Active Users:430 Time:16/06/2025 07:37:15 PM
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM

View original post
If sa'angreal are magnifiers, how are we explaining bufferless ones? Take Callandor. Let's say it magnifies by 100X and you're still safe. So if you overdraw and draw in 200X, aren't you still saying "a lack of a buffer allows access to additional power beyond what the angreal was designed for"??


Not when you stop to think about it. Additive power implies that an angreal was built to add 100 units of OP to a channeler, which implies that there is a cap so that it is only ever able to add 100 units of OP. The buffer on this device would also protect a channeler from the damage the additional 100 units of OP would do to them. So, Lanfear would thus be able to use this device to channel 200 units of saidar with no damage done to her. Lacking a buffer would only mean she could still draw beyond her natural potential (let's say 20 additional units) and thus would burn out. There is nothing in an additive model that suggests an angreal is capable of suddenly increasing it's additive power. A glass only holds so much water no matter what you do.

A magnifier would essentially be both a buffer and an amplifier though. Essentially a 2x magnifier would let Lanfear become a 200 unit channeler as long as the buffer remained in tact, but if there was no buffer the magnification to 2.5x would make her a 250 unit channeler and burn her out and in theory could become a 5x magnifier or a 20x magnifier depending on the individual overdrawing.

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 2744 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1267 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1402 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1111 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1500 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1216 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1250 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1343 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1193 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1108 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1156 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1235 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1013 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1242 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 1137 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1222 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1053 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1230 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 1398 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1310 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1280 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1257 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 1076 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 1480 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 652 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1443 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1468 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1242 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1543 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1256 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1557 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1228 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1136 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1441 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1497 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1060 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1088 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1120 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1074 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1194 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 967 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1207 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 660 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 622 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1086 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1097 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1197 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1153 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1104 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1248 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 990 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1027 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 944 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 884 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1086 Views

Reply to Message