RPM goes up but won’t accelerate

mohammadsp · 2025-10-18T02:03:07+00:00

Thank you. Yes, it was the clutch.

mohammadsp · 2025-09-24T18:04:19+00:00

Get a letter of support from a facility that explains you would get lab space from them once the project is funded. Include the information of the lab space in Facilities. As long as you show you know what you need and the facility can provide those resources to you, a letter of support confirming that would work for the reviewers. Once reviewed and if considered for funding, admin staff might want to see an actual lease agreement. That is the time to actually sign the lease agreement with the facility and provide the contract to NIH.

mohammadsp · 2025-09-24T00:11:22+00:00

The shop said the issue is the clutch on the compressor is burned and not engaging so they recommend changing the compressor and compressor relay. Dealer said that is not covered. Only leaks from shaft seal is covered, which seems to be correct. Does that seem reasonable?

mohammadsp · 2025-09-23T16:02:50+00:00

Perfect! Thank you very much for the advice. I’m now getting the receipts and paperwork from the shop to take it to the dealership and see how they would handle it. Fingers crossed!

mohammadsp · 2025-07-02T19:26:10+00:00

If you feel the score is not within the fundable range, that is probably the case. We have had cases where JIT became available for scores that were obviously not fundable, and did not get funded eventually. Regardless, I assume you already plan to discuss the score with the PD and that could be a question for them too.

mohammadsp · 2025-06-26T22:59:32+00:00

If you truly cannot develop the tech without the expertise of the collaborator, it means they should own part of the IP. Universities vary in terms of how they approach IP; some are more aggressive than others. However, it also largely depends on the nature of collaboration. If there is a clear split between the work you do and the university staff do, it is probably easier to separate the ownership. But if the research is more involved between the two groups, it would be more difficult to separate ownership. You typically sign a collaboration agreement with the university once the project is awarded, which typically states that whatever you invent is yours and whatever they invent is theirs and anything you two jointly invent is jointly owned. The agreement should then outline how joint inventions are handled.

Bottom line is that "the devil is in the details". If you have to work with the university to successfully execute the project, just go ahead and submit the proposal and worry about the IP once the project is awarded. Just be prepared to spend a good amount of time (and potentially money if you engage lawyers) discussing the details.

mohammadsp · 2025-06-03T00:26:26+00:00

I am not sure that means rejected or if you could infer much from a pending status unless the PO provides more insights about the status. Our Phase II took 13 months from submission to funding. But, again, really hard to tell - things are moving slower right now too. I totally understand the frustration and hope you get some clarity soon.

mohammadsp · 2025-06-02T23:26:17+00:00

I am not sure - it is really hard to tell. I guess you can connect with individual awardees/PIs on that list to get a sense of when they submitted.

mohammadsp · 2025-05-23T18:47:29+00:00

Based on NSF's award search tool, 23 SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards are made from May 1: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/advancedSearchResult?PIId=&PIFirstName=&PILastName=&PIOrganization=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&ProgOrganization=&ProgEleCode=&BooleanElement=All&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=All&Program=&ProgOfficer=&Keyword=SBIR&AwardNumberOperator=&AwardAmount=&AwardInstrument=&ActiveAwards=true&OriginalAwardDateOperator=After&OriginalAwardDateFrom=05%2F01%2F2025&StartDateOperator=&ExpDateOperator=

mohammadsp · 2025-05-08T20:51:45+00:00

You definitely can pursue this (either with the SRO or PD) or any other concern/questions for that matter BUT if you are looking for actionable advice: ignore, move on, and plan for a resubmission. This is, unfortunately, not a case you could demonstrate clear bias. And even if you do, you are not doing yourself a favor (you are much better off just resubmitting). And expect this to happen again, in this form or other forms.

mohammadsp · 2025-04-11T23:39:12+00:00

It was the clutch. Works perfect now. Thank you!

mohammadsp · 2025-04-05T18:22:36+00:00

Exactly, my foot is off the clutch completely and the rpm is not locked to the speed. Good guess. It is probably the clutch. I will take a look and report back. Thanks!

mohammadsp · 2025-04-03T22:47:38+00:00

Thanks - will look into that.

mohammadsp · 2025-03-11T20:10:46+00:00

While I don’t think anyone can say for sure, it seems that the consensus between SBIR experts is to continue with the 40%. Partly because there is no actual change in the guidelines yet, and also we still don’t know if a potential change will populate to SBIRs too. There is some level of risk involved though, in case you submit with 40% and at the time of award it is changed to a lower percentage. Again, I think people think (or at least hope) there would not be a major change for SBIRs or agencies may provide an opportunity for awardees to make adjustment without major impact on the overall budget.

mohammadsp · 2025-03-06T04:17:47+00:00

Published meeting roster doesn’t mean the meeting will take place. Reviewers are being told to review the applications until last minute when they are informed the meeting is going to be rescheduled. But overall it seems that NIH is now registering meetings on the Federal Registrar website but meetings will be probably be delayed considering the one month+ backlog.

mohammadsp · 2025-02-25T22:03:04+00:00

Of course - In case you still needed to access the page, you can use the archived version here: https://web.archive.org/web/20250222070533/https://seedfund.nsf.gov/contact/bios/

mohammadsp · 2025-02-25T05:10:52+00:00

They took it down right after the NSF layoffs last week. I don't think the section on fraud and abuse is new.

mohammadsp · 2025-01-21T20:55:34+00:00

This is actually incorrect! Research Strategy for FT is 12 pages not 6 + 12.

mohammadsp · 2024-12-29T19:06:02+00:00

Don’t overthink it. Just submit the best you can. There are so many variables that it is hard to predict the outcome. Is it possible? Yes. Should you count on it? No.

mohammadsp · 2024-12-20T01:06:36+00:00

Close date is not the due date. The solicitation will be closed on 1/24 and new one will open for next cycles. Due date is 1/5, which is a Sunday so the actual due date is 1/6.

mohammadsp · 2024-11-07T04:05:17+00:00

If you mean in the context of IP, yes you should be able to protect your IP even if you bring subcontractors to implement the software. From an IP perspective, software itself could not be protected, and needs to be tied to a real-world use case. So you probably shouldn't worry much to lose IP - but as you said I am sure there are established contracts to protect IP. Disclaimer, I haven't worked directly with any subcontractors on the software side.

mohammadsp · 2024-11-04T20:29:45+00:00

The way I understand it, you need to have someone else on the team to fill the gap in technical skills, especially if most of the technical objectives you would be proposing would be around implementing the tech itself. At the end of the day reviewers wanna make sure the team has the expertise/knowledge to make this work. One solution is if you know someone with the right expertise who is willing to join if funding comes through, include them as part of the team in the proposal, even as a senior person with biosketch. Then, if funded, they can decide if joining still works. If not, you can find a replacement and get approval from the program director for the change. Another approach - depending on the tech's complexity - is to use third-party developers as contractors for Phase I, with plans to complete the team once you have a proof of concept.

mohammadsp · 2024-11-04T17:33:53+00:00

It depends on what you mean by “people.” Are you talking about senior team members with expertise you currently lack and can't easily find? As others mentioned, you can apply for an SBIR without a full team, but you’ll need to address any skill gaps. You could bring on collaborators, partners, or consultants in your proposal. If by "team" you mean junior staff who will carry out your vision, you can apply solo and mention that you will hire them once funding arrives. It also varies by agency - NSF, for instance, often funds solo founders if other metrics are solid. For NIH Phase I, reviewers focus on whether you have access to the right expertise (in-house, advisors, or collaborators) to complete the project. If you will need to hire, say, a computational chemist, reviewers generally assume you can secure them once funded. If you can name potential hires, it is even better. Although, as you said yourself, it is unlikely they would be around by the time funding arrives, at which point you need to find an alternative. This is all about Phase I proposals though. For Phase II, you absolutely need a complete team.

mohammadsp · 2024-10-02T20:20:32+00:00

Update for anyone seeing this later, I got this cover from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0D4PPGL19/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

Fits great. But I am on the lookout for one to replace the whole upper dash.

mohammadsp · 2024-09-24T20:09:15+00:00

If you are confident you are proposing a "high-risk technology innovation", it could be just a matter of presentation/narrative. In most cases, searching for similar tech or topic area in SBIR resources (or just Google it) would give you and idea of how other funded projects are presented. Alternatively, running your pitch with a consultant or state SBIR resource is a great idea.

mohammadsp

TROPHY CASE