In the most recent application, they double-bag to compensate for weakness and out of fear the first bag will burst.

---

In the beginning, Ziploc (R) and Ultraseal (R) were the prime choices for closures. So I’m guessing they tested those closures, the closures failed, and they have to hunt for something better.

What did they find?
A toothed zipper and a wholly polymer hook and loop.
The hook and loop is being funded further.

---

I looked at their recent filing in hopes of seeing what they may be doing with that polymer hook and loop since none of the summary reports are available for it on the Army SBIR website.

The only place that I can gauge they might put the closure is with the variant of the soft transfer case, on the fold over regions as shown below (the application is my citation):

Otherwise, they’re funding the polymer hook and loop (well, really, the polymer friction device) for definitely nothing because it isn’t strong enough to be an end termination for 335 lb of material on its own!

So, well, they’re funding it for nearly nothing at best!
They could’ve sourced from Velcro, the company, and slapped Velcro (R) on that case for less than $100.

Because if the nanoGriptech fastener is there on the outer bag flap then it will hardly come into contact with anything it needs to be decontaminated from.

If the nanoGriptech closure is not present there but is sealing the bladder then it is an unnecessary expense because, if the rigid case, then the end clamps are doing all the work and, if the variant soft case, then the straps (upon folding) are doing all of the work to keep the transfer case sealed – could’ve stapled the bladder, glued it, taped it, just rolled it up like a chip bag, or done absolutely nothing.
The only closure that matters is the outer bag’s closure.



If you’re going to double bag, why spend $1 Million+ in R&D on a closure for the inner bag that is of no significance?
I guess nanoGriptech pitched well.

Or, there’s no fit for it in this application.

Why fund it just to still have a myriad of closure redundancies?

---

And that is my lit review. Maybe there’s a new, future app that enlightens us all and I’m just ignorant.

---

Post the non-proprietary summary reports!

Well… since I can’t even FOIA those, I just ran with my assumptions about the reasons for funding a closure that isn’t even the primary closure, again and again in the same type of research as if expecting puny Bruce Banner to become the Hulk with exposure to more government funding. (Try gamma rays on the polymer friction device!)

And, so, I sent this email:

---

Text of Email:

Hello,

Dustin [redacted]’s on your side, ECBC/Office of Chem Bio Defense. He’s with Natick/CCDC Soldier on the human remains transfer case. You weren’t telling me the names of the inventors but as tech transfer you see where the patent is going.

Well, Matt, I’m sure CCDC contractors have already told me the requirements you need in a closure. You’re probably even CTTSO with that competition of theirs. After all, the inventors are Navy, Army, JPEO-CBRND, etc.

A lot of assumptions here but no one is being straight with me. I ask for you to forgive me if they’re not true.

I’m not on anyone’s timeline and I hope you know that by now. I will be waiting for nanoGriptech’s inevitable flop to release closure even for the private sector – my development timeline includes waiting for that potential stake in the state of the art. If it works, then Zipr Shift is likely unnecessary so we would act accordingly. So buying from industry and using the exhaustion doctrine to get the samples is not going to work.

If you’re sending your contractors to me then please stop. You all aren’t hedging your bets with taxpayer dollars – you keep pouring them into one company – so I’m not pouring my company’s resources into your problem when that’s what the taxpayer dollars are meant for.
What’s sad is that the inventors may only be trying to make it work due to needing to maintain a budget and out of fear that it was the most innovation they’d get in the closure art – we all know the century old history of the art.

My research is not at stake of being almost complete. My investors and my support are not in a hurry – not even on a patent timeline. We’re enjoying our lives. You all could go nearly your whole careers without the samples you want (and with a shoddy and expensive transfer case) if you don’t fund me or someone else to do what needs to be done on the technology I’ve invented. Maybe everyone will run out of excuses to keep funding one company in closures over and over again. I’ll be waiting.


Out of respect for you and your support, I left Dustin out of the email I sent to the rest of the inventors this morning.
I’m sure my proposal to the Air Force failed because they knew what was behind everyone’s support and as they said of my non-select, they don’t ‘own’ the research. The Army does. I have attached that email.

CBC and CCDC are funding nanoGriptech. I don’t know why you need AAL to fund Zipr Shift.


Best Regards,
Tesia Thomas
Zipr Shift

---

They need a soft primary closure similar to what they desired for their initial application filed and now patented – what they asked for in A16-062.

---

Defending my assertions:
“Shoddy” because who’s going to have time for double-bagging stuff on the battlefield – closing two closures with multiple parts that have to work just so? And EACH TIME someone dies or EACH TIME they need to carry some threat away?
“Expensive” because you could probably use three zippers in place of the rigid end termination and in place of the soft end termination and straps for the same cost.

---

If they can fund nanoGriptech a zillion times then I don’t need to go around the DoD to find funding.
The Air Force isn’t picking up their tab.
Neither am I.

---

Soldiers ain’t got time for two closures and ten straps and wrapping dead bodies in neat little packages while they’re fighting to survive.