Active Users:698 Time:18/03/2026 01:13:18 AM
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 3250 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1482 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1606 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1339 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1730 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1397 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1463 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1550 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1395 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1327 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1359 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1443 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1207 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1458 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 1319 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1427 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1279 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1431 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 1624 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1487 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1456 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1466 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 1264 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 1682 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 747 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1682 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1704 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1457 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1803 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1431 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1748 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1427 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1337 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1676 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1692 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1270 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1325 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1326 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1260 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1377 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1185 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1447 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 764 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 722 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1272 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1322 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1388 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1359 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1334 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1449 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1187 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1211 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1104 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1119 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1266 Views

Reply to Message