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 the incremental contribution from KNN loading in that same shell — then scaled by the % of power recovered into storage.
Impact Force (N)
—
contact: 450µs · scaled by shot
TENG Harvest (mJ)
—
σ · A(F) · v_sep · t_contact
Shell Harvest (mJ)
—
flat baseline × sphere × pillow × β_res
KNN Loading Increment (mJ)
—
added by KNN filler in the shell composite
Total Harvest (mJ)
—
TENG + shell + KNN increment, × % recovered
Supercap Fill (%)
—
Peak voltage this shot (V)
—
—
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), four state pings per shot (Tee + Impact in one UWB ping while the phone is nearby; Bounce and Stop over Bluetooth long range when the ball is far; on the green, one final ping only), a phone-driven Find My Ball after the last shot, and idle draw between shots, producing a running supercap reserve. The phone does the heavy lifting; the ball only answers.
Cap max (mJ)
—
½CV²
Pre-round charge
—
—
Hole total harvest (mJ)
—
sum of shots
Hole total spend (mJ)
—
BLE packets + Find My Ball + idle
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%
18-hole round net (mJ)
—
same hole x 18, Find My Ball on the % of holes set above
Worst hole: par 3 + Find My Ball (mJ)
—
—
Protected Find My Ball reserve (mJ)
—
—
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 | Spend | Reserve | Events |
|---|
// 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
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 IC carrier
—
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.
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.