Waveforms and classes

[Daklu]

While I was poking around to post this idea on the idea exchange, I discovered something unusual. It's possible to unbundle data from a class wire using the Get Waveform Components prim and with the IPE waveform node. (Note this does NOT allow users access to private class data. It still has to be used in class methods.)

Is there a practical difference between the unbundle cluster and unbundle waveform nodes? I dunno--haven't played with it that much. The circle icon on the waveform nodes is a little rough, so I suspect it's just early prototyping code that was accidentally left in place.

I kind of understand how it could have happened. Class data and waveforms are both clusters, so in one sense it makes sense that either prim can unbundle them. Still, regular clusters can't be connected to the waveform prims, leading me to believe this is unexpected behavior.

(Edit: Cross-posted to the dark side.)

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

While I was poking around to post this idea on the idea exchange, I discovered something unusual. It's possible to unbundle data from a class wire using the Get Waveform Components prim and with the IPE waveform node. (Note this does NOT allow users access to private class data. It still has to be used in class methods.)

Is there a practical difference between the unbundle cluster and unbundle waveform nodes? I dunno--haven't played with it that much. The circle icon on the waveform nodes is a little rough, so I suspect it's just early prototyping code that was accidentally left in place.

I kind of understand how it could have happened. Class data and waveforms are both clusters, so in one sense it makes sense that either prim can unbundle them. Still, regular clusters can't be connected to the waveform prims, leading me to believe this is unexpected behavior.

"I wonder what would happen if I put methane gas in a microwave and cook it for a while?"

While that experiment sounds like a very bad idea, it turns out that experiment lead to learning how to put daimond coatings on machine tools etc.

I suspect nobody else had the intestinal fortitude to try something they suspected would blow-up never realizing this may lead to a gem in the rough.

But i am inclined to side with you that you have wondered into a bug. "Don't do that!".

Ben

[vugie]

"I wonder what would happen if I put methane gas in a microwave and cook it for a while?"

Well, AFAIK methane has not any significant absorption peaks in microwave part of spectrum, so I don't suspect that anything bad would happen. At least unless there are no metallic objects with sharp edges, which cause sparking...

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Well, AFAIK methane has not any significant absorption peaks in microwave part of spectrum, so I don't suspect that anything bad would happen. At least unless there are no metallic objects with sharp edges, which cause sparking...

Discalimer: This is not my area of expertise so please be gentle.

I think the absorption peak that is critical is for carbon when it is in diamond state rather than the state it is in when bonded to hydrogen. It apparently left a yellowish coating that was "very hard to clean".

Ben

[Francois Normandin]

Discalimer: This is not my area of expertise so please be gentle.

I think the absorption peak that is critical is for carbon when it is in diamond state rather than the state it is in when bonded to hydrogen. It apparently left a yellowish coating that was "very hard to clean".

Ben

As most urban legends, this story is probably partly true, but I would presume it wasn't in a microwave oven, but rather in a MPACVD. (Microwave Plasma Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition)

The home microwave oven operates at 2.45GHz, while the other is in the range of 100-200GHz, but of which are still considered to be microwaves.

References: MPACVD & Microwave Oven

[Aristos Queue]

Probably an accident that this works (and I'm glad it doesn't give access to the private data). There was some experimentation that the math team did about converting the waveforms into classes -- we'd really like to create an inheritance hierarchy around those types, but we've never gotten around to doing it. Perhaps some test code accidentally got bowled? Maybe the two nodes share some bit of "do I accept this type" code that they shouldn't be sharing. No idea. I'm inclined to leave it since it seems harmless enough. As long as it behaves just like the plain unbundle by name node in this case, there's always a possibility that someone has been using it for exactly that and would be upset if I fixed it.