What and where exactly are the claims that you are supposedly challenging?
As I stated, I challenge the assertion that the AH reduces mast compression and improves mast rotation.
I think your terminology (and that of others) is loose, and you are making unfounded assumptions about what can and cannot affect mast rotation.
If you studied statics and dymamics you would understand.
The AH does not change pressure on the mast step
Correct, exactly my point. That is until you haul on it!
; I think you have created a straw man on that point. If you think the mast rotation has to do with step friction or the like, you are TOTALLY missing it.
"I think" you are severely misinformed.
The catalog says, "Reduces mast compression by 66%. Allows easier tacking, better mast rotation and consistent mast bend!" Technically it reduces halyard-related compression by 66%, and although that is only a portion of the whole compression it has an asymmetrical component (important!) that is correspondingly reduced, not to mention that the halyard-related compression is reduced, asymmetric or not. Do you have experience with both? I do, I find better mast rotation and so do others.
Total BS! There is absolutely NO reduction in halyard-related compression. You are talking about a closed, static, and balanced system. Any tightening of the halyard or the shrouds puts a downward force vector on the mast and since the mast doesn't go anywhere, an equal and opposite force must push up on the mast through the step. When sailing those forces become dynamic but are still balanced - again I suggest you educate yourself on statics and dynamics. And yes, I do have knowledge and background in statics and dynamics. (I also graduated from a small engineering school located on the shores of the Severn River in Md.)
Raising the jib is far easier (for me) with the old system. Adjusting, OK that might be easier but it's more of a layout thing than it is related to the fundamental difference in the AH, which is where the 3:1 happens.
I wasn't talking easier for any particular operator, I was talking mechanical advantage- more sheaves, more mechanical advantage, less force required to tighten the halyard.
I think your position on this is entrenched and this is pretty typical of internet tech spats. Those who get the physics already know who is right and wrong, and you don't need to be an engineer to get the physics of it. But those who don't know might get something from what I've written. Or, read Matt's post at the top of page 2. He sums it up very cleanly.
It sure helps to have engineering knowledge and understanding- it reduces the number posts like this.