Active Users:496 Time:27/04/2024 01:38:30 AM
Uhhh... fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM

View original post
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.

No, absolutely not, to the last sentence (agree with the first two). The buffer doesn't have anything to do with protecting the channeler from the damage of overdrawing. Otherwise, Rand would have faced such damage using Callandor.

All a buffer does is prevent you from drawing any more than your own potential+whatever the angreal contributes. Exactly like a link, where the buffer means you cannot overdraw, or make one of your linked partners overdraw.


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.

This is explicitly disproved by Rand using Callandor to great effect without burning out.

All the buffer does is make sure you don't go beyond your strength+angreal strength. An angreal lacking a buffer does NOT become useless.


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.

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE! You're being incredibly dense about this, and I'm very confused as to why.

Let me break it down:

Random channeler has strength X.

An angreal she has adds a strength of Y.

If the angreal has a buffer, she can channel strength X+Y, and no more. However much she strains, or tries by accident, she cannot draw more.

Lacking the angreal, she can draw X+astronomical amounts of the OP (Z); like Lews Therin in the Prologue of EotW; but she will either burn out or die.

If the angreal had no buffer, the channeler can draw X+Y+Z. The Z part doesn't come from the angreal! The angreal is still only giving the channeler an added Y units of strength. Any extra drawn is the channeler overdrawing, and since the angreal has no buffer to prevent it, the channeler can do so. But the added strength is NOT from the angreal. I find it mystifying that you think it has to be.

You brought up glasses, so here's another analogy:

Channeler is a glass of capacity X units of saidar.

Angreal is a glass of capacity Y units of saidar.

So when channeler uses angreal, total capacity is X+Y, and the buffer is a nice tight hard limit on the tap placed by the angreal which prevents more saidar than X+Y from being drawn.

When the angreal doesn't have a buffer, there is no hard limit on the tap, so now you can keep opening the tap more and more, which causes the channeler glass to break from the strain, burning you out or killing you.


A magnifier would essentially be both a buffer and an amplifier though.

Then how the heck can there be sa'angreal that work, but have no buffer?
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.

Okay... what changed about the buffer-less angreal when it went from 2X to (2+)X? Why can THIS version of angreal suddenly multiply more than the intended spec, but the additive version can't add more than spec (not that I believe it needs to)?

There's something really weird about your argument here. You seem to think multiplication beyond the "safe" value is okay, but not addition. Can you explain why this is so? Both are equally unlikely, actually, but you keep insisting that it is ok for multiplication. I just can't figure out WTF sort of logic that is.

Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2140 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1009 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1133 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 823 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1084 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 945 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1006 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1068 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 931 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 826 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 880 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 969 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 736 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 973 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 842 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 985 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 806 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 997 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 1117 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1067 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1011 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 986 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 803 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 1102 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 445 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1052 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1191 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 951 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1242 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1016 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1160 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 948 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1061 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1220 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 787 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 819 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 857 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 802 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 925 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 711 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 925 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 500 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 479 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 828 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 845 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 921 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 907 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 847 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 995 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 714 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 789 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 683 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 584 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 801 Views

Reply to Message