Does anyone actually use a Janus at all? Beuller……beuller?
They do exist, I have seen them in the wild.
So what’s the deal. Automation friendly? I really haven’t met anyone with even an opinion on them.
Well, WinPREP (control software) is quite straightforward and the device is in principle nicely designed. From experience I can say it is not automation friendly:
- The tips won’t properly attach to the channels (or detach) and you spend a lot of time manually readjusting them. Sometimes it transports the entire tip rack and just smashes them into your sample.
- Sometimes JANUS does unexplainable things that follow absolutely no logic. It moves to places that it was not instructed to move to, etc. This is very tiring.
- It is based on system liquid and not air displacement, which can cause problems of e.g. tip contamination and low pipetting accuracies/precisions due to air bubbles in the tubing
- Another deal is using Robocolumns. When applying inflow it may spill over.
If I turn to “die in a car crash” you know what’s up But in all honesty, it is very important to share these informations.
wasn’t it the “MultiProbe” in a former life?
I feel terrible about laughing but that was hilarious
have one - never used it - it used to get regular exercise so the syringe pumps would not seize up. But then out of no where one needle Z’ orientation is messed up so now it just sits there gathering dust as it is too expensive to fix something we do not use.
they are archaic, though the one I used was I believe a Gen 1 model. Haven’t used the newer models but it doesn’t seem like they’ve changed much. @Sandor covered most of the gripes I had with them too. I will say the mini version of the Janus was actually pretty useful and reliable as a quick 96 channel plate filler/media exchanger. I wouldn’t buy one new, there are too many other LH’s out there that vastly out-compete, but a used one for cheap might be a good investment for a standalone system.
Thanks for this thread. I was going to ask a related question. We have one in our lab and from the feedback I gather from my colleagues, hardware wise it is quite unreliable.
The software seems intuitive, but when I was asked to assist a colleague on repurposing an old script, it was a true nightmare. It had so much custom scripting added into every single step that a PE specialist had to work on it. Even for him it was a difficult task. And just recently I was asked to re-write the whole workflow on our Fluent, because it is just too expensive to lose runs every time Janus has a bad day.
To this day I wonder why is anyone still buying them? (This is the original question I wanted to post). What are its unique advantages over competitors of a similar footprint? Really keen to understand.
Can we do something like a sheet with:
I think this would be the most beneficial thing to know currently