Active Users:313 Time:05/05/2024 10:40:54 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 2147 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1010 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1135 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 825 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1087 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 948 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1007 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1071 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 934 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 828 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 885 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 970 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 739 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 977 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 846 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 987 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 810 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1000 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 1121 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1068 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1012 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 989 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 806 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 1108 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 446 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1055 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1192 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 958 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1246 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1017 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1164 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 956 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1065 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1223 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 789 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 823 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 860 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 804 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 926 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 714 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 927 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 501 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 481 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 830 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 849 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 924 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 908 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 848 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 996 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 717 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 790 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 688 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 585 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 804 Views

Reply to Message