5 Remarks to individual systems

Several of the solutions and systems in Table 3 require a remark, they are flagged with an "R'' in the last column.

• HIP 1338, 27464, 32628 These systems were also investigated by [Falin & Mignard (1999)], but they solved only for one common parallax and proper motion. Our analysis shows that these systems are optical doubles, with very different parallax and proper motion.

• HIP 11888 The two close components have different colour in Tycho-2. $B_{\rm T}-V_{\rm T}$ is 2.36 for component A and 0.39 for B.

• HIP 27464 See remark for HIP 1338.

• HIP 31110 The wide pair, AB, agrees with HIC; the narrow pair, AC, is a Tycho-2 discovery.

• HIP 31157 Poor pointing, Hipparcos almost missed the target.

• HIP 32628 See remark for HIP 1338.

• HIP 34226 Our solution is confirmed by a digital Tycho map as well as by Tycho-1 and Tycho-2. The system was also investigated by [Falin & Mignard (1999)], but they have a grid step error in their solution.

• HIP 38562 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 39653 Many rejections due to bad pointing during the first year.

• HIP 41884 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 43422 Many rejections due to bad pointing during the first year.

• HIP 51496 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 59154 A very different solution was obtained by [Falin & Mignard (1999)], cf. Table 2.

• HIP 59272 We solved for a common proper motion and parallax for components A and B.

• HIP 62292 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 63081 An improved solution is also given in the notes in the Hipparcos Catalogue, but as a single star solution.

• HIP 63721 An improved solution is also given in the notes in the Hipparcos Catalogue, but as a single star solution.

• HIP 69192 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 70976 We solved for a common proper motion and parallax for components C and D.

• HIP 77516 System studied by Mason et al. ([1999]), it is orbiting and component A has an accelaration solution in HIP. We found it safer to restrict ourselves to determining only a mean separation and position angle without taking any orbital motion into account.

• HIP 81538 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result.

• HIP 82021 Bad pointing a possible cause for the poor result. According to HIC there is a component at 0.6 arcsec.

• HIP 82904 High rejection rate because all 124 observations pointed at HIP 82899 were left out of the new solution. Of the remaining 126 observations pointed at HIP 82904 we rejected 10%.

• HIP 88637 We solved for a common proper motion for components A and C.

• HIP 99862 High rejection rate because all 127 observations pointed at HIP 99861 were left out of the new solution. Of the remaining 125 observations pointed at HIP 99862 only 4% were rejected.

• HIP 100289 HIP has a VIM solution which is not taken into account here.

• HIP 105230 Component A is a white dwarf according to HIC. This is confirmed by the absolute magnitude of 11 from the present parallax, and a Tycho-2 colour of -0.4. By mistake, observations were centered on component B explaining the poor result.

• HIP 114923 This is a single star. It is erroneously resolved in HIP, cf. Fig. 4.

• HIP 116191 Six observations were rejected due to pointing error.