Active Users:333 Time:30/04/2025 07:17:17 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 2478 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1163 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1309 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1014 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1268 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1117 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1149 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1244 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1095 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1011 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1057 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1110 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 915 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1140 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 1031 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1118 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 961 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1129 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 1294 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1211 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1176 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1162 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 977 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 1256 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 547 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1219 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1359 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1139 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1418 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1154 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1334 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1124 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1036 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1211 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1400 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 961 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 984 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1028 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 981 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1100 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 866 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1106 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 581 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 541 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 986 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 999 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1099 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1058 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1008 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1150 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 896 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 926 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 845 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 790 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 990 Views

Reply to Message