1. M5 = NGC 5904 ( nearest “intermediate-metallicity” globular cluster accessible from a northern hemisphere site ) Harris (2003, Feb version) 7.5kpc from the Sun, 6.2kpc from gal. centre [Fe/H] = -1.27 (= -1.40 in ZW84) E(B-V) = 0.03, high galactic latitude (+46.8 deg) HB index (B-R)/(B+V+R) = 0.31, c = 1.83 By Ivans, Kraft, Sneden, Smith, Rich, Shetrone (2001) vs. M4 - 36 luminous giants and AGB stars By Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) vs. M71 (nearest from n. h.) - C & N variations at the base of the RGB By Ramirez & Cohen (2003) vs. M71 (c.f. 47 Tuc) - 25 stars covering a wide range in luminosity

2. CMD of M5 by Sohn & Lee (2000) -metallicity via photometry -HB morphology

4. B:V:R = 75:95:56 (B-R)/(B+V+R)=0.08 B:V:R = 92:40:32 (B-R)/(B+V+R)=0.37

5. Ivans et al. (2001) - 36 luminous giants and AGB stars CMD of M5, showing the positions of program stars on the AGB and RGB. Symbols given at lower right correspond to the observatory and resolution used for each observation.

6. Ivans et al. (2001) = -1.21 based on FeII, adopting non-LTE precepts = -1.34 based on FeI e.g., M4, = -1.08, redetermined from -1.18

7. Ivans et al. (2001) Box plot of the M5 giant star element abundances. For each abundance ratio the "box" contains the middle 50% of the data (i.e., the interquartile range) and the horizontal line inside the box indicates the median value of a particular element. The tails vertical extending from the boxes indicate the total range of abundances determined for each element, excluding outliers. Mild outliers (those between 1.5 and 3 times the interquartile range) are denoted by open circles. Severe outliers (those greater than 3 times the interquartile range) are denoted by filled circles.

8. Ivans et al. (2001) O and Na anticorrelation, Na and Al and CN correlation, seen in previous studies of other globular clusters, expected proton-capture nucleosynthesis (e.g., CN & ON cycle)

9. Ivans et al. (2001) lower log g: higher O and lower Na, contrary to evolutionary scenario opposite of M13 CN strong vs. weak -- primordial scatter at given CN -- deep mixing

10. Ivans et al. (2001)

11. Ivans et al. (2001) Proton-capture s, r-process heavier a- and Fe peak

12. Ivans et al. (2001) HB Index (B-R)/(B+V+R) Lee, Demarque, Zinn (1994) M71 = -1.00 M4 = -0.07 M5 = 0.37 M3 = 0.08 M10 = 0.94 M13 = 0.97 M2 = 0.96 NGC6752 = 1.00 Blue tail vs. Super O-poor??

13. Cohen, Briley & Stetson (2002) - C & N variations at the base of the RGB Signal is too low for a detailed analysis Keck LRIS coverage from 3600 to 4800A CN band at 3885A G band of CH at 4300A Main sample is LLG stars: (similar evolutionary state)

14. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) Arbitrarily divided CH-strong and CH-weak sample

15. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) strong anticorrelation among SGBs

16. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) Briley et al. (1992): more luminous giants

17. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) Requires nearly a 0.75 dex star-to-star variation in [C/Fe] among SGB stars

18. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) C & N anticorrelation among SGB stars No systematic trends with either luminosity or temperature are apparent in the abundances.

19. Cohen, Briley, & Stetson (2002) Sum of the derived C and N abundances is plotted as a function of the C abundance. Large filled circle marks the location for both C and N depleted by a factor of 16, adopting the abundance of M5 of [Fe/H] = -1.2 dex, with C/N at the solar ratio. Horizontal line extending to the left of that represents the locus of points for C gradually being converted into N, with the left end of the line having C/C 0 = 0.1. “The range of variation of the N abundances is very large, and the sum of C+N increases as C decreases. To reproduce this requires the incorporation not only of CN but also of ON-processed material.”

20. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) - 25 stars covering a wide range in luminosity Keck (HIRES) wavelength range (6000 ~ 8000A) (c.f., Ivans et al. (5400 ~ 6700A)) Photometry from Stetson et al. (1998)

21. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) [Fe/H] from Fe I (top) and Fe II (bottom) against photometric T eff. The solid lines are linear fits weighted by the errors. The dashed lines indicate the mean [Fe/H] with their respective error plotted as an error bar at 4000 K. In both cases, [Fe/H] shows no dependence on T eff. Note that = -1.30 ± 0.02 and = -1.28 ± 0.02. “at this metallicity, non-LTE effects are not important…” “ Thévenin & Idiart (1999) found that non-LTE corrections Thévenin & Idiart (1999) become more important as [Fe/H] decreases, being about 0.2 dex for stars with [Fe/H] about -1.25 dex, and that ionized lines are not significantly affected by non-LTE.”

22. Ivans et al. (2001) = -1.21 based on FeII, adopting non-LTE precepts = -1.34 based on FeI e.g., M4, = -1.08, redetermined, -1.17 if based on FeI c.f., M71, = -0.84 ± 0.12 and = -0.71 ± 0.08

23. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) Abundance ratios of O and Na with respect to Fe against T eff. The solid line is a linear fit weighted by the errors. The dashed line indicates the mean abundance ratio with its respective error plotted as an error bar at 4000 K. The open triangle corresponds to the abundance determined from the summed spectra of the six m.-s. stars. Arrows represent upper limits for the oxygen abundance ratio. Stars G18450_0453 and G18564_0457 with similar Te, part of whose spectra are shown in Fig. 11 (next slide), are marked with squares in the [Na/Fe] plot (bottom). ->The scatter shown by [Na/Fe] is due to real abundance variations among stars of similar T eff.

24. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) G18450_0453 (5170 K, [Na/Fe] = +0.30) G18564_0457 (5400 K, [Na/Fe] = -0.27).

25. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) Summary of abundance ratios in M5. The thick line on the left side of the box is the predicted error (expected for the interquartile range), which includes the dependence on the stellar parameters and the equivalent-width determination.

26. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) Ivans et al. (2001) O “The difference of +0.24 dex in the mean O abundance presumably reflects our inability to detect weak O lines in the O-poor low-luminosity part of our sample in M5, assuming they are actually present there.” Al “ although the 6696, 6698 Å Al I doublet is the most useful feature of that element in this spectral region, we could not get it to fit into a single HIRES setting together with the O lines.

27. Ramirez & Cohen (2003)

28. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) - [Na/Fe] against [O/Fe] for our sample of M5 stars. Arrows represent upper limits for the [O/Fe] abundance ratio. The open triangle corresponds to the mean abundance of the six main-sequence stars. [Na/Fe] against [O/Fe] for stars in M5 from our analysis, showing clear detections (filled triangles), mean m.-s. stars (open triangle), and others from the literature. The dashed line corresponds to the Na-O anticorrelation present in M4 from the analysis of Ivans et al. (1999), shown as a fiducial line.

29. Ramirez & Cohen (2003) – very similar abundance ratios btw. M5 & M71 Comparison of the abundance ratios for all elements common to our analysis of similar data for 25 stars in M71 (Ramírez & Cohen 2002; triangles) and in M5 (squares). may be due to difficulties in the analysis Cu in M5: based on single line

30. Briley, Cohen & Stetson (2004, astro-ph/0312315) -- M13 Briley, Harbeck & Smith (2004, astro-ph/0312316) -- 47 Tuc “pollution/accretion via AGB ejecta” “But rather than simple surface pollution, a substantial fraction of the present stars’ masses must be involved.” C depletion do appear smaller in accord with the prediction of AGB ejecta models of Ventura et al. (2001) …accretion of C-poor materials….to explain the gap & similar spread of [N/Fe], [O/Fe] and [Na/Fe] are needed….