Active Users:198 Time:19/05/2024 10:49:33 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 2158 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1014 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1141 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 831 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1097 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 951 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1011 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1073 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 940 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 833 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 888 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 973 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 741 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 978 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 849 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 989 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 811 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1003 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 1125 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1071 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1019 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 993 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 810 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 1114 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 447 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1059 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1195 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 962 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1249 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1020 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1170 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 958 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1070 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1227 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 795 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 824 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 864 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 810 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 931 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 716 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 931 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 502 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 484 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 833 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 850 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 930 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 909 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 853 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 999 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 718 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 791 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 690 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 589 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 807 Views

Reply to Message