text:
# Forces on Dust Grains Exposed to Anisotropic Interstellar Radiation Fields

## 1 Introduction

Anisotropic radiation fields are common in the interstellar medium (ISM). Of course, the radiation is highly anisotropic at points located close to a star or cluster or at the edge of a molecular cloud. These include the astronomically important photodissociation regions (PDRs), the surface layers of molecular clouds, where incident UV dissociates molecules. The visible/UV radiation field in the diffuse ISM is due primarily to starlight; since stars are unevenly distributed, it too is anisotropic. Dust grains in this radiation field are subjected to torques, if their shapes are somewhat asymmetric, and this may be resposible for the alignment of interstellar grains (Draine & Weingartner 1996, 1997), which is inferred from the observed polarization of starlight (Hiltner 1949a, b; Hall 1949; Hall & Mikesell 1949).

Grains exposed to anisotropic radiation are subjected to forces as well as to torques, again with potentially important consequences. If the “radiative” forces are large enough to result in substantial gas-grain drift, then this could lead to spatial variation in the dust-to-gas ratio. If the drift depends on grain size, then grain coagulation could result. Here we investigate two potentially significant forces, due to the recoil associated with electrons and adsorbed H atoms, which are ejected from the grain with some non-zero probability following photon absorption.

Lafon (1990) modeled the net force due to anisotropic photoelectron emission for grains exposed to unidirectional radiation fields and found that, for some interstellar conditions, it substantially exceeds the radiation pressure, due to absorption and scattering. Lafon considered spherical grains and assumed that electrons are emitted only from the illuminated hemisphere. However, interstellar grain radii can be smaller than the photon attenuation length, so that electrons are also emitted from the non-illuminated hemisphere. In §3, we revisit the calculation of photoelectric recoil forces on dust grains, employing the prescription of Kerker & Wang (1982) for estimating the anisotropy in photoelectron momentum.

In §4, we consider the force due to the anisotropic photodesorption of adsorbed H atoms. An adatom starts out in the gas phase, collides with and sticks to the grain surface, and can be removed when an absorbed photon breaks its bond to the surface. Of course, there are many other grain surface processes, besides adsorption and photodesorption, and these too could play important roles in determining the emission anisotropy. Since interstellar grains have not yet been well characterized, the details of their surface physics are unknown. We adopt a simple, yet plausible, model and evaluate the “photodesorption” force for this one case.

Following the investigations of the photoelectric and photodesorption forces, we discuss, in §5, how surface processes can affect the drag force experienced by drifting grains. In §6, we estimate the anisotropy of the interstellar radiation field. In §7, we estimate drift speeds for grains in the diffuse ISM, tying together the results from the previous sections. In a separate paper (Weingartner & Draine 2001c), we will investigate gas-grain drift in PDRs.

## 2 Radiation Pressure Force

We generally normalize our results for the “photoelectric” and “photodesorption” forces to the radiation pressure force, in order to see whether or not they are significant. The force due to radiation pressure is

$$F_{\mathrm{rad}}=\pi a^2Q_{\mathrm{pr}}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}},$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the grain radius (we assume spherical grains in all of our calculations) and $`c\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the net energy flux in the radiation field ($`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}}=u_{\mathrm{rad}}`$, the total energy density, for a unidirectional radiation field and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}}=0`$ for an isotropic radiation field). The spectrum-averaged radiation pressure efficiency factor is given by

$$Q_{\mathrm{pr}}\frac{_0^{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}}\left[Q_{\mathrm{abs}}+Q_{\mathrm{sca}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]u_\nu 𝑑\nu }{_0^{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}}u_\nu 𝑑\nu },$$
(2)
where $`Q_{\mathrm{abs}}\pi a^2`$ is the absorption cross section, $`Q_{\mathrm{sca}}\pi a^2`$ is the scattering cross section, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is the usual scattering asymmetry factor, and $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the highest frequency in the radiation field. We will take $`h\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=13.6\mathrm{eV}`$, because H I regions are highly opaque to H-ionizing radiation. We evaluate $`Q_{\mathrm{abs}}`$, $`Q_{\mathrm{sca}}`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ using a Mie theory code derived from BHMIE (Bohren & Huffman 1983). We consider carbonaceous and silicate compositions and take optical properties from Draine & Lee (1984), Laor & Draine (1993), and Li & Draine (2001), as described by Weingartner & Draine (2001a).

We consider two types of radiation spectrum. To characterize regions located near a single star, we adopt a blackbody spectrum (cut off at $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$), with color temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and dilution factor $`W`$, so that the energy density per unit frequency interval $`u_\nu =4\pi WB_\nu (T_\mathrm{c})/c`$. It is convenient to characterize the radiation intensity by $`Gu_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{uv}}/u_{\mathrm{Hab}}^{\mathrm{uv}}`$, where $`u_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{uv}}`$ is the energy density in the radiation field between $`6\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{Hab}}^{\mathrm{uv}}=5.33\times 10^{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the Habing (1968) estimate of the starlight energy density in this range.111 For comparison, the interstellar radiation field estimated by Draine (1978) has $`u=8.93\times 10^{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ between 6 and 13.6 eV, or $`G=1.68`$.

For the diffuse ISM, we adopt the average interstellar radiation field (ISRF) spectrum in the solar neighborhood, as estimated by Mezger, Mathis, & Panagia (1982) and Mathis, Mezger, & Panagia (1983); see Weingartner & Draine (2001b) for a convenient representation of the ISRF. The total energy density in the ISRF is $`u=8.64\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, with $`u_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{uv}}=6.07\times 10^{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the 6-13.6 eV interval, or $`G=1.13`$.

In Figure 1 we display $`Q_{\mathrm{pr}}`$, as a function of grain size $`a`$, for the ISRF and blackbody spectra with various values of $`T_c`$. We consider grains with $`a`$ as large as $`1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, even though the classic MRN size distribution (Mathis, Rumpl, & Nordsieck 1977) only extends up to $`a=0.25\mathrm{\mu m}`$. The size distributions of Weingartner & Draine (2001a) contain non-negligible amounts of mass in grains with $`a1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, and we will find that the radiative forces are relatively large for such grains; thus, they could be important in some interstellar environments. We consider grains as small as $`a=10\mathrm{\AA }`$, equal to the value adopted by Weingartner & Draine (2001b) for the electron escape length, the typical distance that an excited electron travels within a grain before losing its energy. This choice is somewhat arbitrary, but this does not matter, since the radiative forces are inconsequential for grains with $`a10\mathrm{\AA }`$.

## 3 “Photoelectric” Force

### 3.1 Model

We adopt the photoemission model of Weingartner & Draine (2001b). The photoemission rate and photoelectron energy both depend on the grain charge, so it is necessary to evaluate the charge distribution $`f_Z(a)=`$ the probability that the grain has charge $`Ze`$, where $`e`$ is the proton charge. The charge distribution is set primarily by a balance between electron loss via photoemission and gain via accretion from the gas. Charging by this process is determined mainly by the parameter $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$ ($`T`$ is the gas temperature and $`n_e`$ is the electron density), with an additional mild dependence on $`T`$ (Bakes & Tielens 1994; Weingartner & Draine 2001b).

The photoelectric force on a grain is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{pe}}(a)=\underset{Z}{}f_Z(a)\left[F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{v}}(a,Z)+F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{a}}(a,Z)\right],$$
(3)
where $`F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{v}}(a,Z)`$ is the force due to electrons emitted from the valence band. When $`Z<0`$, the $`Z`$ “attached” electrons occupy energy levels above the valence band, if the latter is full in the neutral; $`F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{a}}(a,Z)`$ is the force due to the emission of these attached electrons.

The contribution from the photoemission of valence electrons is

$$F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{v}}(a,Z)=\pi a^2_{\nu _{\mathrm{pet}}}^{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\nu AYQ_{\mathrm{abs}}\frac{cu_\nu }{h\nu }\sqrt{2m_e}_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑Ef_E(E)\sqrt{E}S(Z,a,E),$$
(4)
where the photoemission threshold energy $`h\nu _{\mathrm{pet}}`$ is the minimum energy that an absorbed photon must have for an electron to be ejected from the valence band, $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ($`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$) is the minimum (maximum) photoelectron kinetic energy (at infinity), and $`f_E(E)`$ is the photoelectron kinetic energy (at infinity) distribution; see Weingartner & Draine (2001b) for prescriptions for evaluating these quantities. The emission asymmetry factor $`A(h\nu ,a)`$ measures the asymmetry in the emission of photoelectrons over the grain surface, the recoil suppression factor $`S(Z,a,E)`$ accounts for electron emission in directions other than the surface normal, and $`m_e`$ is the electron mass.

When $`Z<0`$, the contribution from photodetachment is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{pe},\mathrm{a}}(a,Z)=_{\nu _{\mathrm{pdt}}}^{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\nu A\sigma _{\mathrm{pdt}}(\nu )\frac{cu_\nu }{h\nu }\sqrt{2m_e(h\nu h\nu _{\mathrm{pdt}}+E_{\mathrm{min}})}S(Z,a,E=h\nu h\nu _{\mathrm{pdt}}+E_{\mathrm{min}}),$$
(5)
where the photodetachment threshold energy $`h\nu _{\mathrm{pdt}}`$ is the minimum energy that an absorbed photon must have for an attached electron to be emitted from the grain and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pdt}}(\nu )`$ is the photodetachment cross section.

We follow the simple prescription of Kerker & Wang (1982) for estimating $`A`$. The probability of photoemission from any site on the surface is taken to be proportional to the electric intensity $`\left|𝐄\right|^2`$ just below the surface at that point. Thus,

$$A(h\nu ,a)=\frac{_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \left|𝐄(\theta )\right|^2d\theta }{_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta \left|𝐄(\theta )\right|^2d\theta },$$
(6)
where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle with respect to the direction of the incident radiation. The electric field $`𝐄(\theta )`$ is evaluated using Mie theory (Bohren & Huffman 1983).222We adopt dielectric functions as in Weingartner & Draine (2001b). In Figures 2 and 3 we display the asymmetry factor $`A(h\nu ,a)`$ for grains exposed to unidirectional radiation fields as a function of incident photon energy for various grain sizes for carbonaceous and silicate composition, respectively. Generally, $`A(h\nu ,a)`$ equals the value for a unidirectional field times $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}}/u_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. Curiously, $`A<0`$ for some values of ($`h\nu `$, $`a`$).

We assume that the electrons emerge symmetrically with respect to the local surface normal, with a “cosine-law” angular distribution (i.e. the emission rate at angle $`\psi `$ with respect to the surface normal $`\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi d\psi `$). For an uncharged grain, this would imply $`S=2/3`$. When the grain is charged, the electron escapes on a hyperbolic trajectory, so that when it is at infinity its velocity vector makes an angle $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to the surface normal which differs from the corresponding angle at the surface, $`\psi `$. Taking this into account, we find

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\psi \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi _{\mathrm{}}}{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\psi \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi }}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{1+b}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2(1+b/2)}{2(1+b)}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left|1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b}}\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+b/2\sqrt{1+b}}{1+b/2+\sqrt{1+b}}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2\sqrt{1+b}}},`$
$$b\frac{(Z+1)e^2}{aE},$$
(8)
where $`Ze`$ is the grain charge prior to photoelectron emission. For $`1b10^4`$, the simpler expression

$$S\frac{1.107}{0.4669+(b+1.421)^{0.5043}}$$
(9)
is accurate to within $`0.6\%`$; we adopt this expression in our computations. When an electron tunnels across the Coulomb barrier of a negatively charged grain, $`b<1`$ and the above classical derivation fails, since the grain surface is a classically forbidden location. We simply take $`S=1`$ when $`b<1`$.

### 3.2 Computational Results

The photoelectric force depends on the grain charge distribution, and hence on the parameters $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$ and $`T`$. In Figures 4 and 5, $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}`$ is plotted for carbonaceous and silicate grains, respectively, for $`T=10^2`$ and $`10^3\mathrm{K}`$ and three values of $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$, ranging from $`10^3`$ to $`10^5\mathrm{K}^{1/2}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. For these cases, we adopt a blackbody spectrum with $`T_\mathrm{c}=3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$, cut off at $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$. We also provide results for conditions appropriate for the cold neutral medium (ISRF, $`T=100\mathrm{K}`$, $`n_e=0.03\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e=380`$) and the warm neutral medium (ISRF, $`T=6000\mathrm{K}`$, $`n_e=0.03\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e=2900`$).

Note that for a given value of $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$, the results do not change much as the temperature increases from $`10^2`$ to $`10^3\mathrm{K}`$. Also, $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}/F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ decreases for higher $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$ because the higher ionization potentials quench the photoemission.

For the truncated blackbody spectrum, there is no systematic increase or decrease of $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}/F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ over the full range of grain sizes, because the increase in the anisotropy of emitted electrons with grain size roughly compensates for the decrease in photoelectric yield. The sharp minimum near $`300\mathrm{\AA }`$ in Figure 4 results from a local plateau in the variation of the anisotropy with grain size, which lies near the maximum of $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. For the ISRF, the photoelectric force becomes less important, compared with the radiation pressure, as the grain size increases beyond $``$200Å. As seen in Figure 1, for the relatively soft ISRF, the radiation pressure increases rapidly as $`a`$ increases from $`10\mathrm{\AA }`$ to $`1\mathrm{\mu m}`$. The total energy density between $`0`$ and $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$ is about an order of magnitude greater for the ISRF than for a blackbody with $`T_\mathrm{c}=3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$ and $`G=1`$. For $`a=10\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is comparable for the two spectra, but is about an order of magnitude larger for the ISRF when $`a=1\mathrm{\mu m}`$. Since $`G=1.13`$ for the ISRF, $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}`$ is comparable for the two spectra.

In Figure 6 we show the effect of varying $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ over a range from $`2\times 10^4`$ to $`5\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$, characteristic of hot stars, using carbonaceous grains and $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e=10^3\mathrm{K}^{1/2}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`T=100\mathrm{K}`$ as an example.

## 4 “Photodesorption” Force

### 4.1 Introduction and Model

In the process of adsorption, gas-phase atoms or molecules collide with and stick to a solid surface, forming either a weak van der Waals bond (physisorption) or a stronger chemical bond (chemisorption). Adsorbed atoms can be removed from interstellar grains by various desorption processes: 1) thermal desorption, in which a thermal fluctuation in the grain breaks the adsorption bond, 2) photodesorption, in which an absorbed photon breaks the bond, and 3) exothermic chemical reaction between two adatoms. If photodesorption is important, we expect a non-zero net recoil force in an anisotropic radiation field.

The details of adsorption on grain surfaces are poorly known at present. In particular, it is unclear whether adsorbed hydrogen atoms can diffuse across the surface, either by thermal barrier hopping or quantum mechanical tunneling. In their classic study of H2 formation on grains, Hollenbach & Salpeter (1971) assumed that H physisorbs with binding energy $`0.03\mathrm{eV}`$, implying high mobility. Physisorption occurs on ice surfaces, so that this description is likely valid deep inside molecular clouds, where grains are covered with ice mantles. However, grain temperatures in PDRs are high enough that any ice mantles have sublimed, and ice features (e.g. at $`3.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ for H2O ice) are not observed in the extinction curves for the diffuse ISM. Tielens & Allamandola (1987) discuss experimental evidence that H chemisorbs on graphite and amorphous silicate surfaces, with binding energy in the 1–2$`\mathrm{eV}`$ range. Also, theoretical studies (Mendoza & Ruette 1989; Fromherz, Mendoza, & Ruette 1993) of H adsorption on graphite find chemisorption with binding energies in this range. For such large binding energies, thermal diffusion is negligible. The tunneling rate is approximately given by the oscillation frequency of the atom in the chemisorption potential times the barrier penetration factor, so that

$$\tau _t10^{13}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2d}{\mathrm{}}\left(2mE_b\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(10)
where $`\tau _t`$ is the tunneling timescale, $`d`$ is the distance between binding sites, $`m`$ is the mass of the adatom, and $`E_b`$ is the binding energy. The argument of the exponential is a large number; if ($`E_b`$, $`d`$) = ($`1\mathrm{eV}`$, $`1\mathrm{\AA }`$), then $`\tau _t13`$days for H adatoms. If $`d`$ is increased to $`2\mathrm{\AA }`$, then $`\tau _t4\times 10^{17}`$years. We assume that no diffusion occurs, primarily because this case is easier to model. Once a binding site is occupied by a chemisorbed H atom, another H can physisorb on top of the first (Tielens & Allamandola 1987). An atom in such a physisorption state can easily migrate to neighboring sites; also, if it can overcome an activation energy, it can react with the underlying H atom.

In our model, we assume that each surface site is a chemisorption site, from which adatoms cannot diffuse. For simplicity, we also ignore gas-phase species other than H. When an H atom from the gas arrives at an empty site, it sticks with probability $`s_\mathrm{H}`$; otherwise it is assumed to undergo perfectly elastic specular reflection. Since the binding energy in the chemisorption site greatly exceeds the kinetic energies of the atoms in the gas, we take $`s_\mathrm{H}=1`$. Also, we make the simplifying assumption that an H atom arriving at an occupied site either combines with the resident chemisorbed atom, with probability $`s_\mathrm{c}`$, or else undergoes elastic specular reflection. This approximation is most reasonable for high gas temperatures, when the kinetic energies of the gas-phase atoms exceed the physisorption energy and reaction activation barrier. We also assume that H2 molecules leave the grain immediately upon formation.

To calculate the net force on a grain we must evaluate, as a function of location on the grain surface, the average rate at which momentum is transferred to the grain per surface site. Momentum transfer occurs when an atom is photodesorbed, a newly-formed molecule leaves the grain, a gas-phase atom reflects off of the grain, or a gas-phase atom sticks to the grain (either at an unoccupied site, where it remains until it is removed by photodesorption or molecule formation, or at an occupied site, where it immediately forms a molecule, which leaves the grain).

We denote the rate at which gas phase H atoms arrive at a site by $`R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$. The rate at which incident H sticks per empty site is given by $`s_\mathrm{H}R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$ and the rate at which H2 is formed per occupied site is given by $`s_\mathrm{c}R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$. When a grain drifts with respect to the gas the arrival rate $`R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$ varies over the grain surface; of course, this results in the drag force. Baines, Williams, & Asebiomo (1965) calculated the drag, assuming that all arriving atoms undergo specular reflection. The surface processes considered here substantially complicate the drag calcuation and the variable $`R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$ complicates the net force due to photodesorptions. We will call the net force on a non-drifting grain, due to all of the processes mentioned above, the “photodesorption” force. In §5 we will discuss how the drag force is modified when the surface processes are taken into account.

### 4.2 Photodesorption Rate

The rate at which H is photodesorbed per occupied site is denoted by $`R_{\mathrm{pd}}=R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0`$ is the photodesorption rate averaged over the grain surface ($``$ the incident photon flux density times the photodesorption cross section) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$ describes the variation in photodesorption rate as a function of the angle $`\theta ^{}`$ with respect to the direction $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ of net energy flux.

The photodesorption cross sections are not known. There is a substantial literature on experimentally determined cross sections for simple molecules on a variety of substrates, which is summarized in the review by Franchy (1998). For example, for NO and photon energies $`6\mathrm{eV}`$ or less, the cross sections range from $`10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ to $`2\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The cross section increases with progression through the following sequence of substrates: platinum metals, noble metals, semiconductors, oxides. The differences are due to variation in the efficiency with which the substrates quench the excited states.

Hellsing et al. (1997) studied the photodesorption of K from graphite for photon energies $`5\mathrm{eV}`$ and found a maximum cross section of $`2\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. However, for these photon energies the desorption is substrate-induced. That is, a bulk excitation (e.g. a photoelectron) travels to the adsorbed atom and excites it.

Photons with adequately high energy can directly excite the adsorbed atoms. We estimate the photodesorption cross sections due to this direct process, for H on graphite and silicates, by considering the photodissociation of the CH and OH molecules. Photodissociation cross sections for CH and OH have been calculated by van Dishoeck (1987) and van Dishoeck & Dalgarno (1984), respectively. The cross sections reach values as high as a few $`\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and are appreciable for photon energies $`6\mathrm{eV}`$. Roberge et al. (1991) found photodissociation rates of $`8.6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`3.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for CH and OH, respectively, for the Draine (1978) radiation field. In the absence of more relevant experimental evidence, we simply set the photodesorption rates equal to the photodissociation rates. Also, in our crude approximation, we ignore variations in the shape of the radiation spectrum, and simply take the photodesorption rate proportional to $`u_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{uv}}`$, the total energy density between 6 and $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$. Since $`G=1.68`$ for the Draine radiation field, we take $`R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0=5\times 10^{10}G\mathrm{s}^1`$ for carbonaceous grains and $`R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0=2\times 10^{10}G\mathrm{s}^1`$ for silicates.

To evaluate $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$ we assume that, for any point on the grain surface, $`R_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ is proportional to the electric intensity $`|𝐄_𝐞|^2`$ just above the surface at that point. Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})=\frac{2_{6\mathrm{eV}/h}^{13.6\mathrm{eV}/h}𝑑\nu u_\nu \left|𝐄_𝐞(\theta ^{})\right|^2}{_0^\pi 𝑑\xi \mathrm{sin}\xi _{6\mathrm{eV}/h}^{13.6\mathrm{eV}/h}𝑑\nu u_\nu \left|𝐄_𝐞(\xi )\right|^2}.$$
(11)
In Figures 7 and 8, we display $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$ for carbonaceous and silicate grains, respectively, for a unidirectional radiation field and several values of grain radius $`a`$. Here we assume a blackbody spectrum (cut off at $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$) with $`T_\mathrm{c}=3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$. For $`a<100\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$ looks like the $`100\mathrm{\AA }`$ curve, with greater symmetry for smaller grains. Generally,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})=\frac{(u_{\mathrm{rad}}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}})+\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{rad}}\mathrm{\Psi }^0(\theta ^{})}{u_{\mathrm{rad}}},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^0(\theta ^{})`$ is the value for a unidirectional field.

### 4.3 Surface Site Occupation Fraction

The momentum transfer rates depend on the occupation fraction $`f`$, i.e. the fraction of the time that a site is occupied by an H atom. If the grain’s surface is fixed with respect to the radiation, then $`f`$ is a function of the angle $`\theta ^{}`$ with respect to $`\widehat{𝐒}`$. However, the polarization of starlight implies that grains spin, with their spin axes statistically aligned (presumably with the magnetic field). Purcell (1979) noted that systematic torques likely act on grains, resulting in rotational speeds orders of magnitude greater than what would be expected from equipartition arguments. The spin period is much shorter than the timescales on which the surface processes occur, so that $`f`$ is a function of the angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the spin axis $`\widehat{𝝎}`$.

We evaluate $`f(\theta )`$ by balancing the the rate at which H is removed from an occupied site by photodesorption and H2 formation against the rate at which H is added to an empty site when arriving gas-phase atoms stick:

$$f\left(\overline{R}_{\mathrm{pd}}+s_\mathrm{c}\overline{R}_{\mathrm{arr}}\right)=\left(1f\right)s_\mathrm{H}\overline{R}_{\mathrm{arr}},$$
(13)
where bars denote averaging over the spin. This yields

$$f(\theta )=s_\mathrm{H}\left[s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c}+\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )\right]^1.$$
(14)
The parameter $`\alpha `$ is defined by

$$\alpha \frac{R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0}{R_{\mathrm{arr}}^0},$$
(15)
where the H arrival rate for a non-drifting grain is given by

$$R_{\mathrm{arr}}^0=\frac{1}{2}n_\mathrm{H}l^2(\pi \beta )^{1/2};$$
(16)
$`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the H number density, $`l^2`$ is the area of a surface site, and $`\beta =m_p/2kT`$. Of course,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{}),$$
(17)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle about $`\widehat{𝝎}`$.

Lazarian & Draine (1999a,b) have recently suggested that grains sometimes undergo rapid “flipping” of the principal axis of largest moment of inertia (fixed in body coordinates), alternating between being parallel or antiparallel to the angular momentum vector. We consider the limit where flips occur instantaneously, so that

$$f(\theta )=s_\mathrm{H}\left\{s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c}+\frac{\alpha }{2}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\pi \theta )\right]\right\}^1.$$
(18)
Although rapid flipping does not seem likely for suprathermally rotating grains with $`a0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ (because of the large energy barrier that must be overcome in order to flip), the calculation of the photodesorption force in this case is instructive. Thus, we will consider both flipping and non-flipping grains.

### 4.4 Evaluation of the Photodesorption Force

We assume that the direction of net energy flux $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ lies at angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$ with respect to the grain’s spin axis $`\widehat{𝝎}`$333We consider $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$ to be constant; i.e. we ignore the likely precession of $`\widehat{𝝎}`$ about the magnetic field.. We adopt a coordinate system with the z-axis lying along $`\widehat{𝝎}`$ and the x-axis oriented so that $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ lies in the x-z plane. The z-axis serves as the polar axis for spherical coordinates, with the x-axis the reference for azimuth; thus the spherical coordinates for $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ are $`(\theta _{\mathrm{rad}},0)`$. The “radiation” angle $`\theta ^{}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(19)
We assume that both the photodesorbed H atoms and newly-formed H2 molecules emerge symmetrically with respect to the local surface normal, with a “cosine-law” angular distribution, as adopted for photoelectrons. The momenta of the outgoing atoms and molecules are denoted by $`p_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ respectively. We ignore polarization of the outgoing atoms and molecules when the grain has non-zero charge. The momentum transfer, per surface site, due to each of the contributing processes is directed radially inwards, with rates as summarized in Table 1. The factors of $`2/3`$ appearing in Table 1 are due to the cosine-law angular distribution. For reflections and sticking, the term in brackets is the probability that the process will occur; we include the absorption of the gas-phase momentum of an arriving atom which will immediately undergo H2 formation in the “sticking” category. The probability that the component of a gas H atom’s velocity along the surface normal lies between $`v`$ and $`v+dv`$ is given by $`P(v)dv=(\beta /\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\beta v^2)dv`$.

Integrating the momentum transfer rates over all surface sites yields the photodesorption force:

$$\frac{𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}}{\gamma \pi a^2}=\widehat{𝐳}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta f(\theta )\left[C+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )\right]\widehat{𝐱}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta f(\theta )\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{}),$$
(20)
where

$$\gamma \frac{4R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0p_\mathrm{H}}{3l^2}$$
(21)
and

$$C\frac{1}{\alpha }\left[s_\mathrm{c}\left(\frac{2E_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{E_\mathrm{H}}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{\pi kT}{E_\mathrm{H}}\right)^{1/2}\left(s_\mathrm{H}s_\mathrm{c}\right)\right].$$
(22)
Since the H arrival rate does not depend on surface location for a non-drifting grain, the contributions due to H2 formation, reflections, and sticking depend only on $`f(\theta )`$ and are thus directed along $`\widehat{𝐳}=\widehat{𝝎}`$; they are all accounted for in the constant $`C`$. For rapidly flipping grains, $`f(\theta )=f(\pi \theta )`$, so that only photodesorption contributes to the momentum transfer; this is also true for non-flipping grains when $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}=90^{}`$. In these cases, for given {$`\gamma `$, $`s_\mathrm{H}`$, $`s_\mathrm{c}`$, radiation field}, the maximum force occurs when $`n_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{}`$, so that $`\alpha 0`$, $`f(\theta )`$constant, and

$$𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}\gamma \pi a^2\frac{s_\mathrm{H}}{s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c}}\widehat{𝐒}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{}).$$
(23)
When $`f(\theta )f(\pi \theta )`$, the magnitude of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ can be much greater than $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$, depending on the value of $`C`$. For example, when $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\alpha C1`$, $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}\alpha CF_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}/(s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c})`$, for non-flipping grains. However, for realistic parameter choices and interstellar conditions, it is usually the case that $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$. Also note that, for non-flipping grains with $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}=0`$, $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}=0`$ when $`\alpha C=s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c}`$. In this case, the contributions from the various momentum transfer processes exactly balance, regardless of the functional form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})`$; of course, such a parameter conspiracy is unlikely for real grains in the ISM.

### 4.5 Computational Results

In Figure 9 (lower panel), we display the photodesorption asymmetry integral that appears in equation (23) for $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$, for carbonaceous and silicate grains. This integral takes nearly the same values for the ISRF as for a blackbody (cut off at $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$) with $`T_\mathrm{c}=3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$. We found in Figures 2 and 3 that, for some grain sizes and photon energies, the electric intensity just below the grain surface is unexpectedly concentrated in the hemisphere facing away from the radiation. The same effect occurs with the external electric intensity, and leads to a “backwards” photodesorption force, for a range of grain sizes.

In the top panel of Figure 9, we plot $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}/F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ for our canonical parameter values, given in Table 2. The surface site area of $`l^2=6\mathrm{\AA }^2`$ would result if a site is a hexagon in a graphite sheet with C–C spacings of $`1.5\mathrm{\AA }`$. We assume that photodesorbed H atoms carry kinetic energy $`E_\mathrm{H}=2\mathrm{eV}`$ and newly-formed molecules carry kinetic energy $`E_{\mathrm{H}_2}=1\mathrm{eV}`$, implying $`p_\mathrm{H}=p_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ (note that $`p_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ is not relevant for the calculation of $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$, though). For large grains the photodesorption force dominates the radiation pressure for the blackbody spectrum, but is not nearly so important for the ISRF.

In the upper panel of Figure 10 we display $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}/F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$ for non-flipping carbonaceous grains with $`a=0.3\mathrm{\mu m}`$, for a few values of $`\alpha `$.444 For our assumed carbonaceous grain parameter values, $`G/n_\mathrm{H}4.4\times 10^3\alpha \sqrt{T}\mathrm{K}^{1/2}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. We also assume that $`s_\mathrm{H}=s_\mathrm{c}=1`$, $`p_{\mathrm{H}_2}=p_\mathrm{H}`$, and a blackbody radiation spectrum (cut off at $`13.6\mathrm{eV}`$) with $`T_\mathrm{c}=3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$. In the lower panel of Figure 10 we display $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{f}`$, where $`\theta _\mathrm{f}`$ is the angle between $`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐒}`$. The results for other grain sizes for which $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ is significant, for silicates, and for illumination by the ISRF are very similar.

As $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$ increases, H atoms which stick to sites on the “dark” side of the grain have greater opportunity to photodesorb from the side facing the radiation, as they are transported there by the rotation; thus the photodesorption force increases with $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$. For flipping grains, the occupation fraction $`f`$ depends only mildly on $`\theta `$ (Figure 11), so that $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{f}1`$ for all values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$.

In Figure 12 we plot $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}/F_{\mathrm{pd}}^\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{f}`$ for $`s_\mathrm{c}=0.1`$ and various combinations of $`\alpha `$ and $`(kT/E_\mathrm{H})^{1/2}`$; otherwise the parameters are the same as for Figure 10. When $`\alpha =(kT/E_\mathrm{H})^{1/2}=0.01`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{f}`$ is very nearly 1 for all values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}`$, much more so than when $`s_\mathrm{c}=1`$ and $`\alpha =0.01`$. Although $`f(\theta )`$ is somewhat more constant for the case with $`s_\mathrm{H}=1`$, $`C`$ is also substantially larger, and it accounts for the bulk of the component perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝐒}`$. When $`(kT/E_\mathrm{H})^{1/2}=1`$, $`C`$ is large enough that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{f}1`$ for $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}=0`$.

## 5 Drag Forces

Baines et al. (1965) calculated the drag force on a spherical particle drifting through a dilute gas, assuming that colliding atoms reflect elastically. Draine & Salpeter (1979) obtained an analytical expression which accurately reproduces the Baines et al. numerical results, and this is widely employed in studies of drifting interstellar grains. For subsonic drift speeds, the drag due to collisions with neutral atoms of element $`j`$, in the absence of surface processes, is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{drag},j}^0\pi a^2\frac{8}{3}n_jv_\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{2m_pkT}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}A_j^{1/2},$$
(24)
where $`n_j`$ and $`A_j`$ are the number density and mass number of element $`j`$, respectively.

The Coulomb drag, due to interactions with distant ions, is often important in interstellar applications. For subsonic drift speeds, the Coulomb drag is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}}F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}^0\times \frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}x_i\left(\frac{m_i}{m_p}\right)^{1/2}\underset{Z}{}f_Z\left(\frac{Ze^2}{akT}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{3(kT)^{3/2}}{2e^3|Z|(\pi xn_\mathrm{H})^{1/2}}\right]$$
(25)
(Draine & Salpeter 1979). The sum is over ions $`i`$, and $`x=_ix_i`$. Since the grain charge fluctuates on a time scale short compared to the drag time, we average over charge states. The dominant ions in neutral gas are C+ and H+. We take the gas-phase C abundance to be $`\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{H}=1.4\times 10^4`$ (Cardelli et al. 1996; Sofia et al. 1997). Thus, when calculating $`F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}}`$, we assume that $`x_\mathrm{C}=x`$, $`x_\mathrm{H}0`$ when $`x1.4\times 10^4`$, and $`x_\mathrm{C}=1.4\times 10^4`$, $`x_\mathrm{H}=x1.4\times 10^4`$ when $`x>1.4\times 10^4`$.

Next, we consider how the surface processes considered in the previous section, namely H2 formation and photodesorption, affect the drag force $`𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}`$ due to collisions with atomic H.

For a drifting grain, the arrival rate $`R_{\mathrm{arr}}`$ depends on the angle $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$ with respect to the grain’s velocity $`𝐮`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{arr}}(\theta ^{\prime \prime })=R_{\mathrm{arr}}^0D(\theta ^{\prime \prime }),$$
(26)
where

$$D(\theta ^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{exp}\left(y^2\right)+\sqrt{\pi }y\left[1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^y𝑑t\mathrm{exp}\left(t^2\right)\right],$$
(27)
with $`y\sqrt{\beta }u\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$. The expansion

$$D(\theta ^{\prime \prime })1+\sqrt{\pi }y+y^2\frac{1}{6}y^4$$
(28)
is accurate to within $`1\%`$ for $`0.653y1.05`$.

The momentum transfer rates due to reflections and sticking are modified from the non-drifting case by $`P(v)v^2P(v)(v+u\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{\prime \prime })^2`$ in Table 1 (and the lower integrand is now $`u\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$). The rates obtained for non-drifting grains must be multiplied by the factor $`2E(\theta ^{\prime \prime })/\sqrt{\pi }`$, where

$`E(\theta ^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`y\mathrm{exp}(y^2)+(1+2y^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}+{\displaystyle _0^y}\mathrm{exp}(t^2)𝑑t\right)`$ (29)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}+2y+\sqrt{\pi }y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}y^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}y^5.`$
The expansion in equation (29) is accurate to within $`1\%`$ for $`0.749y1.43`$.

Photodesorption substantially complicates the drag, since the occupation fraction is no longer constant, but is given by

$$f(\theta )=s_\mathrm{H}\left[s_\mathrm{H}+s_\mathrm{c}+\alpha \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )}{\overline{D}(\theta )}\right]^1,$$
(30)
for non-flipping grains. Of course, for flipping grains $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )/\overline{D}(\theta )`$ is replaced by $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\pi \theta )]/[\overline{D}(\theta )+\overline{D}(\pi \theta )]`$ in equation (30). The drag force can be found by evaluating the total force resulting from collisions of H with the grain (i.e. $`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}+𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}`$) and subtracting $`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}`$; the total force is given by

$`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}+𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{l^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi `$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}R_{\mathrm{pd}}^0p_\mathrm{H}f(\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}R_{\mathrm{arr}}^0s_\mathrm{c}p_{\mathrm{H}_2}f(\theta )D(\theta ^{\prime \prime })+\left[2s_\mathrm{H}+f(\theta )(s_\mathrm{H}s_\mathrm{c})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{\sqrt{\beta }}}R_{\mathrm{arr}}^0E(\theta ^{\prime \prime })\right\}`$
$`\left[\widehat{𝐳}\mathrm{cos}\theta +\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\widehat{𝐲}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \right].`$ (31)
To first order in $`u`$, equation (31) yields, for flipping grains,

$$\frac{𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}}{F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}^0}=\frac{2s_\mathrm{H}}{2}\widehat{𝐮}\frac{3}{8}\left[s_\mathrm{H}s_\mathrm{c}+\frac{s_\mathrm{c}p_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{3}\left(\frac{\pi }{2m_pkT}\right)^{1/2}\right]_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta f_0(\theta )\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \widehat{𝐮}(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{u}\widehat{𝝎}\right],$$
(32)
where $`f_0(\theta )`$ is the occupation fraction that would hold for the same grain if $`u=0`$. For non-flipping grains, the following term must be added to the right-hand side of equation (32):

$$\frac{\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{u}}{4s_\mathrm{H}}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta f_0^2(\theta )\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )\left[𝐉_\mathrm{𝟏}(\theta )+𝐉_\mathrm{𝟐}(\theta )\right],$$
(33)
where

$$𝐉_\mathrm{𝟏}(\theta )=\widehat{𝐳}\mathrm{cos}\theta \left[\frac{3\pi }{4}(s_\mathrm{H}s_\mathrm{c})+s_\mathrm{c}p_{\mathrm{H}_2}\left(\frac{\pi }{2m_pkT}\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(34)
and

$$𝐉_\mathrm{𝟐}(\theta )=\alpha p_\mathrm{H}\left(\frac{\pi }{2m_pkT}\right)^{1/2}\left[\widehat{𝐳}\mathrm{cos}\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )+\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{1}{2\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})\right].$$
(35)
The above approximation works best for small $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$. For the range of conditions $`T(50,6000)\mathrm{K}`$ and $`\sqrt{\beta }u0.1`$, it is valid to within $`1\%`$ when $`a0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, $`\alpha 1`$; $`3\%`$ when $`a1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, $`\alpha 1`$; $`10\%`$ when $`a0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, $`\alpha 10`$; and $`30\%`$ when $`a1\mathrm{\mu m}`$, $`\alpha 10`$. The direction of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}`$ can differ substantially from $`𝐮`$ when $`\alpha 1`$, depending on the relative orientations of $`𝐮`$, $`\widehat{𝝎}`$, and $`\widehat{𝐒}`$.

## 6 Starlight Anisotropy

Here we estimate the radiation field anisotropy in the diffuse ISM, by considering the solar neighborhood to be typical and adding up the flux density over the entire sky. Most of the flux in the visible and UV comes directly from stars; starlight scattered off of dust grains (the diffuse galactic light, DGL) makes a non-negligible additional contribution (see, e.g., Witt 1989). Ideally, we would like to have a catalog of stars with accurate photometry and complete down to the magnitude beyond which fainter stars do not significantly contribute, along with accurate photometry of the DGL.

Although this ideal is not currently available, there are a few catalogs from which useful estimates can be made. The Skymap Star Catalog, Version 3.7 (Slater & Hashmall 1992) is claimed to be complete down to magnitude 9 in the $`B`$ and $`V`$ bands, and the Tycho Catalog (ESA 1997) is claimed to be $`99.9\%`$ complete down to $`V10.5`$. However, the photometry is missing for thousands of stars in the Tycho Catalog, including many bright stars. In Figure 13 we plot the integrated energy densities per unit frequency $`u_\nu `$, normalized to the ISRF, as a function of the limiting stellar magnitude. The Skymap results are for the Johnson $`B`$ and $`V`$ bands ($`B_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{J}`$ respectively); the Tycho bands $`B_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{T}`$ closely resemble the corresponding Johnson bands. The Tycho catalog also gives indirectly-derived values for $`V_\mathrm{J}`$ for all stars, including those for which Tycho photometry is missing. The $`B_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{T}`$ energy densities are systematically lower than the $`B_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{J}`$ energy densities due to omission of stars lacking Tycho photometry. The $`V_\mathrm{J}`$ fluxes from the two catalogs agree very well, except at the limit of the Skymap catalog. Note that at magnitude 10 the curves are still concave up, with the integrated starlight accounting for less than half of the ISRF.

The normalized starlight dipole moment is given by

$$𝐩_𝐬=\frac{_su_\nu (s)\widehat{𝐧}(s)}{u_\nu (\mathrm{ISRF})},$$
(36)
where $`u_\nu (s)`$ is the energy density per frequency interval due to star $`s`$ and $`\widehat{𝐧}(s)`$ is the direction to star $`s`$. In Figure 14 we plot $`p_s`$. Again, the $`B_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{T}`$ results are offset, because of the absence of photometry for bright stars. The abrupt decrease in the V band normalized dipole moment at the faint end of the Skymap catalog is probably incorrect. It is unlikely that the fainter stars and DGL would conspire to produce an anisotropy directed opposite to that resulting from the brighter stars; thus it appears that the anisotropy in $`B`$ ($`V`$) is at least $`5\%`$ ($`3\%`$). For $`B`$, the (right ascension, declination) of the anisotropy remain quite constant for limiting magnitudes of 4 through 9, with value ($`115^{}`$, $`43^{}`$). For $`V`$, the anisotropy direction gradually shifts to ($`115^{}`$, $`51^{}`$) at magnitude $`10.5`$.

The best available catalog for studying the anisotropy in the UV was constructed by the S2/68 experiment (Boksenberg et al. 1973) on the European Space Research Organization’s TD-1 satellite, which provided broadband flux measurements in four channels. The full catalog was not published, but Gondhalekar, Phillips, & Wilson (1980) presented tables of the integrated starlight in hundreds of patches, covering the entire sky. Gondhalekar et al. also estimated the flux contribution from the DGL and from stars too faint to be included in the catalog, using background data. In some cases, two or more stars were observed simultaneously. Such blended stars were excluded from the catalog, and Gondhalekar et al. estimated their contribution to the total flux, although the distribution of these unresolved stars on the sky was not reported. The Mathis et al. (1983) ISRF was constructed to maximize consistency with the Gondhalekar et al. (1980) results and with other, limited-coverage UV surveys. The adopted ISRF fluxes are somewhat higher than the total fluxes of Gondhalekar et al.

In estimating the dipole in the UV, we use tables of integrated starlight in $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ patches in Gondhalekar (1989). These differ somewhat from the fluxes in Gondhalekar et al. (1980), because the absolute calibration of the S2/68 experiment was revised. In Table 3 we give $`\nu u_\nu `$ and the normalized dipole moment $`p_s`$ for the four UV bands; the listed dipole moments are likely lower limits. Note that the normalized dipole moment is substantially greater in the UV than in the visible. This difference presumably results from the differences in the stellar populations giving rise to the two spectral regions and the greater importance of extinction by dust in the UV. The UV radiation is dominated by early-type stars, which are relatively few in number and hence less evenly distributed than main sequence stars in general, all of which contribute to the visible radiation. In Table 4 we display the direction of the anisotropy for all of the considered bands.

For simplicity, we will assume that the anisotropy is independent of wavelength when calculating drift speeds in the following section. We will adopt an anisotropy of $`10\%`$, intermediate between the anisotropies inferred for the visible and the UV.

## 7 Gas-Grain Drift in the Diffuse ISM

We will estimate drift speeds for grains in the cold neutral medium (CNM; $`T=100\mathrm{K}`$, $`n_\mathrm{H}=30\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`n_e=0.045\mathrm{cm}^3`$) and the warm neutral medium (WNM; $`T=6000\mathrm{K}`$, $`n_\mathrm{H}=0.3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`n_e=0.03\mathrm{cm}^3`$).

In the presence of a magnetic field $`𝐁`$, the steady state drift velocity is given by

$$(v_{},v_{},v_{})=\frac{F}{\kappa }(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+(\omega \tau )^2},\frac{\omega \tau \mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+(\omega \tau )^2})$$
(37)
where $`𝐅`$ is the net force excluding the magnetic and drag forces, $`𝐅_{\mathrm{drag}}=\kappa 𝐯_𝐝`$, $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐅`$, $`\omega \tau =ZeB/c\kappa `$ is the product of the gyrofrequency and gas-drag time, and the subscripts ($``$, $``$, $``$) denote components (parallel to $`𝐁`$, perpendicular to $`𝐁`$ and in the plane spanned by $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐅`$, perpendicular to the plane spanned by $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐅`$). Thus, drift across magnetic field lines is suppressed by a factor $`[1+(\omega \tau )^2]^{1/2}`$.

We display $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ for the CNM and WNM in Figure 15, and $`F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}}`$ in Figure 16. In order to estimate the largest effect that photodesorption is likely to have, we adopt $`\theta _{\mathrm{rad}}=90^{}`$ (i.e. spin axis perpendicular to the net radiation flux); in this case $`𝐅_{\mathrm{pd}}\widehat{𝐒}`$ and $`𝐅_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}\widehat{𝐒}`$. In order to gauge the importance of the photoelectric and photodesorption forces, we compute drift speeds both with and without including them. Specifically, we consider the following three cases:

$$\mathrm{Case}\mathrm{I}F_{\mathrm{rad}}=F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}^0+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{He}}+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}},$$
(38)
$$\mathrm{Case}\mathrm{II}F_{\mathrm{rad}}+F_{\mathrm{pe}}=F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}^0+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{He}}+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}},$$
(39)
and

$$\mathrm{Case}\mathrm{III}F_{\mathrm{rad}}+F_{\mathrm{pe}}+F_{\mathrm{pd}}=F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{H}}+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{He}}+F_{\mathrm{drag},\mathrm{Coul}}.$$
(40)
The resulting drift speeds are plotted in Figures 17 and 18. For $`a>0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ carbonaceous grains, we find drift speeds $`v_d>0.01\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the CNM, and $`v_d>0.15\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the WNM; for $`a>0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ silicate grains, we find $`v_d>0.002\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the CNM, and $`v_d>0.1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the WNM. The softness of the ISRF prevents $`F_{\mathrm{pe}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{pd}}`$ from substantially increasing the drift speeds over those that would hold if only $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ were acting. These drift speeds were determined under the assumption that the radiation flux $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ is along the magnetic field. As seen in Figure 19, the suppresion factor for drift perpendicular to the field is substantial even for micron-sized grains.

### 7.1 Consequences

Since grains of different sizes drift with different speeds, grains collide, with coagulation likely at low collision speeds. As $`a0`$, $`v_\mathrm{d}0`$, so that if grains always stick upon colliding, the timescale $`t_a`$ for a very small grain to become attached to another grain is given by

$$t_a^1\pi _{a_{\mathrm{min}}}^{a_{\mathrm{max}}}a^2v_\mathrm{d}(a)\frac{dn_{\mathrm{gr}}}{da}𝑑a.$$
(41)
Here we estimate the maximum likely values for $`t_a`$ in the CNM and WNM, by adopting the drift speeds computed for case III above (i.e., including surface processes and assuming $`\widehat{𝐒}𝐁`$; $`t_a`$ is only slightly longer for cases I or II). We adopt the grain size distribution from Weingartner & Draine (2001a) with $`R_V=3.1`$ and $`b_\mathrm{C}=6\times 10^5`$ (their favored distribution for the average diffuse ISM). For coagulation with the carbonaceous grain population, $`t_a8\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$ ($`6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{yr}`$) in the CNM (WNM). For coagulation with the silicate population, $`t_a1.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{yr}`$ ($`4\times 10^{10}\mathrm{yr}`$) in the CNM (WNM). Thus, drift due to forces associated with anisotropic radiation apparently results in negligible coagulation in the diffuse ISM.

Gas-grain drift can also lead to variations in the dust-to-gas ratio. If the size of a cold neutral medium region is $`1\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$, then the time to separate micron-sized grains from the region could be as short as $`2\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, which is perhaps comparable to the cloud lifetime.

## 8 Summary

We have investigated two forces that act on dust grains exposed to anisotropic radiation fields, due to the asymmetric photon-stimulated emission of particles from the grains. First, we have improved on Lafon’s (1990) treatment of the photoelectric force, due to the recoil associated with photoelectrons, by using the realistic prescription of Kerker & Wang (1982) for estimating the emission asymmetry and employing the recent photoemission model of Weingartner & Draine (2001b).

The photoelectric force depends on the ambient conditions relevant to the grain charging, including the shape of the radiation spectrum and the parameter $`G\sqrt{T}/n_e`$. We find that the photoelectric force is comparable to the radiation pressure in regions where the grain potential is relatively low and the radiation spectrum is relatively hard (Figures 46). We find that the photoelectric force is unimportant compared with the radiation pressure in the cold and warm neutral media for grains larger than a few hundred $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, because of the softness of the interstellar radiation field, as estimated by Mezger et al. (1982) and Mathis et al. (1983).

We have also investigated the force resulting from the asymmetric photodesorption of H atoms adsorbed on the grain surface. The surface physics and chemistry of likely grain materials are not currently well-known. We have adopted a very simple, yet plausible, model in order to examine the potential importance of this force. In particular, we assume that H chemisorbs at all surface sites with sufficient binding energy to supress thermal desorption and site-to-site diffusion.

In our model, the total force associated with gas-phase atoms which collide with the surface includes contributions from three processes: photodesorption, H2 formation, and elastic reflection of atoms incident on the grain surface. We call the force on a grain that is not drifting with respect to the gas the “photodesorption” force. When the grain drifts, the total force (due to the above three processes) minus the photodesorption force equals the drag force, which is thus modified from the traditional treatment considering only the reflection of incident atoms (§5).

With our standard choices for parameter values (Table 2), we find that the photodesorption force dominates the radiation pressure for grains with $`a0.1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ when the radiation field is relatively hard (Figure 9). Laboratory studies of the surfaces of candidate grain materials, including determinations of photodesorption cross sections, are needed in order to clarify the true importance of this force.

Grains exposed to anisotropic radiation will drift relative to the gas due to the combined action of the radiation pressure, photoelectric force, and photodesorption force. We find that the radiation field in the diffuse ISM is $`10\%`$ anisotropic in the visible and ultraviolet (§6). In §7, we estimate the maximum likely drift speeds for grains in the cold and warm neutral media. We find the timescale for grain coagulation resulting from this drift to be $`5\times 10^9`$yrs. Large grains ($`a1\mathrm{\mu m}`$) might drift rapidly enough to be substantially separated from the gas in cold diffuse clouds. In a separate paper (Weingartner & Draine 2001c), we will investigate gas-grain drift in photodissociation regions.

This research was supported in part by NSF grant AST-9619429 and by NSF Graduate Research and International Fellowships to JCW. We are grateful to R. H. Lupton for the availability of the SM plotting package.


format: text

text:
# 1/𝑓^𝛼 noise from self-organized critical models with uniform driving †

## Computation of the power spectral density

Consider a signal $`X(t)=_j\delta (tt_j)`$ as in the KM model. Define $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_j=t_jt_{j1}`$. It follows for the power spectral density \[see Eq. (1)\]:

$`S(f)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{exp}^{i2\pi ft_j}\right|^2,`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}^{i2\pi f(t_{j+q}t_j)},`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}^{i2\pi fq_k\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t_k}{q}}.`$ (15)
With $`\overline{I}=lim_T\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2T}(j_{max}j_{min}+1)`$, this leads to

$`S(f)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{I}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}^{i2\pi fq_k\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t_k}{q}},`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the average over the ensemble and over j. Hence, all we need is the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the $`1/q_{k=0}^{q1}\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$. For the KM model with an average period $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, it was shown that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a Gaussian with mean $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and variance $`\frac{\sigma ^2}{2\gamma }`$ for $`f>\gamma ^{3/2}/\pi \sigma `$ . Hence, $`1/q_k\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$ obeys the same distribution as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_j`$ and does not depend on $`q`$. This can be used to further simplify Eq. (16):

$`S(f)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{I}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}^{i2\pi fq_k\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t_k}{q}}.`$ (17)
For small enough $`f`$, the summation can be replaced by an integral. (In the KM model, this is valid for $`f<2\sqrt{\gamma }/\pi \sigma `$ and $`f(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }t)^1`$.) Changing variables from $`q`$ to $`q^{}=qf`$ and evaluating the integrals gives

$`S(f)=\overline{I}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)/f.`$ (18)
The fact that the probability distribution of $`\frac{1}{q}_{k=0}^{q1}\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$ does not depend on $`q`$ merely means that the law of large numbers is not valid due to the correlation between different $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$’s.
This is of course different in the case of independent random variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$, i.e. for $`\gamma =1`$. In this case the distribution of $`\frac{1}{q}_{k=0}^{q1}\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$ does depend on $`q`$. To be more precise, the distribution is still a Gaussian with the same mean as before but the variance becomes $`\frac{\sigma ^2}{2q}`$. In the limit $`q\mathrm{}`$, the variance vanishes. A short calculation gives as expected

$`S(f){\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^2+f_0}}.`$ (19)
This is exactly what happens in the KM model for $`f>\gamma ^{3/2}/\pi \sigma `$ .
To summarize, the crucial ingredient to obtain $`1/f`$ noise is the generation of strong enough correlations between different $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_j`$ such that $`1/q_k\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$ obeys the same distribution as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$ does. The specific form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is not important as long as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)0`$. In the KM model, the strong correlations are implemented by a random walk dynamics. In general, other stochastic mechanisms are capable of generating such correlations as well, e.g., shot noise in combination with fast relaxation giving rise to random flows of events without memory and Cauchy statistics .


text:
# A Dust-Penetrated Classification Scheme For Bars As Inferred From Their Gravitational Force Fields

## 1 Introduction

The presence of a bar in a disk galaxy implies a non-axisymmetric gravitational field. The high frequency of occurrence of bars (over 65 percent, de Vaucouleurs 1963; Eskridge et al. 2000) and the fact that bars principally consist of an old stellar population (de Vaucouleurs, 1955; de Vaucouleurs and de Vaucouleurs, 1959; Freeman, 1989; Elmegreen and Elmegreen, 1985) implies that bars are fundamental components in the distribution of mass in galaxies.

Bars are believed to be the “engines” driving a wide variety of secular evolution processes in galaxy dynamics (Pfenniger et al., 1996). Bar driven secular evolution appears to make significant changes in galaxy structure over a Hubble time. The main components found in barred galaxies include bulges, disks, lenses, and inner and outer rings – and of course the bar itself (Sandage, 1961; de Vaucouleurs, 1959; Kormendy, 1979; Sellwood and Wilkinson, 1993; Buta, 1995; Buta and Combes, 1996).

The absence or presence of a bar led Hubble (1926) to develop two separate prongs to his classification tuning fork: the sequence of normal (unbarred) spirals Sa, Sb, and Sc, paralleled by a sequence of barred spirals SBa, SBb and SBc. de Vaucouleurs (1959) recognized that galaxies such as NGC 5236 (M83) showed a bar morphology intermediate between that of a normal and a barred spiral. He introduced the notation SA for unbarred spirals so that he could use the combined notation SAB for transitional cases like M83.

In this paper, we recognize a full continuum of “bar strengths”, as does de Vaucouleurs, but we propose a numerical quantification of bar strength based on the gravitational forcing of the bar itself, not on visual appearance. From a sample of 36 galaxies, we recognize seven bar strength classes: bar class 0 galaxies, which are normal spiral galaxies without any bar; bar class 1 and 2 galaxies, which show ovals and weak bars (which de Vaucouleurs would have classified in his SAB class); and bar class 2-6 galaxies, which encompass all galaxies classified as SB by Hubble and de Vaucouleurs.

Our numerical quantification of bar strength is derived from the non-axisymmetric force field of a galaxy inferred from the near-infrared light distribution. Near-infrared $`H`$-band (effective wavelength 1.6$`\mu m`$) and $`K`$-band (effective wavelength 2.2 $`\mu m`$) images beautifully reveal the old stellar population or ‘backbone’ of spiral galaxies (Frogel et al., 1996; Block et al., 1994, 1999). The near-infrared light comes principally from old giant and supergiant stars (Frogel et al., 1996). The extinction at $`H`$ and $`K`$ is only 0.1-0.2 times that in visual light, so that dust has only a minimal effect on the inferred potentials. A rich duality of spiral structure has been found from studies of optical and near-infrared images; a spiral galaxy may present two completely different morphologies when examined optically and in the near-infrared (Elmegreen et al., 1999; Block et al., 1999).

In the optical, dust often hides bars, as in the Milky Way. Seventy percent of spirals classified in the Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies (Sandage and Bedke, 1994), based on Hubble bins, are classified as unbarred. This fraction drops to 27% when these galaxies are imaged in the near-infrared (Eskridge and Frogel, 1999). The remaining 43 percent show ovals or bars in the dust-penetrated regime. This high percentage of bars in the near-infrared agrees with the findings of Seigar and James (1998), who found that 90% of a sample of 45 galaxies showed some evidence of a bar in the $`K`$-band.

## 2 Bar Strength as a Measurable Parameter of Galaxies

A variety of quantitative parameters has been suggested or could be interpreted to represent a measure of the “strength” of a bar. The bar-interbar contrast, developed by Elmegreen and Elmegreen (1985), can distinguish strong bars from weak bars, but may connect only indirectly to an actual bar strength. Sometimes the maximum bar-interbar contrast occurs inside the radius of the bar, but in some cases it may occur outside the ends of the bar, as in NGC 1433 (Buta, 1986). Also, Seigar and James (1998) note that bar-interbar contrasts may be weakened by resolution and seeing effects.

Elmegreen and Elmegreen (1985) also used Fourier intensity amplitudes to derive relative bar luminosities in terms of $`m`$ = 2 and 4 components. Relative to the total luminosity of the disk within the standard isophote having $`\mu _B`$ = 25.0 mag arcsec-2, the bar luminosity fraction was found to range from less than 1% to more than 20%. Ohta et al. (1990) derive similar parameters for six barred galaxies, including the $`m`$ = 6 term.

The most popular bar strength parameter, because of its simplicity, is the deprojected bar ellipticity, $`ϵ_b`$, developed by Martin (1995) and suggested by analytical models (Athanassoula, 1992) to be a readily accessible measure of the strengths of bars that does not depend on spectroscopic observations, surface photometry, or mass-to-light ratio assumptions. Martin (1995) derived $`ϵ_b`$ for more than 100 spiral galaxies by visual inspection of published optical photographs, and noted that the slope of chemical abundance gradients (Martin and Roy, 1994) as well as the presence of nuclear star formation (Martin and Friedli, 1997) depends on $`ϵ_b`$. This parameter (or its equivalent, $`(b/a)_{bar}`$) has also been used in a number of other recent papers (Rozas, Knapen, and Beckman, 1998; Aguerri, 1999; Chapelon, Contini, and Davoust, 1999; Abraham et al., 1999; Shlosman, Peletier, and Knapen, 2000). Abraham et al. (1999) describe an algorithm that automatically derives $`(b/a)_{bar}`$ from moments of the galaxy image taken at various cuts relative to the maximum flux level. This approach is useful for high redshift morphological studies. Abraham and Merrifield (2000) describe a refinement on bar axis ratio using a parameter $`f_{bar}`$, defined as “the minimum fraction of the bar’s stars that one would have to rearrange in order to transform the structure into an axisymmetric distribution.” Martin (1995) notes that $`ϵ_b`$ is not a complete description of bar strength, but merely the most accessible one.

Seigar and James (1998) developed another quantitative approach to bar strength that utilized near-infrared surface photometry. In their method, the bar is defined to be the light remaining after disk and bulge components are subtracted. This light is converted into a parameter known as “equivalent angle” (EA) which is defined to be “the angle subtended at the centre of the galaxy by a sector of the underlying disk and bulge that emits as much light as the bar component, within the same radial limits.” An advantage of this method is that it accounts for both conventional bars as well as ovals. However, the method relies on full bulge/disk photometric decompositions which can be very difficult for strongly-barred galaxies. Rozas, Knapen, and Beckman (1998) derived another flux parameter, $`\sigma _b`$, representing the ratio of the flux inside the bar to that outside the bar area. They argue that this parameter and $`ϵ_b`$ indicate that stronger bars are accompanied by a lower degree of symmetry of star formation in the spiral arms.

In each of these methods, the bar itself has to be defined, e.g., where it appears to start, where it appears to end, or where the maximum ellipticity is achieved. Our approach here is different, and is based instead on the torques induced by the rigidly rotating bar, without first having to accurately define and isolate it relative to the other components in a galaxy.

## 3 Bar Strength as a Force Ratio Rather than an Axis Ratio

The most elegant way of measuring the torques of bars embedded in disks is actually an old idea. Given the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(R,\theta )`$ in the disk plane, Combes and Sanders (1981) proposed defining the bar strength at radius $`R`$ as

$$Q_T(R)=\frac{F_T^{max}(R)}{<F_R(R)>}$$
(1)
where $`F_T^{max}(R)`$ = $`(\mathrm{\Phi }(R,\theta )/\theta )_{max}`$ represents the maximum amplitude of the tangential force at radius $`R`$ and $`<F_R(R)>=R(d\mathrm{\Phi }_0/dR)`$ is the mean axisymmetric radial force at the same radius, derived from the $`m`$ = 0 component of the gravitational potential. Although $`Q_T`$ depends on radius, the maximum value of $`Q_T`$ can provide a single measure of bar strength for a whole galaxy, if the gravitational potential is known. With the advent of near-infrared arrays, and the availability of many high quality $`K`$ and $`H`$-band images of galaxies covering a range of apparent bar morphologies, it has become possible for the first time to use the idea in equation 1 in a practical way to directly measure the strengths of bars from their force fields for a large number of galaxies. This provides us with an opportunity to develop a consistent and robust scheme of dust-penetrated classification of bars embedded within disks. We outline our application of equation 1 here in a preliminary way using a small sample of near-infrared images, and discuss its advantages and disadvantages over the methods just described. Our subset of near-infrared images comes mainly from a much larger sample used to develop a near-infrared classification scheme of spiral galaxies, based on a wide variety of telescopes and detectors. Except for Maffei 2 and M101, full details of the observing procedures, integration times, filters and image scales have been described and published in Block et al. (1994, 1999) and references therein. The images of Maffei 2 and M101 that we have used are from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; Jarrett 2000), and have an image scale of 1′′ pix-1.

## 4 Gravitational Potentials of Galaxies from Near-Infrared Images

Quillen (1996) reviews the principal issues in deriving gravitational potentials from near-infrared images. The principal assumption is that the light traces the mass, i.e., the mass-to-light ratio is constant across much of the disk. Then the potential in two dimensions can be derived as the convolution of the mass density with the function $`1/R`$ using fast Fourier transform techniques (Binney and Tremaine 1987, section 2.8).

The validity of the constant $`M/L`$ assumption can be evaluated from detailed rotation curve studies, or from multi-color near-infrared surface photometry. For example, Freeman (1992) reported an analysis of a sample of more than 550 H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves and $`I`$-band surface photometric profiles derived by Mathewson, Ford, and Buchhorn (1992), which shows that the stellar mass distribution alone, with $`M/L`$ $``$ constant, reproduces the observed optical rotation curves for about 97 percent of their sample. The rotation curve morphologies cited by Freeman span the entire range: from almost entirely solid body to almost entirely flat. In a more recent study, Persic, Salucci, and Stel (1996) corroborate this result, and show that the optical rotation curves of spiral galaxies may be fitted by a constant mass-to-light ratio (except for dwarf galaxies, none of which we study here).

Constraints on the dark halo content of barred galaxies may also be deduced from the dynamical friction or drag of bars rotating within dark matter halos. The studies of Debattista and Sellwood (1998, 2000) indicate that bars are only able to maintain their high pattern speeds if the disk itself provides most of the gravitational potential – a high central density, dark matter halo would simply provide too much drag on the bar. Such independent studies suggest that light effectively traces mass within the optical disks of barred spiral galaxies. A detailed dynamical study of one barred spiral, NGC 4123, by Weiner (1998) shows that the inner regions of the disk must be at 90-100% of the required “maximum disk” forcing.

The method and program that we will use to derive potentials for our sample galaxies is described by Quillen, Frogel, and González (1994), hereafter QFG. These authors describe a practical application of the convolution equations which can be used on two-dimensional images and which explicitly accounts for disk thickness. By assuming the $`z`$-dependence of the mass density is independent of position in the plane, the potential can be derived as the convolution of the image intensities with a function that integrates over the vertical dependence of the density, $`\rho _z(z)`$. The $`z`$-dependence of the density in an isothermal sheet varies as $`sech^2(z/2h_z)`$, where $`2h_z`$ is the isothermal scale height. van der Kruit (1981a, b) showed that this representation applies well to surface photometry of some edge-on galaxies. However, Wainscoat, Freeman, and Hyland (1989) found that an exponential dependence of $`\rho _z(z)`$ provides a better description of the vertical light distribution in IC 2531. In their analysis of NGC 4314, QFG estimated the exponential scale height $`h_z`$ as (1/12)$`h_R`$, where $`h_R`$ is the radial scalelength. QFG also tested the constant $`M/L`$ assumption by deriving the $`JK`$ color index across the disk of NGC 4314. Little color variation was found, prompting them to conclude the constant $`M/L`$ assumption was realistic, especially in the bar region.

The issue of whether to use an exponential rather than an isothermal density law in our analysis is a complex one. de Grijs (1998) has presented a new detailed study of highly inclined disk galaxies in the $`K^{}`$ (2.1 $`\mu `$m) band. Since the near-infrared light is relatively insensitive to contamination by galactic dust, he has followed the vertical light distributions down to the galactic planes. He finds that such distributions are more peaked than expected for a $`sech(z)`$ distribution, but rounder than an exponential function. However, he has demonstrated that it is possible for all the galaxies in his sample to have intrinsically exponential vertical surface brightness distributions. Elmegreen and Block (1999) have demonstrated that disks which are exponential in both the radial and perpendicular directions give excellent fits to the profoundly asymmetric red-to-blue $`VK`$ color profiles found along the minor axes of many spiral galaxies.

The scaleheights of our largely face-on galaxies are not known, thus we can only assume values in our analysis. As noted by Freeman (1996), some bars are thicker than their disks, while others are probably about the same thickness. He notes that the bar/bulge of our Galaxy has a similar exponential scale height to the old disk. The average blue absolute magnitude of the galaxies in our sample is $``$20.5 $`\pm 0.8`$, comparable to the Milky Way (de Vaucouleurs and Pence, 1978). Therefore, for our preliminary analysis, we adopt, for all of our sample galaxies, $`h_z`$ = 325 pc, which is the exponential scaleheight of our Galaxy (Gilmore and Reid, 1983). Not all galaxies do have the same exponential scaleheight: the study by de Grijs (1998) indicates that late-type galaxies on average have a thinner disk than earlier type systems. To account for possible variations in scaleheight based on morphological type, and for the possibility that some bars are thicker than their disks, we have made separate potential runs for $`h_z`$ = 225pc and 425pc. In the future, it should be possible to improve our judgment of $`h_z`$ by scaling from values of the radial scalelength, as done by QFG. However, from de Grijs’s work, the ratio $`h_R/h_z`$ has a rather large scatter, ranging from 4 to 12 over the type range Sb to Sd, and from 2.5 to 7 at type Sb alone.

Many of the galaxies in our sample retain their bar strength class values irrespective of scaleheight variations from 225pc to 425pc. When a galaxy does move from one bar strength to the next, the effect of decreasing the scaleheight is to increase the bar strength; increasing the scaleheight leads to a decrease in the bar strength. These effects were also noted by QFG in their study of NGC 4314 and by Salo et al. (1999) in their study of IC 4214. In our analysis, an uncertainty of $`\pm `$100pc in $`h_z`$ produces an average uncertainty of $``$13% in bar strength.

## 5 Calculating the Bar Strength

Our procedure for calculating the bar strength involved several steps: (1) deprojection of a sky-subtracted $`H`$ or $`K`$-band image, using position angles and isophotal axis ratios from RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al., 1991), except for the ringed galaxies NGC 1326, 1433, 3054, 3081, 6300, ESO 566$``$24, and ESO 565$``$11, where the deprojections are based on deep photometric and optical or HI kinematic studies (Buta, 1987; Ryder et al., 1996; Buta et al., 1998, 2000; Purcell, 1998); (2) expansion or contraction of the array to dimensions of 2n, as required by the QFG fast Fourier transform analysis; (3) calculation of the potential with an arbitrary mass-to-light ratio of 1.00, a scaleheight of 225, 325, or 425 pc, and a distance from Tully (1988) or (for galaxies not in this catalogue) from the linear Virgocentric flow model (Aaronson et al., 1982) and a Hubble constant of 75 km s-1 Mpc-1; (4) derivation of the $`m`$ = 0, or axisymmetric, part of the derived potential; (5) calculation of the mean axisymmetric radial ($`<F_R>`$) and tangential ($`F_T`$) force fields; and (6) computation of the ratio map,

$$Q_T(i,j)=\frac{F_T(i,j)}{<F_R(i,j)>}.$$
(2)
Note that the distance is needed only because we are assuming scaleheights in parsecs. If we could infer $`h_z`$ as a specific fraction of the radial scalelength $`h_R`$, then no distance would be required. Also, the analysis is independent of the assumed (constant) value of the mass-to-light ratio because we are computing a force ratio. The actual force fields would scale the same way with the mass-to-light ratio.

The ratio map is our principal tool for estimating the bar strength. Figure 1 (top left) shows a typical ratio map for a strongly-barred galaxy, NGC 1433. The map shows four well-defined regions where the ratio reaches a maximum or minimum around or near the ends of the bar. This pattern is the characteristic signature of a bar. Depending on quadrant relative to the bar, these regions can be negative or positive, because the sign of the tangential force changes from quadrant to quadrant (see Figure 1, top middle). The absolute values of the ratio at these points represent the maxima of $`Q_T`$ in the Combes and Sanders (1981) formulation. To locate the maxima automatically, we analyze azimuthal profiles (5 steps) of $`Q`$ as a function of radius, and then derive $`Q_T`$ at each radius. Then, we derive the value and location of $`Q_T^{max}`$ in each quadrant. Let $`Q_{bi}`$ be the value of $`Q_T^{max}`$ in quadrant $`i`$. Then we define the bar strength as

$$Q_b=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q_{bi}/4.$$
(3)
We analyze $`Q_b`$ by quadrant because few galaxies are so symmetric that $`Q_T`$ reaches its maximum at the same radius and value in all quadrants. For example, the presence of a strong spiral can make the values of $`Q_b`$ somewhat different in the trailing quadrants of the bar compared to the leading quadrants, or some asymmetry in the bar itself can make the regions unequal. We use the mean error in $`Q_b`$ as a measure of how well the different quadrants agreed in bar strength.

Table 1 defines the bar strength classes that we base on the measured values of $`Q_b`$. Except for class 0, each class spans a range of 0.1 centered on a unit value. Thus, bar class 1 includes galaxies having $`Q_b`$ = 0.1$`\pm `$0.05, bar class 2 includes galaxies having $`Q_b`$ = 0.2$`\pm `$0.05, etc. With these definitions, class 0 involves a narrower range of $`Q_b`$, since $`Q_b`$ cannot be negative as defined.

Table 2 lists the bar strengths so derived for a small sample of representative galaxies covering spiral and ring morphologies, and over a range of Hubble types. The parameter listed as the “family” in Table 2 is from de Vaucouleurs (1963) for all galaxies in the table except IC 4290, ESO 565$``$11, ESO 566$``$24, and Maffei 2. The optical bar classifications for IC 4290 and ESO 566$``$24 are from Buta et al. (1998), that for ESO 565$``$11 is from Buta, Purcell, and Crocker (1995), and that for Maffei 2 is from Buta and McCall (1999). Using the code in Table 1, each galaxy in Table 2 was assigned into its appropriate bar strength class. The strongest bars we find reach bar class 6, where the maximum tangential force reaches about 60% of the mean radial force. Figure 2 shows how well $`Q_b`$ correlates with the de Vaucouleurs family parameter in the sample of Table 2. This shows that the threshold for calling a galaxy “SB” seems to be bar class 2. Apparently, bars become obvious at this strength and the Hubble-de Vaucouleurs classification can make no further discrimination on bar strength beyond this threshold, so that “SB” also includes galaxies up to bar class 6. Galaxies classified as “SA” or “SAB” mostly range from classes 0 to 2, with the exception of Maffei 2 which is bar class 3. Maffei 2, which is a heavily reddened galaxy in the Zone of Avoidance, is probably the nearest massive SBbc galaxy (Spinrad et al., 1973; Hurt et al., 1993; Buta and McCall, 1999).

Some of the more weakly-barred galaxies in Table 2 required special treatment. For example, the measured values of $`Q_b`$ for NGC 2997 and NGC 7083 indicate a bar class of 1, but we have specified their classes as (0) since there is either no clear bar signature in the ratio map, or the program measured obvious deprojection stretch of the bulge.

The uncertainty attached to each value of $`Q_b`$ in Table 2 includes the mean error in $`Q_b`$ from the four quadrants and the uncertainty of $`\pm `$100pc due to scale height. It excludes deprojection uncertainties, however. We consider the $`Q_b`$ values in Table 2 preliminary, because orientation parameters of many of the galaxies are manifestly improvable. For our analysis, we mostly used deprojected images that were already available to us, many of which were previously used for defining the dust-penetrated pitch angle classes described by Block and Puerari (1999) and Block et al. (1999). We used well-defined (kinematically and/or photometrically-based) orientation parameters mainly for the ringed galaxies at this time since the deprojected images were also already available to us from earlier studies. We also used well-defined orientation parameters for Maffei 2 from Burton et al. (1996) and Buta and McCall (1999). Table 3 shows the impact of large uncertainties in the orientation parameters on $`Q_b`$ for a representative barred galaxy, NGC 1300. This is a special case because the bar major axis of this galaxy is nearly along the line of nodes, making its strength very sensitive to the assumed inclination. Uncertainties of $`\pm `$10 on the inclination $`i`$ and line of nodes position angle $`\varphi _n`$ changes the bar strength over the bar class range 3-5. The RC3 orientation parameters of $`i`$=49 and $`\varphi _n`$ = 106 may be compared to the values of 50 and 95, respectively, determined from HI kinematics by England (1989). According to Table 3, NGC 1300 is still bar class 4 with England’s parameters. In general, whenever the bar minor axis or major axis is nearly along the line of nodes, the effect of inclination will be most serious on $`Q_b`$.

Figure 1 (bottom three rows) shows nine galaxies in our sample in a sequence of increasing $`Q_b`$, with the locations of the maximum points indicated. The mean position angle difference between the maximum points and the bar depends on the importance of higher order terms in the bar potential. For example, if the bar is a pure $`m`$ = 2 potential, these points would lie at $`\pm `$45 to the bar axis. However, in most cases, the angle we find is less than $`\pm `$45, because of the importance of $`m`$ = 4 and 6 terms in most real bars.

## 6 Evaluation of Technique

Equation 1 offers a straightforward way of deriving bar strength for large numbers of galaxies in an efficient, automatic manner, subject of course to our assumptions. Studies of individual galaxies, such as NGC 7479 (Sempere, Combes, and Casoli, 1995), NGC 4321 (Sempere et al., 1995), NGC 4314 (QFG), NGC 1300 (Lindblad and Kristen, 1996), NGC 1365 (Lindblad, Lindblad, and Athanassoula, 1996), NGC 4123 (Weiner, 1998), and NGC 1433, 3081, and 6300 (Buta and Combes, 2000) corroborate the M/L $``$ constant assumption, especially in the inner regions of galaxies. Equation 1’s principal advantage, as we see it, is that we do not need to define the bar in any way other than to limit the analysis to the inner regions of a galaxy to avoid strong spiral structure or corner effects. It can be sensitive to deprojection uncertainties for objects like NGC 1300 (Table 3) and also in cases with roughly spherical bulges and significant inclinations, because then the artificial stretching of the bulge can produce a bar-like signature. However, these are easy to identify since the bulge is stretched along the minor axis, and these are also easy to treat with bulge decomposition if there is little or no actual bar.

Excessive star formation could of course impact the computed potentials. It is well-known that young red supergiants, while on the whole contributing only 3% of the total 2.2$`\mu `$m flux, can be locally dominant in star-forming regions and contribute up to 33% of the flux (Rhoads, 1998). We tested the impact of star formation in M100 by removing the obvious star-forming regions in the arms and bar in a $`K`$-band image, assuming that their mass-to-light ratios are much less than that of the old disk. The removal of these objects had little impact on the estimated bar strength, and the bar class was unchanged.

$`Q_b`$ does not measure the shape of an isolated bar. It also accounts for the disk in which the bar is embedded. A comparison between our bar classes and the bar ellipticity classes of Martin (1995) shows that ellipticity class 7 (one of the strongest classes in Martin’s sample) can have a bar strength class from 2 (e.g., M83) to 6 (e.g., NGC 7479), while an ellipticity class 4 galaxy can be bar strength class 0 (e.g., NGC 4653). Another example of an optically strong ellipticity bar class 7 galaxy but with a non-discernable gravitational potential is NGC 4395 (Knapen, private communication).

$`Q_b`$ correlates better with the relative bar fraction, $`L(bar)/L(R<R_{25})`$, of Elmegreen and Elmegreen (1985), although we have only three galaxies in common. NGC 1300, 3992, and 7479 have relative bar luminosities of 9.2%, 3.7%, and 20%, respectively. These same galaxies (for our adopted orientation parameters) have $`Q_b`$ = 0.42, 0.35, and 0.63, respectively. Both the Martin and Elmegreens’ results are based on $`B`$ or $`I`$ images. Our sample does not overlap with the sample of Seigar and James (1998), and we cannot make a comparison between $`Q_b`$ and bar “equivalent angle” at this time.

On the other hand, as we have noted, $`Q_b`$ can be (but is not always) sensitive to the scale height, values of which are assumed in this prelimary study. we find that bar class is significantly sensitive to $`h_z`$ only for the strongest bars; however, even in those cases the uncertainty will usually be less than 1 bar class.

## 7 Impact of Bulge Shape

Our tabulated values of $`Q_b`$ have ignored the shape of the bulge. In each case, the bulge has been assumed to be as flat as the disk, and only in a few cases have we treated the bulge as less flattened than the disk in order to eliminate deprojection stretch. The assumption of a highly flattened bulge is probably valid for some galaxies, such as for barred spirals with triaxial bulges (Kormendy, 1982, 1993). However, in many galaxies the bulge is a much less flattened component, and even for a face-on galaxy, this could impact our bar strength estimates. If the light distribution of a spherical bulge is transformed into a potential assuming it is a thin disk, then the axisymmetric radial forces derived will be too large, especially in the inner regions. To evaluate this, we modeled the bulge of one of our galaxies, NGC 1433, whose bulge can be interpreted in terms of a highly flattened triaxial inner section and a more spherical outer section (Buta et al., 2000). The apparently round part of the bulge of NGC 1433 includes 27% of the total $`H`$-band luminosity and can be modeled as a double exponential with scale lengths of 2′′ and 11′′, both much less than the 80′′ radius of the bar. Using a program that derives forces from the light distribution by modeling the density in terms of spheroids of different flattenings (Kalnajs, 1986), we find that our analysis overestimates the radial forces in NGC 1433 mainly for radii less than 5′′ where the error can reach a factor of two. At the radius of the bar, the effect of the bulge shape is likely to be negligible. This may not be true in every case, and we will consider the influence of bulge shape in individual cases in more detail in a separate study. However, we note that it would be incorrect to measure bar strength only on bulge-subtracted images, because the bulge contributes to the axisymmetric background regardless of its shape, and $`Q_b`$ should measure the strength of the bar relative to all axisymmetric luminous components.

## 8 A Dust-Penetrated Quantitative Classification of Spiral Galaxies

The Hubble classification of galaxies is based on their optical appearance. As one moves from early to late type spirals, both unbarred and barred, the appearance will be dominated more and more by the young Population I component of gas and dust. However, the gaseous Population I component may only constitute 5 percent of the dynamical mass of a galaxy (Frogel et al., 1996).

The Hubble classification does not constrain the dynamical mass distribution, as corroborated by Burstein and Rubin (1985), Block (1996) and Block et al. (1999). Galaxies with bulge-disk ratios differing by a factor of 40 can have very similar shapes to their rotation curves; galaxies of Hubble type a, for example, may belong to any one of three different mass classes (Burstein and Rubin, 1985). A late type galaxy such as NGC 309 (optical type c) may co-exist with an early type a evolved disk morphology (Block and Wainscoat, 1991). The decoupling between gaseous and stellar disks can be profound, as reviewed by Block et al. (1999).

A classification scheme of spiral galaxies in the near-infrared was recently proposed by Block and Puerari (1999). The main classification parameter is the dominant Fourier harmonic in the spiral arms. In this classification, a ubiquity of low order ($`m`$=1,2) Fourier modes for both normal and barred galaxies is found in the near-infrared regime, consistent with the modal theory of spiral structure (Bertin and Lin, 1996; Block et al., 1999). Galaxies with a dominant Fourier m=1 mode are L=lopsided, while galaxies principally showing an m=2 harmonic are E=evensided. For simplicity ofcourse, any harmonic class can simply be denoted by H$`m`$, where lopsided and evensided galaxies carry the H1 and H2 designations respectively. Block et al. (1999) bring attention those rarer galaxies with higher order dominant harmonics (e.g., NGC 5054, $`m`$=3, and ESO 566$``$24, $`m`$=4) which are assigned to harmonic classes H3 and H4, respectively.

Within these dust-penetrated harmonic classes, galaxies are binned into three subclasses based on the pitch angle of the spiral arms, robustly determined from Fourier spectra. Evolved stellar disks with tightly wound spiral arms characterized by near-infrared pitch angles of $``$10 are binned into the $`\alpha `$ class; the $`\beta `$ class is an intermediate group, with near-infrared pitch angles of $``$25, while open stellar arms with pitch angles of $``$40 define the $`\gamma `$ class.

These $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ classes are inextricably related to the rate of shear A/$`\omega `$ in the stellar disk. Here A is the first Oort constant and $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity. Falling rotation curves generally give rise to the $`\alpha `$ class, while rising rotation curves give rise to the $`\gamma `$ class. For a complete discussion, see Block et al. (1999). When imaged in the near-infrared, a Hubble or de Vaucouleurs early type b galaxy may either belong to class $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ or $`\gamma `$. Likewise for the other optical Hubble bins. Hubble type and dynamical mass distributions are not correlated (Burstein and Rubin, 1985).

In this paper, we propose to simply add the bar strength derived from the inferred gravitational force fields to the shear-related pitch angle classes of Block and Puerari (1999), in order to define a more complete dust-penetrated classification system. Class 0 spirals have no bar or oval; our strongest bars are class 6. Figure A Dust-Penetrated Classification Scheme For Bars As Inferred From Their Gravitational Force Fields shows a quantitative three-pronged “tuning fork” for the near-infrared images of nine spiral galaxies that illustrate the full dust-penetrated classification system for the H2 class. The images are from Block et al. (1999) and are overlaid with the contours of the main harmonic, $`m`$=2.

For example, it is proposed that NGC 5236=M83 (illustrated in Figure 3) bear the quantitative classification H2$`\alpha `$2, implying that the bar class is 2, the galaxy has tightly wound type $`\alpha `$ arms in the dust-penetrated regime, and that there is an evensided two-armed spiral in its evolved stellar disk. The pitch angles of the spiral arms in barred galaxies of the same Hubble type span the entire $`\alpha `$ to $`\gamma `$ range: for example, NGC 3992 and NGC 1365 (both Hubble type b) carry the full designation H2$`\alpha `$4 and H2$`\gamma `$5 respectively.

The tuning fork in Figure 3 may serve as a z$``$0 template when galaxies at z $``$ 0.5-1 are imaged in their restframe $`K`$ dust penetrated 2$`\mu m`$ regime. It is not a confirmed observational fact that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields are very different in the past than in the present (R.I. Thompson, private communication) when the effects of redshift and surface brightness dimming are fully accounted for (Ellis, 1997; Takamiya, 1999).

## 9 Conclusions

We have outlined the derivation of a fully quantitative bar strength class for spiral galaxies, based on the the maximum value of the amplitude of the tangential force to the mean radial force. Although the method is still based on light fluxes, since we use images to infer gravitational potentials, it provides a more direct handle on bar strength than any other light-based methods so far applied. Regardless of what the bar may visually look like, the ratio map will show a pattern of four maxima/minima that can be isolated fairly automatically to give a robust measure of bar strength. The method is thus free from uncertainties connected with defining bars or of full bulge/disk decompositions. It can be applied quickly and efficiently to many galaxies, and only in some cases is it necessary to give special treatment to the bulge if it suffers too much deprojection stretch. Bulge shape, dark matter, and star formation have little impact on the bar strength class for our sample galaxies. The most important effects are vertical scale height and, for highly inclined galaxies, deprojection uncertainties.

The method has much room for refinement. For example, bulges can be decomposed to eliminate deprojection stretch and their influence on the ratio maps more accurately accounted for. Improved orientation parameters can be used or derived for galaxies as data become available. Appropriate vertical scaleheights could be inferred more reliably from detailed near-infrared surface photometry and the type dependence of $`h_R/h_z`$. The validity of the constant $`M/L`$ assumption could be tested by measuring $`JK`$ color distributions. Finally, deprojection uncertainties go beyond simple bulge deprojection stretch to the fundamental uncertainty of deprojecting any galaxy, even if a bulge is not present. All of these are issues which will be considered in a more detailed forthcoming study.

The addition of our bar strength parameter to the dust-penetrated classification scheme of Block et al. (1999) now gives a full dynamical appreciation of the range of evolved stellar disks with bars (Figure A Dust-Penetrated Classification Scheme For Bars As Inferred From Their Gravitational Force Fields).

We thank A. Quillen, F.Combes, A. Kalnajs, and S. M. G. Hughes for programs that were used in this study. We also thank A. Quillen, F.Combes, B.Elmegreen, K. Freeman, P. van der Kruit, A. Kalnajs, R. de Grijs, R.I. Thompson and especially the (anonymous) referee for helpful and timely advice and comments which improved this study. D. Elmegreen, I. Puerari, P.Grosbøl, J. Knapen, K. C. Freeman, O. K. Park, and T. Jarrett very graciously loaned us some images which we used to test the bar strength method. We thank D. A. Crocker for her assistance in producing the “tuning fork” diagram in Figure A Dust-Penetrated Classification Scheme For Bars As Inferred From Their Gravitational Force Fields. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Anglo-American Chairman’s Fund, which also made the visit to South Africa of one of us (RB) possible. We are indebted to CEO Mrs. M. Keeton and the Board of Trustees.