Active Users:383 Time:02/07/2025 03:45:28 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 2768 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1284 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1417 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1127 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1517 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1232 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1276 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1361 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1210 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1122 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1170 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1254 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1026 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1262 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 1152 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1239 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1066 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1250 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 1417 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1325 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1289 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1270 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 1090 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 1498 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 664 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1462 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1488 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1260 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1567 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1273 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1572 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1245 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1151 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1458 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1508 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1073 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1106 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1135 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1083 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1207 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 978 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1219 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 666 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 629 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1099 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1112 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1208 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1169 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1114 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1266 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1005 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1042 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 955 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 900 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1098 Views

Reply to Message