1: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %\newcommand \tbd[1]{\textbf{\color{red}(#1)}}
5: %\usepackage{pst-all}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %\received{date month year}
11: %\accepted{date month year}
12: %\journalid{number}{date month year}
13: %\articleid{number}{number}
14: \slugcomment{submitted to: {\it Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific}}
15:
16:
17: \title{Commissioning of the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter for the UH 88-inch telescope}
18: \author{Joseph Masiero\altaffilmark{1}, Klaus Hodapp\altaffilmark{1}, Dave Harrington\altaffilmark{1}, Haosheng Lin\altaffilmark{1}}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Dr, Honolulu, HI 96822, {\it masiero, hodapp, dmh, lin@ifa.hawaii.edu}}
21:
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: In this paper we present the design, calibration method, and initial results
25: of the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter (DBIP). This new instrument is designed
26: to measure the optical polarization properties of point sources, in
27: particular Main Belt asteroids. This instrument interfaces between the Tek
28: $2048\times2048$ camera and the University of Hawaii's 88-inch telescope, and
29: is available for facility use. Using DBIP we are able to measure linear
30: polarization with a 1-sigma Poisson signal noise of $0.03\%$ per measurement
31: and a systematic error of order $0.06\%\pm0.02\%$. Additionally, we discuss
32: measurements of the polarization of the asteroid 16 Psyche which were taken
33: as part of the instrument commissioning. We confirm Psyche's negative
34: polarization of $-1.037\%\pm0.006\%$ but find no significant modulation of
35: the signal with rotation above the $0.05\%$ polarization level.
36:
37:
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{Astronomical Instrumentation}
41:
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: Optical polarimetry of asteroids enjoyed a rush of activity in the 1960s and
45: 1970s until the limits of the optics and imagers were reached. A resurgence
46: of interest in polarimetric imaging of asteroids then appeared, fueled by
47: previous successes with optics such as retarders and Savart plates
48: (e.g. \citet{serkowski74}) as well as improved CCD technology. Polarimetric
49: studies of asteroids require large amounts of telescope time spread out over
50: many nights to fully cover rotation periods and phase angles. The University
51: of Hawaii's 88-inch telescope offers our study the best access to a wide
52: range of observing nights, but does not have a high precision polarimeter.
53: We present the design and calibration results for a new instrument: the
54: Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter (DBIP) for the UH 88-inch telescope which is
55: capable of simultaneously measuring both orthogonal polarization states for
56: point sources to an accuracy of better than $0.1\%$. The observing scheme
57: has been designed to make these measurements independent of flat field
58: effects as well as changes in seeing or extinction. DBIP was commissioned in
59: March of 2007 in half-wave mode, allowing measurement of linear polarization
60: (Stokes $Q \& U$ vectors). Two polarized standards and two unpolarized
61: standards were observed, as well as $6.8$ hours of coverage of the asteroid
62: 16 Psyche, which has shown weak variations in polarization in the past
63: \citep{broglia92}. In August 2007, DBIP will be commissioned in Full Stokes
64: mode, providing sensitivity to Stokes $Q, U, \& V$ while still retaining flat
65: field and temporal independence.
66:
67: \section{Instrument Design}
68: \label{design}
69:
70: The optical design of DBIP centers on a double-calcite Savart plate. Calcite
71: splits an incident beam into two parallel beams with orthogonal
72: polarizations, called the ordinary (o) and extraordinary (e) beams. The
73: e-beam has a slightly longer optical path in the calcite, producing
74: differential aberrations. A Savart plate is two calcite blocks bonded with
75: the e and o beams reversed, ensuring that the two beams have the same optical
76: path length and same aberrations. The Savart plate used for DBIP was
77: originally used for Near-IR imaging polarimetry \citep{savart}, but maintains
78: its polarization properties in the optical regime. It has a beam separation
79: of $\sim1~$mm, which scales to $6.9~$arcseconds ($31.4~$pixels) on the Tek
80: CCD. As currently mounted the two beams are rotated slightly clockwise of a
81: North-South orientation, however we will refer to them as the northern and
82: southern beams throughout this paper.
83:
84: Because of this relatively small separation, DBIP is most useful for
85: measuring point source polarization, and is incapable of measuring field
86: polarization (including flat field polarization). However, as will be
87: discussed in \S~\ref{reduction}, the power of a dual-beam system is that when
88: used correctly the polarization values determined are independent of both
89: flat field and temporal variations.
90:
91: By rotating the Savart plate, all linear polarization angles could be
92: explored, however this would mean that the direction of separation of the
93: images would be dependent on the angle being investigated, which negates the
94: flat-field independence provided by the Savart. Instead, a half-wave plate
95: is inserted just before the Savart plate allowing the plane of polarization
96: of the incident beam to be rotated. Once retarded by the half-wave plate,
97: the transmitted intensity of the two beams exiting the Savart plate are
98:
99: \[I'_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+Q\cos\left({4\theta}\right)+U\sin\left({4\theta}\right)\right)\]
100: \[I'_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(I-Q\cos\left({4\theta}\right)-U\sin\left({4\theta}\right)\right)\]
101:
102: where $I$ is the total intensity, $Q$ is the Stokes Q vector amplitude, $U$
103: is the Stokes U vector amplitude, $\theta$ is the angle of rotation of the
104: waveplate, and $I'$ is the throughput light amplitude in each of the two
105: split beams.
106:
107: Thus by rotating the half-wave plate any angle of polarized light can be
108: sampled by the Savart plate while the image separation and orientation
109: remains constant. There are a few different designs for half-wave plates
110: \citep{PanWave,GoodWave}, but a true zero-order retarder was chosen because
111: they tend to have fairly flat retardance across a broad range of wavelengths
112: and are available off-the-shelf for small (e.g. $1~$inch) diameters. Our
113: half-wave plate is a birefringent polymer supplied by the Bolder Vision Optik
114: company and provides a retardance of $0.50\pm0.01$ wavelengths over
115: the$400-700~$nm wavelength range\footnote{quote from vendor's website:
116: http://www.boldervision.com/achro.html}. Beginning with the expansion from
117: the Muller matrix for a simple retarder-polarizer setup, we have the equation:
118:
119: \[I'=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\frac{1}{2}[(1+\cos\phi)+(1-\cos\phi)\cos(4\theta)]~Q + \frac{1}{2}\sin(4\theta)(1-\cos\phi)~U - \sin(2\theta)\sin\phi~V\right)\]
120:
121: where $\phi$ is the retardance and $\theta$ is the angle of waveplate
122: rotation. If the retardance varies between $0.49$ and $0.51~$wavelengths,
123: this means that $\phi$ varies between $176.4^\circ<\phi<183.6^\circ$. Using
124: these maximal values for $\phi$ and a waveplate rotation angle of
125: $\theta=45^\circ$, the transmitted intensity will be:
126:
127: \[I'=\frac{1}{2}\left(I-0.998~Q-0.063~V\right)\]
128:
129: which corresponds to a $\le0.2\%$ depolarization of the incident polarization
130: (compared to the nominal $I'=0.5*(I-Q)$ for an ideal half-wave plate), as well
131: as some separation of Stokes $V$ into the positive and negative beams. The
132: Savart plate is insensitive to Stokes $V$ and thus this term can be
133: neglected. It can be shown that Stokes $U$ will have depolarization
134: systematics of the same order ($\sim0.4\%$). Thus for a $10\%$ polarized
135: standard star we expect any retardance variation to manifest as a difference
136: of $\sim0.03\%$ in the measured percent polarization. A source with
137: $\sim1\%$ polarization (e.g. asteroids near their maximum negative
138: polarization phase angle) will be measured as $\sim0.003\%$ more depolarized
139: than it actually is. Both of these (as shown below) fall well within our
140: current limits for systematic polarization effects. This systematic
141: depolarization would affect absolute polarization measures, and can be
142: calibrated out with a large number of polarized standard star observations.
143: This should not affect relative polarization measurements using a consistent
144: filter and waveplate rotation angles.
145:
146: An IR-blocked clear filter is chosen to restrict the observations to optical
147: wavelength bands. The filter was supplied by the Custom Scientific company
148: and has $>90\%$ transmission in the $400-700~$nm range (typically $95\%$) and
149: no throughput beyond that range. This is the closest analog to a Sloan {\it
150: g'+r'} filter that could be found both off-the-shelf and reasonably priced.
151: Ideally the filter would be located after the Savart plate along the optical
152: axis to prevent stray polarization signals from it, however due to physical
153: space constraints within the mount it could only be located between the
154: half-wave plate and the Savart plate. Should the filter generate any false
155: linear polarization signal, unpolarized standard star calibrations should be
156: able to detect this and remove it from measurement results. The biggest
157: problem that could result from this placement of the filter would be if the
158: filter had a tendency to act like a retarder. This could cause low levels of
159: systematic depolarization, which would show up in the measurements of the
160: absolute polarization of the polarized standard stars. A diagram of the
161: optical configuration can be seen in Fig~\ref{fig.optics}.
162:
163: We chose to optimize DBIP for polarization analysis of point sources, and so
164: wide field capabilities are not required. This meant we are not restricted
165: by optical elements that vignetted the field of view and thus used less
166: expensive, off-the-shelf components when available. Our $1~$inch diameter
167: ($0.8~$inch clear aperture) half-wave plate is significantly smaller than the
168: Tek CCD, which causes the field of view to be vignetted from the standard
169: $\sim7~$arcmin-sided square to a $2.5~$arcmin clear aperture. A benefit of
170: this is that DBIP only requires the central $1050\times1050$ pixels to be
171: read out, reducing readout time to $\sim15~$seconds.
172:
173: To make this design as cost- and time-efficient as possible, we chose to use
174: as many existing materials as possible. To mount our optics to the
175: telescope, we used a mount fabricated for the QUIRC camera \citep{quirc}.
176: This mount attaches directly to the UH 88-inch telescope guider and only
177: required minor modification to support the Tek camera. A spacer was made to
178: hold the Savart plate, a bridge to hold the shutter, and the removable stage
179: was altered to support the rotation stage and filter. We used a Newport PR50
180: series rotation stage with the accompanying SMC100 controller to rotate the
181: waveplate. The PR50 model has a built-in rotary encoder allowing for
182: tracking of the absolute position of the rotation stage, as opposed to open
183: loop models which can only track the relative position to the device. The
184: rotation stage has an angular resolution of $0.01^\circ$ and a guaranteed
185: absolute motion accuracy of $0.1^\circ$.
186:
187: The first-light image from DBIP is shown in Fig~\ref{fig.firstlight}. The
188: nature of the split image, as well as the separation and entire field of view
189: of the instrument can be seen in this picture.
190:
191:
192: \section{Calibration}
193: \label{calib}
194:
195: %\subsection{Lab Bench Calibration}
196: %We performed an initial, coarse calibration of the instrument in the lab
197: %using a linear polarizer and a laser pointer. This method allows us to
198: %align the split beams in the North-South direction, as well as find the
199: %zero-point for the wave plate rotation. The estimated error in this
200: %calibration method is $\sim5^\circ$ for each optical element and is due
201: %mostly to slight angular errors in the placement of the polarizer and Savart
202: %plate. However, this error is a systematic one that shows up as an
203: %offset in the measured position angle of the polarization of the standard
204: %stars, and thus can be easily calibrated out with standard star observations.
205: %This technique is employed for DBIP, and is discussed below.
206:
207: %\subsection{On-Telescope Calibration}
208: One of the biggest challenges in calibrating DBIP was finding published lists
209: of polarized and unpolarized standard stars that would not saturate the
210: detector in less than a second, i.e. a magnitude limit of $V>9.7~$mag. Most
211: lists of polarized standards are brighter than this limit, and thus most
212: useful for spectropolarimetry
213: (e.g. Keck/LRISp\footnote{http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/lris/polarimeter/polarimeter.html};
214: Subaru/FOCAS\footnote{http://www.naoj.org/Observing/Instruments/FOCAS/pol/calibration.html};
215: {\it Hubble} \citep{hubbleSTD2}). \citet{fossati07} provide a list of polarized
216: standards that fall within our required magnitude range, however most of
217: these are in the Southern Hemisphere, and thus difficult to observe from
218: Mauna Kea. From their list we are able to find two unpolarized standards
219: adequately observable from our location, as well as two standards polarized
220: at the $4\%$ and $10\%$ level. When the peak pixel value of each image of
221: the target is kept near 45,000 counts the total beam will include
222: $\sim1.2\times10^6$ counts, which will have a 1-sigma Poisson noise of
223: $\sim0.09\%$. This flux level can be reached for a V$=10.79~$mag target in
224: $\sim3~$seconds, or $\sim9~$seconds for a V$=12.17~$mag target. In terms of
225: faint limits, DBIP can reach this flux level for a V$=17.2~$mag source with a
226: $15~$min exposure time. Once both beams of the four images required to
227: determine the linear polarization are combined, DBIP can measure percent
228: polarization with a photon noise error of $\sim0.03\%$ on an individual
229: measurement. Multiple sets of observations allow us to reach Poisson noise
230: errors of $\sim0.015\%$ for our standard stars.
231:
232: Target information, as well as literature and observed values for the percent
233: polarization ($\%~$Pol) and the angle of polarization ($\theta$) are given in
234: Table~\ref{tab.polstd}. The difference between the observed and literature
235: position angles are also given. It should be noted that our measurements
236: show that HD 64299 is polarized at the $0.1\%$ level. HD 64299 was first
237: reported as an unpolarized standard by \citet{krautter}, with a polarization
238: of $0.05\%\pm0.10\%$. \citet{hubbleSTD} report HD 64299 as an unpolarized
239: standard with polarization (in the $B$ filter) of $0.151\%\pm0.032\%$. These
240: values are consistent (within $2\sigma$) with our observed measurement of
241: $0.1\%\pm0.01\%$ polarization, however we are unable to determine at this
242: point whether this polarized signal is due to low level systematics or is a
243: true signal. Note that the errors given are for Poisson noise only.
244: Systematic errors in our instrument are discussed below. \citet{wardle74}
245: discuss in their appendix the effect of the non-Gaussian distribution of
246: errors on the measurement of percent polarization and angle of polarization.
247: These effects are important for low-to-moderate signal-to-noise ratios,
248: however our observations are at a S/N$\approx3500$, well above this regime.
249: Thus these effects have not been incorporated in our quoted errors of $\%~$P.
250:
251: Based on our observations of the two polarized standard stars, we find an
252: offset in the angular alignment of the optics to be $9.23^\circ\pm0.32^\circ$
253: in the positive direction (East-of-North), where the error in this
254: measurement is dominated by the errors on the literature values of angle of
255: polarization. This offset of $9.23^\circ$ should be subtracted from all
256: angular measurements before analysis. Our observations of WD 1615-154 result
257: in a percent polarization measurement of $0.02\%\pm0.02\%$, consistent with a
258: zero result, and indicative of low-to-no systematic increase in polarization
259: due to the optics.
260:
261: The Cassegrain stage on UH 88-inch telescope has the ability to rotate,
262: allowing the angle of the instrument on the sky to be changed. Restrictions
263: due to cabling only allow coverage over the range of $-75^\circ$ to
264: $150^\circ$ from North, but because of the $180^\circ$ symmetry in the
265: polarization vectors, this is sufficient to develop a full model of the
266: polarization with instrument rotation, and thus investigate any residual
267: polarization signal imparted by the telescope's primary and secondary
268: mirrors. We took measurements of HD 64299 and NGC 2024-1 across the range of
269: instrument rotation angles to test for this signal. Figures \ref{fig.unpol}
270: and \ref{fig.pol} show the changes in the fractional polarization of $Q$,
271: $U$, and the total polarization $P$ for various Cassegrain stage rotation
272: angles for HD 64299 and NGC 2024-1 respectively. Because the polarization
273: signal from HD 64299 was seen to be fixed with respect to the sky when the
274: Cassegrain stage was rotated, and not with respect to the instrument, the
275: measured polarization is not due to an inherent systematic error created by
276: one of the optical elements (e.g. the filter). In order to differentiate a
277: polarization induced by the telescope's mirrors with a true signal,
278: observations of a number of polarized standards with a range of position
279: angles is required. This will be the goal of a future calibration campaign
280: using this instrument.
281:
282: We find that there are variations in the polarization measurement with
283: rotation, with an amplitude of $0.08\%\pm0.03\%$ for a $\sim10\%$ polarized
284: source and $0.04\%\pm0.02\%$ for a $\sim0.1\%$ polarized source. This
285: systematic error, however, does not change smoothly with instrument angle,
286: nor are the variations the same for both targets. Thus until we perform
287: further observations we can only quote an estimated amplitude of order
288: $0.06\%\pm0.02\%$ for our systematic errors. This error includes effects
289: from the telescope mirrors as well as from any misalignment in the optics or
290: dust on the optical surfaces. This source of error is larger than the photon
291: Poisson error, and will affect absolute polarization measurements and limit
292: our accuracy when compared with literature values, however relative
293: polarization measurements should be unaffected by this error. Additionally,
294: we see no systematic depolarization that would indicate retarder-like
295: behavior from the filter or deviation from $0.5~$wave retardance in the
296: waveplate at a level greater that the above quoted limits.
297:
298:
299: \section{Image Reduction}
300: \label{reduction}
301:
302: Analysis of the data taken during the commissioning run is done using IDL.
303: Images are loaded in blocks of four (Q1, Q2, U1, U2) matching the pattern
304: they were obtained by the camera control script. The designations Q1, Q2,
305: U1, and U2 represent, respectively, waveplate rotation angles of $0^\circ$,
306: $45^\circ$, $22.5^\circ$, and $67.5^\circ$ with respect to the Savart plate
307: orientation. The user is then required to click on the Northern-most image
308: of the target in the displayed frame, this being the only user-dependent
309: section of the reduction. The program then centers on both images of the
310: target, subtracts off the appropriate region of the bias image and sums the
311: signal in a $20\times20~$pixel box around the target. This traces to a box
312: $4.4''$ on a side, which encompasses the $5\sigma$ radius of the PSF given an
313: worse-than-average seeing of $1''$. The box around the orthogonal beam
314: begins at the $11\sigma$ radius, meaning the cross-contribution between the
315: beams is minimal. Figure~\ref{fig.psf} shows a comparison between sample
316: data (solid line), a best-fit 2D Gaussian PSF (dashed line) and the limits of
317: the $20\times20~$pixel box. Though the PSFs are aligned in the y-direction
318: on the CCD, we have shown cuts in the x-direction to better illustrate the
319: overlap between the beam-split PSFs. In Fig~\ref{fig.zoom} we show a
320: close-up of the edges of the PSF wings, with both the fit and the box cut
321: displayed as above. The data drop to a level comparable to the background
322: noise before reaching the orthogonal beam's integration box, meaning that
323: beam cross-talk is not a significant systematic error. This is dependent on
324: both the focusing of the telescope and the seeing during the observations.
325: Our commissioning nights had a seeing of $1.1''$, which is worse than average
326: for Mauna Kea (average of $0.8''$), meaning bleeding between the PSFs will
327: not be a problem for most observing nights.
328:
329: The background level is determined by taking the median of a box of
330: $60\times60$ pixels in the direction away from the oppositely polarized beam.
331: The error on this median is $\sim0.5$ counts per pixel or $\sim20~$counts over
332: the region the signal is summed over, while the Poissonian error of the
333: signal is of order $1500~$counts. Thus the shot noise dominates our
334: photometry error. This median background count is subtracted from each
335: pixel.
336:
337: We then calculate the total fractional polarization for both the Q and U
338: states using the equations
339:
340: \[q=\frac{Q1+Q2}{I1+I2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{S_{Q1p}-S_{Q2p}}{S_{Q1p}+S_{Q2p}}-\frac{S_{Q1n}-S_{Q2n}}{S_{Q1n}+S_{Q2n}}\right)\]
341: \[u=\frac{U1+U2}{I1+I2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{S_{U1p}-S_{U2p}}{S_{U1p}+S_{U2p}}-\frac{S_{U1n}-S_{U2n}}{S_{U1n}+S_{U2n}}\right)\]
342:
343: where $S$ is the signal in an image and $p$ and $n$ subscripts refer to the
344: positive (Northern) and negative (Southern) images, respectively. The
345: fractional polarizations $q$ and $u$ are equivalent to $Q/I$ and $U/I$
346: without assuming constant seeing or extinction between images. It is trivial
347: to show that using this reduction method flat-field effects are canceled out,
348: assuming the location of the image has not changed significantly between
349: images and thus the flat fields at e.g. $Q1p$ and $Q2p$ are the same.
350:
351: \section{Observations of 16 Psyche}
352: \label{psyche}
353: During the dates of DBIP's commissioning, the Main Belt asteroid 16 Psyche,
354: an M-type object, was near its phase of maximum negative polarization
355: \citep{broglia92, horizons}. We observed Psyche to show an overall
356: polarization of $-1.037\%\pm0.006\%$, where a negative polarization value
357: refers to polarization parallel to the Sun-Object-Earth plane and a positive
358: polarization refers to polarization orthogonal to this plane. The error
359: quoted here is noise-related only and does not account for any systematic
360: offsets. The cause of negative polarization is second-order scattering of
361: the light by particles on the asteroid's surface \citep{karri89}.
362: Table~\ref{tab.psyche} lists the mean RA and Dec of Psyche on each night of
363: observing, as well as the apparent V magnitude, the mean phase angle
364: ($\alpha$), and the measured percent polarization.
365:
366: Previously, \citet{broglia92} reported variations in the polarized light
367: curve with amplitude of $\sim0.12\%$ at a $95\%$ confidence level. We
368: observed Psyche during the commissioning to verify this measurement at a
369: greater confidence level. However, we are unable to detect any modulation
370: of Psyche's polarization with rotation phase at any confidence for a $>0.1\%$
371: amplitude variation. Figure~\ref{fig.psyche} shows the data from the two
372: nights of observing wrapped onto a rotation period of $0.174831~$days
373: \citep{broglia92}. Our observations are consistent with a constant
374: polarization of $-1.037\%$ and limit any amplitude of variation to $<0.05\%$.
375: It is possible that the discrepancy between our measurements and those of
376: \citet{broglia92} could be the result of changes in pole orientation.
377: \citet{deangelis93} measured Psyche's pole orientation to be $\lambda\sim
378: 35^\circ$, $\beta\sim +22^\circ$ in ecliptic coordinates. During our
379: observations Psyche was at an ecliptic longitude of $\lambda = 165^\circ$,
380: and thus a pole angle of $50^\circ$ while during the observations of
381: \citet{broglia92} Psyche was at an ecliptic longitude of $\lambda\sim
382: 74^\circ$, and thus a pole angle of $109^\circ$ \citep{horizons}. Because
383: our viewing orientation of Psyche is more pole-on than that of
384: \citet{broglia92} it is expected that we would see less variation across the
385: surface with rotation than those authors. Because polarization is linked to
386: albedo, and thus surface properties, this may explain our null result in
387: looking for rotational variation in Psyche's polarization. Conversely, if
388: the region of Psyche's surface that generated the polarization oscillation is
389: in Psyche's Southern hemisphere, it would have been observable during the
390: observing period of \citet{broglia92} but not during ours.
391:
392: \section{Conclusions}
393: \label{conc}
394: The Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter, a new instrument available on the UH
395: 88-inch telescope using the Tek camera, has been commissioned in half-wave
396: setup and is now available for facility use. We find that DBIP is able to
397: measure percent polarization for a $V\sim10.8~$mag source with an exposure
398: time of $\sim3~$seconds to accuracies of $0.03\%$ from a single set of the
399: four observations required to determine the linear Stokes parameters. This
400: level can likewise be reached for a V$\sim12.2~$mag target in $\sim9~$seconds
401: to a limit of V$=17.2~$mag for a 15 minute exposure time. These measurements
402: are independent of flat-field, seeing, or extinction effects. Estimates of
403: the systematic polarization offset due to the telescope's mirrors place the
404: errors at $0.06\%\pm0.02\%$.
405:
406: We set an upper limit to the rotational variation of the polarized signal of
407: the Main Belt asteroid 16 Psyche at $0.05\%$, much lower than previously
408: published results. We postulate that this difference is due to changes in
409: pole orientation from previous observations to ours.
410:
411: DBIP will be commissioned in full-Stokes mode during Aug 2007, when a
412: quarter-wave plate will be installed in addition to the half-wave plate to
413: provide sensitivity to both linear and circular polarization using sets of 6
414: images at various rotation angles for both waveplates.
415:
416:
417: \section{Acknowledgments}
418: The authors wish to thank Colin Aspin for providing the half-wave plate, Ed
419: Sousa for example control code, and Richard Shelton for help in the machine
420: shop. All of the above also provided a large amount useful advice that
421: allowed us to bring this instrument into existence. Additionally, we would
422: like to thank Rolf-Peter Kudritzki, Shadia Habbal and the entire IfA for
423: funding support, Nathan Huisman for computer support, and Robert Jedicke for
424: letting JRM take time off his thesis to get this built. Additionally, we
425: thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments that greatly clarified this
426: paper.
427:
428: \begin{thebibliography}{XXX}
429:
430: \bibitem[Broglia \& Manara(1992)]{broglia92}
431: Broglia, P. \& Manara, A., 1992, ``A study of the polarimetric lightcurve of the asteroid 16 Psyche'', A\&A, 257, 770.
432:
433: \bibitem[De~Angelis(1993)]{deangelis93}
434: De~Angelis, G., 1993, ``Three asteroid pole determinations'', P\&SS, 41, 285.
435:
436: \bibitem[Fossati, et~al.(2007)]{fossati07}
437: Fossati, L., Bagnulo, S., Mason, E., Landi Del'Innocenti, E., 2007, ``Standard Stars for Linear Polarization Observed with FORS1'', ASP Conf., 364, 503.
438:
439: \bibitem[Giorgini, et~al.(1996)]{horizons}
440: Giorgini, J.D., Yeomans, D.K., Chamberlin, A.B., Chodas, P.W., Jacobson, R.A., Keesey, M.S., Lieske, J.H., Ostro, S.J., Standish, E.M., Wimberly, R.N., 1996, ``JPL's On-Line Solar System Data Service'', Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 28(3), 1158.
441:
442: \bibitem[Goodrich(1991)]{GoodWave}
443: Goodrich, R.W., 1991, ``High-Efficiency 'Superachromatic' Polarimetry Optics for Use in Optical Astronomical Spectrographs'', PASP, 103, 1314.
444:
445: \bibitem[Hodapp, et~al.(1996)]{quirc}
446: Hodapp, K.-W., et~al., 1996, ``The HAWAII Infrared Detector Arrays: testing and astronomical characterization of prototype and science-grade devices'', New Astronomy, 1, 177.
447:
448: \bibitem[Hodapp \& Rayner(1991)]{savart}
449: Hodapp, K.-W. \& Rayner, J., 1991, ``The S106 star-forming region'', AJ, 102, 1108.
450:
451: \bibitem[Krautter(1980)]{krautter}
452: Krautter, J., 1980, ``Polarization Measurements of 313 Nearby Stars'', A\&AS, 39, 167.
453:
454: \bibitem[Muinonen(1989)]{karri89}
455: Muinonen, K., 1989, ``Electromagnetic Scattering by Two Interacting Dipoles'', Proc. URSI International Symp. on Electromagnetic Theory, 428.
456:
457: \bibitem[Pancharatnam(1955)]{PanWave}
458: Pancharatnam, S., 1955, ``Achromatic Combinations of Birefringent Plates. Part II. An Achromatic Quarter - Wave Plate'', Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., A41, 137.
459:
460: \bibitem[Schmidt, et~al.(1992)]{hubbleSTD2}
461: Schmidt, G.D., Elston, R., \& Lupie, O.L., 1992, ``The Hubble Space Telescope Northern-Hemisphere Grid of Stellar Polarimetric Standards'', AJ, 104, 1563.
462:
463: \bibitem[Serkowski(1974)]{serkowski74}
464: Serkowski, K., 1974, ``Polarization Techniques'', Methods of Experimental Physics, ed. N. Carleton, Vol 12A: Astrophysics, 361.
465:
466: \bibitem[Turnshek, et~al.(1990)]{hubbleSTD}
467: Turnshek, D.A., Bohlin, R.C., Williamson II, R.L., Lupie, O.L., Koornneef, J., \& Morgan, D.H., 1990, ``An Atlas of {\it Hubble Space Telescope} Photometric, Spectrophotometric, and Polarimetric Calibration Objects'', AJ, 99, 1243.
468:
469: \bibitem[Wardle \& Kronberg(1974)]{wardle74}
470: Wardle, J.F.C \& Kronberg, P.P., 1974, ``Linear Polarization of Quasi-Stellar Radio Sources at 3.71 and 11.1 Centimeters'', ApJ, 194, 249.
471:
472: \end{thebibliography}
473:
474:
475:
476: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccc}
477: \tablenum{1}
478: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
479: \rotate
480: \tablecaption{Standard stars with Literature and Observed Values}
481: \tablewidth{0pt}
482: \tablehead{
483: \colhead{UT Obs Date} &
484: \colhead{name} &
485: \colhead{V mag} &
486: \colhead{RA} &
487: \colhead{Dec} &
488: \colhead{Lit $\%~$Pol} &
489: \colhead{Lit $\theta$} &
490: \colhead{Obs $\%~$Pol} &
491: \colhead{Obs $\theta$} &
492: \colhead{$\Delta \theta$}
493: }
494: \startdata
495: 03-23-2007 & HD 64299 & 10.11 & 07:52:25.51 & $-23^\circ 17' 46.8''$ & $0.06\pm0.13$ & n/a & $0.10\pm0.01$ & $96.95\pm4.21$ & n/a \\
496: 03-24-2007 & WD 1615-154 & 12.40 & 16:17:55.25 & $-15^\circ 35' 52.4''$ & $0.06\pm0.24$ & n/a & $0.02\pm0.02$ & n/a & n/a \\
497: 03-24-2007 & NGC 2024-1 & 12.17 & 05:41:37.85 & $-01^\circ 54' 36.5''$ & $9.65\pm0.06$ & $135.47\pm0.59$ & $9.70\pm0.02$ & $145.34\pm0.05$ & $9.87\pm0.59$\\
498: 03-24-2007 & BD-12 5133 & 10.40 & 18:40:01.70 & $-12^\circ 24' 06.9''$ & $4.37\pm0.04$ & $146.84\pm0.25$ & $4.26\pm0.01$ & $155.43\pm0.10$ & $8.69\pm0.27$\\
499: \hline
500: \enddata
501: \vglue -0.05in
502: \tablecomments{
503: \baselineskip=0.7\baselineskip
504: Literature values for polarized and unpolarized standards taken from \citet{fossati07}.
505: }
506: \label{tab.polstd}
507: \end{deluxetable}
508:
509:
510: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
511: \tablenum{2}
512: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
513: \tablecaption{Psyche Polarized Measurements}
514: \tablewidth{0pt}
515: \tablehead{
516: \colhead{UT Obs Date} &
517: \colhead{Mean RA} &
518: \colhead{Mean Dec} &
519: \colhead{V mag} &
520: \colhead{Mean $\alpha$} &
521: \colhead{Measured $\%~$Pol}
522: }
523: \startdata
524: 03-23-2007 & 10:41:25 & $09^\circ 31'$ & 10.77 & $7.2^\circ$ & $-1.026\pm0.009$ \\
525: 03-24-2007 & 10:40:45 & $09^\circ 36'$ & 10.79 & $7.5^\circ$ & $-1.048\pm0.008$ \\
526: \hline
527: \enddata
528: \vglue -0.05in
529: \label{tab.psyche}
530: \end{deluxetable}
531:
532: \clearpage
533:
534: \begin{figure}
535: \begin{center}
536: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f1.eps}
537: \protect\caption{
538: The arrangement of optical elements in DBIP.
539: }
540: \label{fig.optics}
541: \end{center}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: \newpage
545:
546: \begin{figure}[b]
547: \begin{center}
548: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f2.eps}
549: \protect\caption{
550: The first-light image from DBIP. The bright object near the center is HD 64299. The dual images of each objects are separated by $6.9''$, and the entire field of view spans $2.5'$. In this image, North is up and East is left.
551: }
552: \label{fig.firstlight}
553: \end{center}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556:
557:
558: \newpage
559: \begin{figure}[t]
560: \begin{center}
561: %\rotateright{
562: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f3.eps}
563: %}
564: \protect\caption{
565: Measurements of the polarization of HD 64299 across a range of Cassegrain rotation angles. $Q$ and $U$ measurements are with respect to the sky.
566: }
567: \label{fig.unpol}
568: \end{center}
569: \end{figure}
570:
571: \begin{figure}[b]
572: \begin{center}
573: %\rotateright{
574: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f4.eps}
575: %}
576: \protect\caption{
577: Measurements of the polarization of NGC 2024-1 across a range of Cassegrain rotation angles. $Q$ and $U$ measurements are with respect to the sky.
578: }
579: \label{fig.pol}
580: \end{center}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583: \newpage
584: \begin{figure}[t]
585: \begin{center}
586: %\rotateright{
587: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{f5.eps}
588: %}
589: \protect\caption{
590: Typical PSF for a target object centered at 0, with its orthogonally polarized component visible beyond 20. The solid line shows example data and the dashed line indicates a best-fit 2D Gaussian model. The dotted vertical lines indicate the region the flux is summed over for our calculations.
591: }
592: \label{fig.psf}
593: \end{center}
594: \end{figure}
595:
596: \begin{figure}[b]
597: \begin{center}
598: %\rotateright{
599: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{f6.eps}
600: %}
601: \protect\caption{
602: The same as Fig~\ref{fig.psf}, but zoomed in to show detail at the edges of the wings. Note that the $20\times20$ pixel box includes more flux than the 2D Gaussian PSF model, while avoiding any contamination from the orthogonal component.
603: }
604: \label{fig.zoom}
605: \end{center}
606: \end{figure}
607:
608: \newpage
609: \begin{figure}
610: \begin{center}
611: %\rotateright{
612: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f7.eps}
613: %}
614: \protect\caption{
615: Measurements of the polarization of 16 Psyche from the nights of 3-23-2007 and 3-24-2007. A $0.174831~$day period is used for the rotation phase calculation.
616: }
617: \label{fig.psyche}
618: \end{center}
619: \end{figure}
620:
621:
622: \end{document}
623:
624:
625:
626:
627:
628:
629:
630:
631:
632: