Active Users:883 Time:31/01/2026 07:59:54 PM
Not at all darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM

View original post
View original post
How can a fixed amount of Power be overdrawn upon?

If an angreal offers 100 units of additive saidar how can someone draw 150 units through it?


The fixed amount is what the angreal adds. The overdrawing is all you. After all, you have no objection to that other fixed amount- a channeler's potential, being overdrawn upon, right?

a Channeler is, as you put it above, a living thinking being yet an angreal is an object. What Egwene did was far beyond simply burning herself out by drawing too much power. She shattered the limits of Vora's sa'angreal and destroyed hundreds of channelers as well as another massively powerful sa'angreal etc etc. What you are suggesting amounts to Egwene could have linked with others and been buffered from the negative effects, which in turn means Vora's sa'angreal, if used in a link, is basically a limitless supply of saidar equal to the CK simply because it has no buffer.

I'd be inclined to agree with this point if Egwene had simply burned out or died but she drew in a massive amount more power than was conceivable. That being said, we can lay that down, in part, to BSand's (and our) limited understanding of how these objects really work. I really hated that plot device, especially because the Aes Sedai are so damn cautious about everything involving the Power, yet somehow Vora's sa'angreal manages to be more powerful than Callandor and flawed yet is still sitting around in the WT

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 3162 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1455 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1577 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1307 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1696 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1373 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1438 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1529 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1370 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1299 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1333 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1413 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1183 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1432 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 1290 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1403 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1252 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1403 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1596 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1463 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1422 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1412 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 1240 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1642 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 739 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1646 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1676 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1426 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1776 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1405 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1722 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1399 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1309 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1644 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1661 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1243 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1296 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1296 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1232 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1348 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1153 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1419 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 751 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 708 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1248 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1294 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1362 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1337 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1297 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1417 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1163 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1189 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1079 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1089 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1239 Views

Reply to Message