KVG · Engineering Simulators

Simulator 1 — Hit Impact & Piezo Harvest

What it models: Energy generated per shot from three independent mechanisms — TENG (cover deformation), pillow-amplified KNN/PVDF-TrFE shell (bulk compression + spin), and KNN disc impulse spike — then scaled by step-up efficiency into the supercap.

Impact Force (N)

—

contact: 450µs · scaled by shot

TENG Harvest (mJ)

—

σ · A(F) · v_sep · t_contact

Shell Harvest (mJ)

—

baseline × pillow × β_res

KNN Disc Harvest (mJ)

—

peak impulse spike + rectifier loss

Total Harvest (mJ)

—

TENG + shell + PZT (step-up eff)

Supercap Fill (%)

—

Shots to Full Cap

—

ceil(supercap / harvest)

// Putt harvest is the known weak point. System relies on supercap carry-forward from prior shots.

Simulator 2 — Single Hole Energy Budget

What it models: A fixed representative hole sequence (Driver → 5‑iron → lag putt → short putt) with per-shot harvest (Sim 1) and explicit ping events, producing a running supercap reserve.

Cap max (mJ)

—

½CV²

Pre-round charge

—

Hole total harvest (mJ)

—

sum of shots

Hole total ping cost (mJ)

—

sum of ping events

Hole net (mJ)

—

harvest − cost (excluding carry-in)

Final reserve (mJ)

—

Final reserve (% of cap)

—

uses 2 decimals so small reserves don’t read as 0%

Between-round hold time

—

ball remains pingable after last shot

Shot-by-shot energy

per-hole ledger (carry-in comes from pre-round practice harvest)

Shot	Total harv.	TENG	Shell	KNN	Ping cost	Reserve	Pings

// If “% of cap” looks like 0% but mJ is non-zero, you’re just deep in the noise floor vs a 3.6J cap — use the mJ readout as truth.

Simulator 3 — Spin & Wobble Dynamics

What it models: Ball flight stability vs a standard golf ball — backspin, sidespin-induced wobble, and gyroscopic stability. This simulator is a comparison lens (stability + signal conditions), not a harvest calculator.

Backspin / Sidespin (RPM)

—

0 sidespin = straight

Gyroscopic Stability Sg

—

stable if Sg > 1.0

Wobble Angle (°)

—

orange > 15°, red > 30°

Wobble Frequency (Hz)

—

sidespin rad/s

Stability vs standard ball (%)

—

100% = “normal”; lower = more wobble/instability

Ultra Wide Band Signal Consistency (%)

—

antenna variance

Est. Carry (yards)

—

simple ballistic estimate + headwind adjustment

Dot orbits at wobbleFreq_Hz. Orbit radius ∝ wobbleAmplitude_deg.
Sidespin = 0 → dot sits dead center.

// Severe slice/hook drives wobble ↑. This view is “vs standard ball” stability + signal conditions; harvest is computed in Sim 1.

SIM 04 · ELECTRONICS IMPACT SURVIVAL

Models shock attenuation through each ball layer from clubface to PCB, then analyzes g-force survival and solder fatigue life for each BOM component. Position within the ball and mounting method both affect the result.

Peak clubface force (N)

—

Sim 4 shot model

Peak g at PCB

—

after layer cascade

Component	Package	Mounting	G at component	Joint load (N)	Fatigue life	~Rounds	Status

Verdict

—

SIM 05 · KVG vs PRO V1 — PERFORMANCE ALIGNMENT

Direct comparison of KVG design targets against Titleist Pro V1 published specs and robot-tested data. Sources: MyGolfSpy Ball Lab 2023/2025, Today's Golfer robot test 2025, Trackman Tour averages. KVG targets are derived from global ball makeup inputs above. Green = meets or exceeds Pro V1. Orange = within 10% of target. Red = gap to close.

Dimension	Pro V1 Spec	KVG Target	Status	KVG Design Lever

THE CRITICAL DESIGN CHALLENGE

Pro V1 achieves “spin separation” — very low driver spin + very high wedge spin.
This is the hardest performance target to replicate because it requires the KNN/PVDF shell stiffness to behave like Titleist’s ionomer casing.

If the shell is too stiff: driver spin rises, distance suffers.
If the shell is too soft: wedge spin drops, short game suffers.

Target zone: φ = 20–28%, compression = 85–90.
Use Sim 1 sliders to find the combination that maximizes harvest WITHOUT moving compression outside the 85–90 window.