to look for a third companion (see §\[s:third\], epoch 2011.57, $PA=317 \pm 1^\circ$, $\rho=1.20
\pm 0.014$”). For visual data we set uncertainties of 7$^\circ$ to PAs and 0.5” to separations, for *Hipparcos* data we used 5$^\circ$ and 0.1”, and for speckle observations without quoted uncertainties we used 2$^\circ$ and 0.04”. The resulting orbital elements, shown in Table \[tab:elem\], vary only slightly from those derived by .[^4] The best fit yields $\chi^2 = 190$ with 399 degrees of freedom. The fit is therefore reasonable, and most likely the $\chi^2$ per degrees of freedom is less than unity because the uncertainties assigned to the visual data are too conservative. If anything, the uncertainties quoted in Table \[tab:elem\] are therefore overestimated. However, visual data can have unknown systematic uncertainties due to individual observers and their equipment so we do not modify them [@2001AJ....122.3472H].

These data also allow us to derive a total system mass of 1.4$M_\odot$, where we have used a distance of 15.64pc [@2008yCat.1311....0F]. While the total mass is well constrained by visual observations, the mass ratio must be derived from either the differential luminosity of each star or radial velocities. We use the spectroscopic mass function derived by @2006ApJS..162..207A, yielding a 