News
Engineers develop bio-machine nose that can “sniff” and classify odors
Engineers from Brown University in Rhode Island have invented a small, low-cost sensor device which is able to classify odors using input from a mimicked “sniffing” action. It’s called TruffleBot, and it’s here to raise the bar on electronic “noses”. It also works with Raspberry Pi, an inexpensive mini-computer popular with electronics hobbyists, students, and others in the “maker” crowd.
Generally, an electronic nose is a device comprising several chemical sensors whose results are fed through a pattern-recognition system to identify odors. In traditional devices, the chemical responses alone are used for classification. The engineers behind this invention, however, decided to incorporate non-chemical data to account for the mechanics of the smell process used in nature for a better result. Their experiment proved successful with an approximate 95-98% rate of accuracy in identification compared to about 80-90% accuracy with the chemical sensors alone.
According to the inventors’ published paper, the guiding knowledge that made TruffleBot so useful in odor detection was this: Different smells have different impacts on the air around them, and measuring the variations enables more accurate identification. Did you know that beer odor decreases air pressure and increases temperature? The changes are slight, but TruffleBot can sense them.
This is where the “sniffing” comes in. The device uses air pumped through four obstructed pathways before sending it through chemical and non-chemical sensors. Odors impact the air surrounding them, and the movement of the air through obstacles (“sniffing”) enables the odors’ impact to be more accurately measured.
A chart detailing how TruffleBot processes odors. | Credit: Brown University
So, where exactly would one need an electronic nose? Everywhere. Devices with the chemical sensing ability are being used in agriculture, military, and commercial applications to identify all sorts environmental data. Essentially, electronic noses are useful in any industrial application that has odor involved.
Nasal Marketing
Did you know that it’s possible to trademark a smell in the United States? It’s not easy to accomplish given the somewhat difficult requirements to meet, but a few such things exist. The fact that Play-Doh, a product whose smell is probably one of its most distinct features, was granted a trademark for the scent only this year is testament to the difficulty of obtaining such a mark. However, the fact that some companies have found enough incentive to make sure only their company can give your nose a particular chemical experience tells a lot about that sense’s importance from a marketing perspective.
On one hand, utilizing smell in marketing might seem a little manipulative. After all, creating an air freshener that reminds someone of a beloved, deceased relative on purpose might not seem like a particularly ethical way to target their money. On the other hand (or bigger picture), however, the motivation for marketers to use scent as a tool involves a sort of “chicken or the egg” question.
To summarize part of an article in the journal Sensors on the role scent plays in society and commerce, the aroma of products has a direct impact on their appeal to customers and thus, the success of the product. In fact, a change in a product’s formula that impacts its smell can, and often has had, devastating sales results. In other words, it’s not enough for a company to create a good product; it has to be a good smelling product.
Hacking the Human Nose
It’s probably no surprise that the commercial industry has categorized consumer preferences when it comes to smells. As the first sense fully developed after birth, our noses link us to things like memories, emotions, and chemical communication (think pheromones). Is it any wonder, then, why businesses might be interested in the functionality of the organ that is doing the receiving?
Turns out, there’s an enormous amount of science behind “hacking” a nose. Identifying smells is more than just categorizing chemical mixtures as “floral” or “masculine”. The multitude of chemical combinations available generates such a vast amount of data that scientists have implemented computer neural networks to analyze and classify it. Also, the actual mechanics of smelling something impacts the way the smell is received and processed in the brain. Computers and scientific instruments come in handy there as well. To really get to the core of human response to an aroma, lots of non-human tools are needed, and this is essentially where the TruffleBot fits in the greater realm of “olfactory” science.
I think this is a Sumerian variant for “fruity”. | Credit: AstroJane’s bathroom collection.
More Than Just Your Money
Perhaps one of the most innovative uses found for electronic noses is in disease research. One of the limitations of human smell is its overall weakness. A dog’s sense of smell is around 40 times better than a human’s, and a bear’s is a whopping 2,100 times superior to ours. That said, when researchers learned that certain diseases give off certain odors, the human nose wasn’t exactly the first choice to utilize in sensing them.
An electronic nose makes good use of the simple fact that organic matter releases chemicals into the air. For example, when a plant has been impacted by a fungus, the changes brought on in the plant’s structure release what’s called “volatile organic compounds” (VOCs). These VOCs can be detected by the sensors in an electronic nose and then provide information on the type of disease present without destroying the plants being tested.
Humans have some amazing things to gain from electronic noses, too. Using sensors to process odors from VOCs, things like digestive diseases, kidney diseases, and diabetes, among many others, are all receiving scientific attention for non-invasive diagnosis by these types of devices. With improvements brought on by inventions like TruffleBot, especially combined with its low-cost and resulting accessibility, a future involving remote diagnoses for any number of illnesses and diseases seems more possible every day.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
