No one here on this thread wants to see constant baseless insults like this against those who actually have experience building blades and have done their research. Hipnotic clearly mentioned frequency can give a general assumption but "many other variables play a part in the speed of a blade". In my blade-making experience, when two blades have a very similar structure, (for example, both 5W, 2-inner-fiber), frequency will give a fairly good indicator of how powerful the blade will play. Although of course, materials will also have an impact, such as the thickness/density of the composite layer, and what kind of fiber is used. Btw, as for why there aren't 5000 hz blades: I just bounced a ball on a 20 mm thick slab of Limba and it was below 5000 hz. I doubt anyone would ever think about playing using something more powerful than that or even close to that.
I didn't insult anybody. I just pointed out how to measure the speed of a blade and rubbed people's noses in it.
No one has yet showed how they can compute the speed of a blade besides actually measuring the speed before and speed after impact.
BTW, blades don't have or generate power unless you burn them. Then you can generate heat and boil water for steam.
Good for you for actually bouncing a ball of of 20mm of Limba.
What was the frequency? Was it higher than those listed in the tables above?
Now you have some facts, not opinions like everyone else.
It would be nice to measure the speed before or after impact to calculate a COR.
You could also drop the ball from a height and use the square root of the rebound distance.
This would provide an upper limit for speed for paddles.
The short answer is the blade would be too stiff but mostly to big and heavy.
I have a cutting board I mount rubbers on for testing. The cutting board doesn't absorb much energy. This way I can evaluate just the rubber.
I still wonder about the lignum vitae wood. Lignum vitae is very hard. It is so hard that it was used for bearings a long time ago.