Electronic nose is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Has anyone looked into using cDNA to sequence some of the major olfactory receptors expressed in animals with a keen sense of smell. Eg. Compare cDNA from the olfactory organs with that from other cells taken within-sample from the same animals. Over several animals, this would presumably give you a cDNA library specific to olfactory function. (These could then be downregulated using siRNA to assess function, but more generally, once receptors are sequenced, if one could express them in a sort of ELIZA style array, could one then develop an array sensor that would react (creating a pattern of color changes) with aromatic chemicals - allowing for potential pattern recognition (versus a control library) - and thereby potentially creating an "artificial nose" ? Has this sort of approach (eg. a sensor array using actual olfactory-receptor molecules) been tried ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
shoot, my bad, I read "ELIZA" and assumed you understood the consumables necessary to detect chemical reactions with any precision, I didn't actually read your entry and now I see you weren't pointing out how the "artificial nose" is not anything that the article claims it to be as detecting the odors it claims is impossible without running rather sophisticated chemical assays, so I assumed your edit pointed out the fallacy of this "artificial nose". It seems you may be falling into the trap that many computer scientists do when they mistake a computer as the equivalent to a living brain when they are actually two completely different systems and completely different methodology that are used to preform a couple of related tasks, however they do not preform the the same functionsDirtclustit (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, this article is total and complete bullcrap, although it might be more believable then the "meteor" that "allegedly" "blew up" as it entered the atmosphere over some part of Russia and conveniently landed in a lake. Anyone with a C-average in junior highschool physics could spot the chemtrail of a rocket and it's inconsistencies, and after watching an intro to physics cartoon-like school house rock or Bill Nye knows that a meteor cannot "explode" with force that the missiles NASA and Russia lit off in early 2013. This is just more propaganda and extortion techniques, pseudo-psychology and typical nonsense "space program" "atheist" speak. I don't believe wikipedia should report the lies the govt. agencies force feed the public, they should listed as typical NASA/atheist bull. Had they known that odor detection is not anything like a light sensor, they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves as they did, but hell, you'd think they would have learned from the moon landing sham, the meteor extortion attempt etc, etc, etc... yet they won't let go of those proven scams either. In any event, I vote to change the article to point out how it simply isn't fact, or delete it. I suppose now that the journal Nature is no longer an actual scientific journal they could at least run some bogus "research" and publish it there then the ignorant could at least claim innocence, mean to say, the scientific community doesn't put any stock in the magazine Nature, but it is still used by the media and uneducated journalists as "evidence" and to cite even though it is the equivalent to citing a newspaper. I vote to steer wikipedia closer to the factual truth, as opposed to the grammatically correct truth, though I know those words might sting and won't make me popular, it really should be said *cough* written, excuse meDirtclustit (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Have any of the available technologies reached the level of cost, durability, and sensitivity required for use in trapping and fishing? For example, longline fishing has been widely criticized for the capture of sea turtles and other prohibited species, which might be automatically released when their blood is detected. A current proposal to prohibit trapping is on the ballot in Montana, which might be unnecessary if a trap could be set to snap only if the scent of a target species is detected. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)