941f2.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Age/mass diagram of artificial sample after fitting with the method described in Sect. 2.1. The deviations from equally spaced dots in log(Age/yr)/log( $M/\mbox{${M}_{\odot}$ }$ ) are caused by the applied observational errors and the fitting routine.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2941f3.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Result of fitting an artificial cluster sample with the 3DEF method. Top left: the fitted age is shown versus the input age for each cluster. Deviations from the one-to-one relation are caused by photometric errors which are applied to the input sample and misfitted extinction. Top right: the percentage of clusters fitted with the same age as the input value, plus some deviations, as a function of this deviation. Bottom left: similar, but then for extinction. Bottom right: similar but for the mass.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2941f4.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Ratio of the corrected observations over the uncorrected observations. The corrected data was calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2). Light regions indicate where less clusters are found by the fitting procedure. Dark regions indicate where more clusters are fitted than inputted.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2941f5.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Corrected age and mass distribution. The raw data from Fig. 1 ( bottom) was multiplied with the inverse of the contribution matrix (Eq. (1)).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f6.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Number density plot of $r_{\rm eff}$ vs. age. The decreasing number going towards larger radii shows the power law behavior of the radius distribution. The right hand side shows how the grey values correspond to the logarithm of number of clusters.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f7.ps}\par \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Ratio of the number of clusters (N) between 3-5 kpc and 1-3 kpc as a function of age. Overplotted is a model predicting this ratio for two disruption times differing a factor of 1.8, based on Eq. (8).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f8.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: $\mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ }$ values for different disruption times. A clear minimum is visible at $t_4 = \mbox{$1.0^{+0.6}_{-0.5}\times10^8$ }$ . The dotted line indicates $\redchi_{\rm ,min} + 1$ . The dashed line shows a fit to the data after correcting for age-fitting artifacts (Sect. 2.4). In these simulations we have chosen $\gamma$ to be 0.62, based on theoretical arguments (Sect. 5).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f9.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Two dimensional $\mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ }$ plot of $\gamma$ vs. t₄. The cross and the shaded area indicate the region where $\redchi_{\rm ,min} < \mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ } < \redchi_{\rm ,min} + 1$ in t₄ and $\gamma$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f10.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Illustration of the applied CFR increase in Sect. 6.3 for two different models. Model 1: the CFR is taken to be constant before 1 Gyr ago and then increases linearly in time until t=0. Model 2: the CFR increases with steps at the two moments of encounter with NGC 5195. Here the height of the step is the variable.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f11a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \hspace*{1mm}\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{2941f11b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: $\mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ }$ values for different combinations of CFR increase and disruption time (t₄). The top panel shows the results of Model 1 where the CFR increases linearly between t = 1 Gyr and t = present time. The bottom panel shows the result for Model 2, where the CFR increases with steps at the moment of encounter with NGC 5195. The cross and the shaded area indicate the region where $\redchi_{\rm ,min} < \mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ } < \redchi_{\rm ,min} + 1$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f12a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f12b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 12: Comparison between the observed ( top) and the modeled ( bottom) age vs. mass number density plots. In both plots the 90% completeness limit of the F439W band is indicated with a line. The right hand side shows how the different grey values correspond to the logarithm of number. The total number in the simulations is scaled to the total number of observed clusters above the 90% completeness limit (1152).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f13a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f13b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 13: Comparison of the age distribution of clusters with masses larger than $10^{4.7}~\mbox{${M}_{\odot}$ }$ and the one derived from the best fit model. Top: number of clusters per age bin. Bottom: the cluster formation rate (number per Myr).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{2941f2.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Age/mass diagram of artificial sample after fitting with the method described in Sect. 2.1. The deviations from equally spaced dots in log(Age/yr)/log( $M/\mbox{${M}_{\odot}$ }$ ) are caused by the applied observational errors and the fitting routine.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2941f4.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Ratio of the corrected observations over the uncorrected observations. The corrected data was calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2). Light regions indicate where less clusters are found by the fitting procedure. Dark regions indicate where more clusters are fitted than inputted.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2941f5.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Corrected age and mass distribution. The raw data from Fig. 1 ( bottom) was multiplied with the inverse of the contribution matrix (Eq. (1)).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f6.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Number density plot of $r_{\rm eff}$ vs. age. The decreasing number going towards larger radii shows the power law behavior of the radius distribution. The right hand side shows how the grey values correspond to the logarithm of number of clusters.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f7.ps}\par \end{figure}$	Figure 7: Ratio of the number of clusters (N) between 3-5 kpc and 1-3 kpc as a function of age. Overplotted is a model predicting this ratio for two disruption times differing a factor of 1.8, based on Eq. (8).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f9.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: Two dimensional $\mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ }$ plot of $\gamma$ vs. t₄. The cross and the shaded area indicate the region where $\redchi_{\rm ,min} < \mbox{$\chi_\nu^2$ } < \redchi_{\rm ,min} + 1$ in t₄ and $\gamma$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f10.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Illustration of the applied CFR increase in Sect. 6.3 for two different models. Model 1: the CFR is taken to be constant before 1 Gyr ago and then increases linearly in time until t=0. Model 2: the CFR increases with steps at the two moments of encounter with NGC 5195. Here the height of the step is the variable.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f13a.ps}\par\vspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2941f13b.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 13: Comparison of the age distribution of clusters with masses larger than $10^{4.7}~\mbox{${M}_{\odot}$ }$ and the one derived from the best fit model. Top: number of clusters per age bin. Bottom: the cluster formation rate (number per Myr).
Open with DEXTER