This is the closest thing you will get from an official information, as this picture came from Butterfly. If you cannot tell it is Ayous by that picture, I don't know what more to do for you. Like I said, I did disassemble a couple, but you don't even need to do so if you know what to look for, just need to look at the endgrain. Anyway, I don't intend to change your mind, it's enough for me to make things right with the rest reading this.
([0023] In addition, ayous is used as imported material.)
Not to put too fine a point on it (or continue getting off-track), but I don't see any reference to the patent being for the Timo Boll ALC; in fact, it reads as a fairly generic "how to make a lighter racket using thin layers of wood and polyarylate material". I'm not familiar with the Japanese word for koto but it doesn't appear to be written in katakana like アユース was; either they have another term for it in kanji, or the patent does not specify all the individual layers of a particular racket but rather a broader racket patent that includes ayous.
We have a popular saying: "You hear the sound and don't know where it is."
Why do you think it's referred to as 5+2 and 3+2?
([0026] The numbers "5" and "3" in each sample indicate the number of layers of wood boards only, excluding the reinforcing layer.)
I explicitly stated that in my first post, "In the patent application for Butterfly AL/ALC blades," which is what a patent does, to be as vague and broad as possible. The patent application was filed in 9/1991 and Keyshot was the first AL blade released in 11/1991, whereas Viscaria is the first ALC blade released in 11/1993. Butterfly puts the TB ALC under the "ALCラケットの正統派/orthodox faction of ALC rackets" of Viscaria.
None of this has anything to do with the main topic or the composition of the Timo Bol ALC blade being discussed here.
It has to do with the fact that there isn't a single ALC blade with a Limba medial layer (not that I can't recall, correct me if I wrong), so why would the TB ALC be any different? Is this proof? No, but it's an indicator. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Anyway I wouldn't consider it either, if I disregarded the "proof" you have showed against it, I also can't consider the ones supporting it. And I could cite many other sources, but what I trust are my eyes and my skills, and any decent woodworker would be able to tell Ayous from Limba by the endgrain. Here's one more Pic, the medullary rays are perfectly visible in this one.
Let me reiterate that I'm not claiming that the cross-grain wood in the Timo Bol ALC blade is limba. I'm saying there are plenty of sources that provide this information. There's also you, who claims the opposite.
Yeah, but you did claim it... and when confronted with evidence you still doubting it. And yes, this is evidence, let me also reiterate that any decent woodworker would be able to tell the difference from Ayous and Limba by the endgrain. Ayous has medullary rays, Limba doesn't. The medial layer on that blade, that just so happens to be a TB ALC, has very visible medullary rays. If you are not able to see them, or you don't even know what they are, don't even call yourself a blade maker.
