Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Smell Camera Snapshots Scents For the Future

samzenpus posted 1 year,17 days | from the a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-smells dept.

Technology 117

An anonymous reader writes "Designer Amy Radcliffe has created an 'analog odor camera' that can be used to recreate a smell. From the article: 'When a smell source is placed under the device's glass cone, a pump extracts the smell via a plastic tube. After being drawn to Madeleine's main unit, the smell goes through a resin trap which absorbs the particles so molecular information can be recorded. That data is expressed in a graph-like formula, which essentially contains a fingerprint of the smell. In a special lab, that formula can then be inscribed on a bronze disk to artificially reproduce the smell. The smell can also be recreated in small vials.'"

cancel ×

117 comments

Cheap Perfume (3, Insightful)

Master Moose (1243274) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212765)

I cannot see the big scent manufacturers liking this one. .

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212773)

Eaux De Feces

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213309)

Eau Shit!

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Cryacin (657549) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214587)

Looks like we skipped the fart jokes and went a level lower.

And I think the phrase you are looking for is Eau du Toilet, by Bruno.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214255)

This is the reason why electronic smell-e-mail will never take off.

Imagine your inbox every morning...

Re:Cheap Perfume (3, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214287)

Why? Because someone scent you an email?

Re:Cheap Perfume (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44214269)

Needs moar fancy name. Eau de Phaecys.

Re:Cheap Perfume (3, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212777)

no worries, the reproduced scent would be approximate. this has been tried before with collection of supposed "primary scents" but with little success when judged by real human noses.

  I predict a limited market for augmenting internet porn.

Re:Cheap Perfume (2, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212817)

One person's scent of smashed peanut powder is another person's death. Hacking a scent generator seems both easy, and protections dubious at best.

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212899)

Are people allergic to the smell of peanuts, produced synthetically, or the real thing?

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

postbigbang (761081) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212939)

Go ahead and test the histamine reactions. Stand by with your epi pen. This isn't the only possibility, either. There are any number of easily made aromatic chemical combos with crazy reactions.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212971)

So it's more likely we'd go forth and find strange new allergy reactions, than commonplace peanut ones. Why peanuts, anyway? Do people get reactions from other common legumes? (peas, beans)

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

postbigbang (761081) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212993)

Statistically, peanuts are strangely deadly. Rapid onset reaction, have an epi pen nearby or perform a ballpoint tracheal breathing way, or suffocate, more or less within 2min.

There are other combos that can do this as well, but this is one of the fastest. Raw nicotine can kill you pretty quickly, too. The list is endless. Think of keyword chemicals that your friends at the NSA would dock you with.
Play a bit with captive subjects.

Death by scent-o-gram
!

Re:Cheap Perfume (3, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212995)

similar proteins are found in two other plants, lupin (a legume) and Fenugreek (not a legume), and people with peanut allergies often react to those as well.

Re:Cheap Perfume (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213183)

It's true. I go crazy when I smell poon. Me mate is poofter, he goes crazy when he smells cock.

Re:Cheap Perfume (3, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212949)

the reaction is to several proteins found in peanuts, something that "smells like peanuts" but not containing specific allergens would not trigger immune reaction.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213011)

Except if one protein required for the scent is the one that triggers the reaction. Not likely, but we do not know how specific the device can be. Is it able to report from a set of predefined molecules (which could include allergic ones), or is it able to detect specific molecular functions, which would be a smaller sequence of proteins with less odds of producing an allergy.

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213437)

What's described is a smell recording device. The smell reproducing device is another machine, and much more difficult to make, methinks.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213433)

With the right hack, your body won't know the difference, even if it doesn't actually *smell* like peanuts.

Re: Cheap Perfume (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44215155)

They're allergic to whatever mommie's coddling has attuned them to.

Re:Cheap Perfume (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213569)

goatse and tubgirl get a whole new dimension.

the only people who will use this are trolls

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Professr3 (670356) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212793)

As always, early adoption will be driven by the porn industry.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

citizenr (871508) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212875)

na, japanese men are perfectly happy with tuna fish scented panties

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213131)

The whole point would be to isolate the scent from the source. With this tech maybe it could be proven which panties are fraudulent and which came from real vag.
A tuna smell usually means she needs a course of antibiotics. A tuna smell isn't that bad. It's the garbage smell that really makes a body want to hurl. Either way the answer is doxycycline. Or a better girlfriend.

What would be far more interesting is a vag scent fingerprint with this tech. Hell, you could probably even use it for ID. Instead of logging into their computer they could just stick a probe in for authentication. Would that be something you have or something you are? Needless to say you could also sell the scents of particular women. Analyze a girlfriend and forever after you can have a scent that will bring back sweet memories even as an old man in your rocking chair. A brave new world and all that.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213505)

There's a heap of reasons why your authentication probe wouldn't work, none the least being a woman's smell varies based on her menstrual cycle. And how do guys authenticate? Free prostate examine perhaps?

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214149)

Ah yes and probably ovulaion as well. I'd forgotten about the whole menstrual cycle thing. Been a while since I've played with kitty. After 20 years you start to forget stuff like that. Well maybe fuzzy logic? Training a neural network based on a wide range of scents?

The scent fingerprint may not be as invariant as actual fingerprints or retinal scans, but it is still something you are (I suppose) which does seem to be unique based on my admittedly limited experience. Actually I just realized that a quick finger insert might convert something you are to something you have. So maybe not so ideal. OTOH you can never have too many methods of authentication. And yes it would only work for women, but that's still 50% of the population.

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

vlad30 (44644) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212903)

Tub Girl now with real aroma ! NO THANKS!!!

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213371)

As always, early adoption will be driven by the porn industry.

That sure worked out well for HD-DVD!

Re:Cheap Perfume (2)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213047)

I cannot see the big scent manufacturers liking this one. .

Get ready for the Digital Smellenium Act.

Re:Cheap Perfume (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213063)

I cannot see the big scent manufacturers liking this one. .

Yes, because they all went under after all those generic knock off imitations that smell exactly the same hit the markets, right?

If you were going to worry about any industry, let it not be this one. You literally cannot fuck up enough in the expensive perfume industry to overcome the unending stench of narcissism.

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213171)

Oh please do not think that I am concerned about this industry. .

Re:Cheap Perfume (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213587)

Sounds like it's time to strike one more thing from the MPAA/RIAA's "You wouldn't download a _____" list.

* Book? Check.
* Gun? Check.
* Fragrance? Check.
* Car? (still pending...)

Re:Cheap Perfume (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214859)

On the contrary, they will love it because now you can smell that someone was wearing their perfume. Meanwhile, people are already using science to clone perfumes more accurately than this device will manage.

Moderator is drunk again (3, Funny)

Princeofcups (150855) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212779)

"In a special lab, that formula can then be inscribed on a bronze disk to artificially reproduce the smell." What, is this from the Church of Mormon?

Re:Moderator is drunk again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212807)

Slashdot does pander to the idiots that supported Mitt Romney.

Re:Moderator is drunk again (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212913)

Actually it said:

In a special lab, that formula can then be inscribed on a bronze disk to artificially reproduce the smell. The smell can also be recreated in small vials.'"

Neither of these sound optimum. What you would want is the building blocks of those scents stored in little plastic ink-jst like cartridges, each holding half a dozen or so different molecule mixtures. It would be vitally important to size these cartridges so that the most common components would be in the smallest cells, such that it would run out first, requiring you to buy the entire cartridge well before the rest of the compounds were exhausted, You also want to be sure it isn't refillable.

Then you can almost give the smell generator away, and make a fortune selling smell-cartridges.
This would allow you to sell the entire patent structure to HP, and retire on your profits, and thumb your noses (figuratively and literally) at the world by releasing the first Olfactory Goatse.

Re:Moderator is drunk again (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214865)

No less than two companies had products precisely as you describe at GDC 2000. It has been some time since then...

Re:Moderator is drunk again (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213457)

No, those would be gold disks. Bronze is used in this case because it denotes third place, as in, not as good as the original and not even the next best thing. But kinda also pretty good.

Re:Moderator is drunk again (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214463)

"A freshly mowed lawn, lit charcoal and sunscreen are just a few summer smells that are as ephemeral as they are memorable." Alternatively go outside , mow the lawn ,then start a BBQ and slap on some sunscreen - i suspect that will be cheaper and more readily available. These smells hardly require complex analysis in order to recreate them . We can do that just fine. It would perhaps be more useful if this device could be put to use for example to capture the smells of fruits, or flowers that are rare or on the brink of extinction.This would perhaps be good to draw attention to some of the issues surrounding looking after out planet. And also that our childrens children could learn and enjoy the odours of our forefathers.

lol mebbe they fart'd (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212787)

they fart'd on the cam then it smell's like fart's on the photo's lol datd be funney

New perfume (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212789)

Chanel No. 0x05

The fuck use is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212815)

Is there some cancer curing smell that won't be available in the future, when molecular synthesis is a possibility instead of laboratory "recreation"?

Re:The fuck use is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213229)

The fuck?

Re:The fuck use is it? (1)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214999)

You can end all poverty illiteracy and war on entire planet and still some joker complains because doesn't cure cancer. I wonder what these people will find complain about in threads about radiation therapy.

Can't believe this made it past the editors (5, Insightful)

bshell (848277) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212825)

This is vapourware. Perhaps pun intended. Imaginative, kind of, but such devices have been predicted since the early 1900s. Never comes to market. Why? Headspace analysis is super expensive. Even the right library of molecular signatures, which would be needed to interpret the output of the GC/Mass Spec is in the neighbourhood of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then you need a really good GC/Mass Spectrometer machine. Or at least a really good Gas Chromatograph. All this is very expensive, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars neighbourhood. And that's JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT MAY BE IN THE SMELL. Then you need a professional perfumer and a perfume house with thousands of fresh organic compounds available to reblend the smell. This is a million dollar project, or at the very least tens of thousands for each "photograph". Prohibitively expensive. I cannot believe a moderator let this one through at slashdot. Oh well.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (2)

Dracos (107777) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212923)

Well, now that the folly that is 3d TV/movies is all but dead (again), what makes you think the TV and film industries aren't working to bring the long-awaited Smell-O-Vision to market?

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212975)

all but dead? It's getting harder to find a top-end TV without 3D built in. I bought a 3D TV because it was cheaper than the same model in 2D. And more 3D movies are released every year than the year before. How is that "all but dead"?

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213269)

Both ESPN and the BBC have announced that they're discontinuing their 3D services.

I love 3D video and games, but most people don't want to have to wear glasses while they watch TV.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213495)

And home video sales of 3-D Blu-ray discs are still growing. IHS says it expects consumers worldwide to spend $668 million on 3-D Blu-rays this year, up from $416 million last year.

Home purchases are up. Movies aren't down. Dr Who was the only 3D on BBC, and BBC isn't stopping broadcast of 3D as much as letting the season end for Dr Who.

It doesn't sound as bleak as you make it out to be. Though it looks like ESPN is dropping 3D for 4k, so maybe that's the next showdown. Then will come 4k 3D. And I expect dual-display (dual-channel with multi-image) to take off as well. Get the one big TV, and have the kids playing games (with headphones) while the grown-ups watch TV/movies. No 3D, but using the 3D tech to feed unique images to different people, rather than unique images to each eye.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212929)

Like the early days of photography were. Grainy, black and white, expensive. SO you will have a relatively coarse smell camera to start with as well, but that's no reason to dismiss it.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (2)

bshell (848277) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213129)

The difference here is that in the early days of photography we knew that light created images, and we knew that lenses refracted light in such a way that we could capture it. We also had silver halide which changed from clear to black on exposure to light. In other words, we had a lot of technologies based on light that we understand. At the moment this simply does not exist for the sense of smell.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Meski (774546) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213221)

Agreed. At the moment we have sensors for a lot of these smell related things, but they're expensive (except for the extremely narrow use dedicated ones)

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212943)

So you're saying that it doesn't pass the smell test?

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212959)

Even the right library of molecular signatures, which would be needed to interpret the output of the GC/Mass Spec is in the neighbourhood of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ah but think out of the box (lab).

You probably wouldn't need a mass spec, what with the newer chem-lab-on-a-chip that they are coming out with these days. Remember, you are not trying to identify the elements involved so as to faithfully reproduce them. You merely want something that smells like them. Coffee tasters and perfume smellers have been doing this by nose for decades.

In other words, you don't care what elements are actually there, you only care what they smell like. Given the human sense of smell, you need only isolate what combinations and ratios we can actually smell, and approximate it with a basic set of cheap and versatile chemicals. I doubt, at the end of the day if humans actually have smell receptors for everything. And I bet smell, like taste, comes down to various combinations of 10 to 20 different molecular structures.

Emit those in the right proportions, and you're good.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213025)

Remember, you are not trying to identify the elements involved so as to faithfully reproduce them. .

But do we know all receptors involved in smell, and are we able to reproduce them on a chip? And in what extent small receptors differ from an individual to another?

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213075)

Receptors counts probably don't differ that much, but individuals might have different sensitivities.

As for your first question, Google found this in under a second:

There are a large number of different odor receptors, with as many as 1,000 in the mammalian genome which represents approximately 3% of the genes in the genome. However not all of these potential odor receptor genes are expressed and functional. According to an analysis of data derived from the human genome project, humans have approximately 400 functional genes coding for olfactory receptors and the remaining 600 candidates are pseudogenes.

...

The reason for the large number of different odor receptors is to provide a system for discriminating between as many different odors as possible. Even so, each odor receptor does not detect a single odor. Rather each individual odor receptor is broadly tuned to be activated by a number of similar odorant structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfactory_receptor [wikipedia.org]

So if you could narrow it down to 400 chemicals you might be able to fine tune it manually (by nose) to even fewer that are "good enough" matches.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (3, Interesting)

bshell (848277) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213149)

Smell receptors are very similar to immune system receptors. They are designed to use combinatorics so that they can "identify" on the order of trillions of different shaped molecules. In fact they are designed to "detect" molecules that have never even been invented. The mathematics of smell combinatorics is what makes it (currently) an intractable problem. Also, I believe we only know what a few of the human smell receptors detect, in terms of molecular shape and smell. It's extremely difficult to conduct experiments on smell--i.e. on how smell receptors work--in human subjects. There are countless problems and this is why smell remains a mystery. This story is not about *science*. It's about an Art Project. As long as you treat the original post as a fanciful work of art, all is fine. As soon as you assume that anything like that can be created with present day technology you are off in dreamland.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213385)

Combinatorics works in your favor when trying to make a smell library.

You don't have to be that precise. You don't even have to know which receptors sence which compounds.
Enough trials followed by less chemistry will get you there faster.
You are probably better off relying on discriminating noses, as do perfume companies, and tell the chemists to shut up, sit down, watch and learn.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44215317)

I kinda agree. A television screen is only an approximation to the real world image. The colors are not 100 percent exact. When television first started it was black and white maybe, no color. But you can still get an approximate, very low quality and low resolution, image of the original scene. Did early televisions portray all images and sound exactly as you would see and hear them live? No. Maybe they did a better job at some than others. If the camera was filming a low quality black and white picture then the television's rendition would be a better approximate than had it been filming a high quality color picture. Your speakers only approximate the recorded sound and the microphone's record of the sound is only an approximation. Different speakers render the same record differently and different microphones record the same sound differently depending on the quality of these instruments and how finely tuned they are designed to record and render that specific sound. The same thing can be said about cameras and televisions/monitors/display panels.

So, we start off with a very low quality, low resolution approximation of the original smell. Decades later, like with television, we improve on it.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213509)

Genes don't necessarily map one-for-one with receptors. A few genes might differentiate many times as many kinds of sensors. How many unique numbers can you represent with 400 bits?

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

tftp (111690) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213845)

How many unique numbers can you represent with 400 bits?

That's hardly the right question to ask. Have a look at all kinds of errors in ADCs and DACs. Want to buy a 3 GHz, 24-bit ADC? I will sell you one. It will produce codes from 0x000000 to 0xFFFFFF. Unfortunately, those are the only codes it will ever produce... this is just one example.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (2)

bshell (848277) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213101)

Perhaps you are not a chemist. When you say, "You merely want something that smells like them," how do you characterize that smell in the first place? Are you aware that there is no system for doing this today? Smell is not like light or sound, where there is a well understood spectrum of vibrations or frequencies and all you have to do is duplicate those frequencies. Nobody knows what smell is. If we knew that, then "smell photographs", as well as copiers, smell-phones and even "smell glasses" to correct anosmia as we have glasses to correct myopia would exist. But they don't. Why? Because there IS NO SYSTEM TO CLASSIFY SMELLS. Rather, there are dozens of systems and none of them work. A chemist cannot synthesize a molecule and say in advance what it will smell like. They might be able to say, "this will smell fish-like or ammonia-like, or fruity, or floral, but they cannot say: "this will smell exactly like that vase of flowers." This is not possible with today's science. So your response makes no sense. The closest thing we have to this is what is called "head-space analysis", a technique that is VERY expensive and in fact requires a human nose at the end of the gas chromatograph to work. That "nose" does not come cheap. Experts that do this sort of thing are paid very well and there are not many of them in the world. The reason why the flavour and fragrance industry is a multi-billion industry is because none of this is easy. While it would seem that science has figured out smell, in actual fact smell remains one of the bigger mysteries of science. It's pretty much unknown how it works. There are theories, but none of them work to enable chemists to "merely create something that smells like something", to paraphrase your initial conjecture. And "coffee smellers and perfume smellers" don't actually create smells. They take compounds either derived from natural products or synthesized by chemists and combine them in ways that smell correct. By the way: this is an art, and it's VERY VERY hard to do.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213525)

I am perpetually surprised that given taste is 90% scent, that certain foods which smell tantalising taste like crap - hot dogs and bad coffee for example.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213239)

I doubt, at the end of the day if humans actually have smell receptors for everything.

Like water, for instance. Most animals have no trouble identifying and finding water even in a new environment. I don't think there are examples of humans that can do this - not by smell alone.

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213319)

If most other animals can do this, it stands to reason humans likely have this capacity, as well. However, I'm simply taking you at your word that most animals can do this. Also, having the capacity and competence at using it are two entirely different things. Just like you can't raise an animal by hand and expect it to succeed in the wild when you kick it out the door, even in its "natural" habitat.

It's often said that the human sense of smell is weak compared to other animals, but IIRC there's plenty of evidence to debunk this. We have a perfectly fine sense of smell: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC406401/

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213577)

Nonsense. Animals can't smell water itself though because they're made of it. Their own body's water would be constantly flooding (pun intended) their water recepetprs.

I can "smell water", by smelling the things that are commonly in water, like algae and I can smell if there are fish in a pond or stream, for instance. I can smell humid air, or the changes that humidity makes in the smells of other things anyway. I can also smell and taste a number of other things that many people say they can't smell. My mother could smell as well as I can and so can my eldest daughter, but my wife doesn't come close. I have at least twice as acute a sense of smell as she has. Probably more than that.

'vapourware' Dude, that is perfect. (1)

drainbramage (588291) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213091)

However, I so want to go to H.R. and have evidence that that that huge thing that got off the elevator 50 feet from me is NOT complying with company policy about wearing strong perfumes.
Next up, heavy smoker after every break and the dude that doesn't have to shower because his sweat doesn't smell, just ask him.

Re: Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213289)

You moron. Its news for nerds, not news for nerds that may be financially feasible.

Re: Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44214163)

"...nerds that may be financially feasible."
I so want this ^^

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213303)

I use to ask to a post-grad in biology researcher about the impurity in some random substance I imported back then and she would run an hplc mass spectroscopy , for me freely. She never inquired about the substance I asked her to analyze!! No, I lied, I remember now... Not all analysis were free some were paid in kind with sex...

Re:Can't believe this made it past the editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213389)

I cannot believe a moderator let this one through at slashdot.

You must be new here.

Watch an ecosystem pop up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212835)

Watch an ecosystem pop up similar to Instagram and computers having Smell-o-Vision like readers for the copper disks. Web ads start hurling smells at you, before and after using perfumes, friends on Facebook send smells after they "accomplish" something on the toilet, ask if there is anything wrong about their poop being more stinky than usual.

Visual stuff is more than enough... Last thing we need is another sense attacked 24/7 by the same MBAs that gave us the "next quarter over anything" else thinking.

No, you fool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212873)

I said make a DART gun... not a far... oh never mind...

Olfactory White (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44212917)

Just as white noise will mask sounds, there's an equivalent olfactory white. [tikalon.com]

And you thought..... (2)

MasseKid (1294554) | 1 year,17 days | (#44212925)

And you thought autoplay ads with sound were bad, just wait, autoplay ads with smells are coming. And then will come the trolling....

Re:And you thought..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213299)

And you thought autoplay ads with sound were bad, just wait, autoplay ads with smells are coming. And then will come the trolling....

And you thought autoplay ads with sound were bad, just wait, autoplay ads with smells are coming. And then will come the trolling....

http://www.blazerspascher.org

Re:And you thought..... (1)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213531)

Yeah, but it could give a whole new meaning to the ever popular fart apps for phones... :P

Re:And you thought..... (1)

mjwx (966435) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213731)

And you thought autoplay ads with sound were bad, just wait, autoplay ads with smells are coming. And then will come the trolling....

Now you will know I've farted in your general direction.

What did he say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213065)

He said, "I can smell your cunt."

This is like trapping a fart in a jar. (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213083)

Mildly amusing, no practical purpous.

Re:This is like trapping a fart in a jar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213293)

Mildly amusing, no practical purpous.

Wrong .... Less useful.
Farting in a jar at least buys you a bucket load of Enviro-Points since you are "saving gas"

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213095)

There goes all my pr0n.

interesting (1)

houbou (1097327) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213161)

this is going to be real expensive at first, probably won't be readily available for 30 yrs to the common folks, but, on the other hand, this can lead to very interesting projects, from new forms of entertainment vehicle to new forms of crime scene investigation tools and perhaps even for memory therapy and other uses which I can't think of at the moment.

Trial (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213191)

IIRC, this is the third sensation that makes the tri of the tricorder.

Smell you later (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213241)

Erhmm.. suddenly makes sence

Finally.....some reality to anal porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213321)

nothing like gettin that ripe smell of her dinner as you enjoy the show

Interesting idea but loses meaning quickly (1)

erroneus (253617) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213327)

There is much known about the connection between smell and other aspects of the human experience. Photographs are more objective. Scents are more subjective. And a scent might remind someone of a personal experience that is important to them, but an objective 'viewer' would not experience the same when presented with even a 100% rendering of a scent.

And even for the original scentographer, the smell revisited may some across very differently that the one remembered as ambient smells are filtered out. You know, how people often cannot smell themselves? Imagine a guy with bad body odor taking scentographs and experiencing them even a few days later only to realize he had no idea how badly he smelled. (He was, after all, closest to the camera when the scentograph was taken.)

Over-all, this is something of a novelty like 3D movies.

Wait... (1)

davidshewitt (1552163) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213443)

Google Nose [google.com] is real?

Re:Wait... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214157)

Google Nose [google.com] is real?

Don't forget the new NSA Knows enhancement.

Quick! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213485)

Time to buy stock in John Waters' production company!

The smell of success (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213519)

So in just a few years we might have a way to remember dining at that fabulous Mexican restaurant literally forever.

;-)

Sounds great (1)

Andrio (2580551) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213583)

Just as long as you don't take it to space and make me smell Uranus.

Ultimate Fart app (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213639)

You know it will be the first application. Either that or porn.

Smell Camera Snapshots Scents From the Future (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | 1 year,17 days | (#44213791)

Needless to say, the actual article left me disappointed.

Harold and Maude had this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44213879)

...as "Odorifics". She had some kind of pump and cartridges that pumped out the smells.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Inscribed on a bronze disk? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214093)

Inscribed on a bronze disk? Is this a research project or an art installation?

Is that working at all? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214103)

The summary mentions a *designer*. Do we have a working prototype (cause that would be a sensation right away) or just a design mock-up? "Here is what a smell camera could look like. We'll build one as soon as someone discovers how our mysterious "main unit" could work"

Primary scents and tastes? (1)

Mad-Bassist (944409) | 1 year,17 days | (#44214617)

Interesting article—makes me think of four things:

1) The Harold and Maude movie: she invented a method of smell playback.
2) Scratch and Sniff technology (microencapsulation) may reach a whole new level.
3) Are there "primary smells" like primary colors? If so, imagine people creating new smells and posting the formulas online. I imagine engineered tastes would be possible too, as it's a closely related sense.
4) Imagine if High Times starts using that technology...

This is old hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#44214627)

I've been doing this for decades. Coincidentally, everything I cherish smells like polyethylene.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...