All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{8233f1.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: EWs obtained with the ARES software as a function of EWs computed using IRAF. The dots indicate a star with $T_{{\rm eff}}$ = 4050 K ("cool'') and the asterisks a star with $T_{{\rm eff}}$ = 4900 K ("hot''). The solid line is a1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f2a.eps}\hspace*{5mm}... ...3f2b.eps}\hspace*{5mm} \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f2c.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Difference between our spectroscopic values and literature values as a function of literature values for the effective temperature ( left), the logarithm of the surface gravity in cgs units ( centre) and metallicity ( right).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f3a.eps}\hspace*{5mm}... ...3f3b.eps}\hspace*{5mm} \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f3c.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Difference between our spectroscopic values and values from Luck & Heiter (2007) as a function of Luck & Heiter (2007) values for the effective temperature ( left), the logarithm of the surface gravity in cgs units ( centre) and metallicity ( right) for the 72 stars in common between the samples.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{8233f4.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Distribution of metallicities of all stars in our sample with mean, median and trimean values of -0.12, -0.09 and -0.095 dex, respectively. The metallicity of 20 giants with an announced companion in the literature (see text for selection criteria) are plotted with the dashed histogram. The latter distribution is normalised to the total number of giants in our sample. These giants have mean, median and trimean metallicity values of -0.05, +0.025 and -0.015 dex, respectively.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{8233f5.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 5: The intrinsic stellar FWHM of spectral lines as a function Gray's total broadening, for 51 stars in common between our sample and Gray (1989). The best fit (Eq. (1)) is shown as the solid line, while the best fit obtained by Fekel (1997) is shown as the dashed line.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{8233f6.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 6: Log g vs. $T_{{\rm eff}}$ for all stars in our sample. The solid line shows the best fit (Eq. (2)).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{8233f7.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 7: $\varv \sin i$ obtained here vs. $\varv \sin i$ obtained by Gray (1989). The solid line is a 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{8233f8.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 8: $\varv \sin i$ obtained here vs. $\varv \sin i$ obtained by de Medeiros & Mayor (1999). The solid line is a 1 to 1 relation and the dashed line is the relation between $\varv \sin i$ obtained by Gray (1989) and de Medeiros & Mayor (1999). The arrows indicate upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{8233f1.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 1: EWs obtained with the ARES software as a function of EWs computed using IRAF. The dots indicate a star with $T_{{\rm eff}}$ = 4050 K ("cool'') and the asterisks a star with $T_{{\rm eff}}$ = 4900 K ("hot''). The solid line is a1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f2a.eps}\hspace{5mm}... ...3f2b.eps}\hspace{5mm} \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f2c.eps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Difference between our spectroscopic values and literature values as a function of literature values for the effective temperature ( left), the logarithm of the surface gravity in cgs units ( centre) and metallicity ( right).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\mbox{\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f3a.eps}\hspace{5mm}... ...3f3b.eps}\hspace{5mm} \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{8233f3c.eps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Difference between our spectroscopic values and values from Luck & Heiter (2007) as a function of Luck & Heiter (2007) values for the effective temperature ( left), the logarithm of the surface gravity in cgs units ( centre) and metallicity ( right) for the 72 stars in common between the samples.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{8233f5.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 5: The intrinsic stellar FWHM of spectral lines as a function Gray's total broadening, for 51 stars in common between our sample and Gray (1989). The best fit (Eq. (1)) is shown as the solid line, while the best fit obtained by Fekel (1997) is shown as the dashed line.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{8233f6.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 6: Log g vs. $T_{{\rm eff}}$ for all stars in our sample. The solid line shows the best fit (Eq. (2)).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{8233f7.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 7: $\varv \sin i$ obtained here vs. $\varv \sin i$ obtained by Gray (1989). The solid line is a 1 to 1 relation.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{8233f8.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 8: $\varv \sin i$ obtained here vs. $\varv \sin i$ obtained by de Medeiros & Mayor (1999). The solid line is a 1 to 1 relation and the dashed line is the relation between $\varv \sin i$ obtained by Gray (1989) and de Medeiros & Mayor (1999). The arrows indicate upper limits.
Open with DEXTER