Active Users:1080 Time:22/11/2024 10:25:04 AM
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? Dunstan Send a noteboard - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM

View original post
View original post
If a sa'angreal is a pool of additive power how can lacking a buffer and the ability to overdraw as Egwene did even exist? She seemingly took in a vastly larger amount of saidar than she previously held and that makes little sense if the devices hold a fixed amount of additive power.

They hold a fixed amount you can draw safely, just like your own potential is a fixed amount you can (eventually) draw safely. But just like an unaided channeler can overdraw, when you use a sa'angreal that doesn't have a buffer, you are now overdrawing. I don't see what's contradicting the sa'angreal being a pool of additive power, here.
Perhaps the buffers are the actual key here. Perhaps the buffers limit an individual based on their potential, only allowing a fixed additive amount that the individual can manage (thus explaining Verin's quote about the CK). This would allow for Elayne to use the turtle to become 2x Nynaeve, but Nynaeve's higher potential would give her access to higher additive potential because the buffer would naturally limit Elayne more? Problem here is the very weak angreal such as Cadsuane and Graendal possess don't make sense since they wouldn't need buffers at all given how little power they access. Or the very strong angreal that clearly show that Egwene/Vora level can match Taim/Sakarnen. Vastly more power than any angreal would add to any individual.

I thought of it a little differently. I think that your own potential is basically how much saidar you can draw on your own without damaging your connection to the Source, which is like a tube (conduit). When you use an angreal, it is like a link (as Elayne tells Aviendha, even the way you use an angreal is like linking with another), but a link to an inanimate object that holds someones potential, or a percentage of their potential.

Not being a human being, an angreal won't draw the Power on its own, but its like an inanimate channeler, which is why channelers can sense angreal and sa'angreal nearby.

But one thing is different. In a typical link, you're drawing a little less than what you and your partner can draw. This is the buffer. It prevents you from reaching the ceiling of your ability and damaging your conduit or your partners.

Angreal, being inanimate objects with no actual potential, don't have a real upper limit. So unless they specifically make a buffer for it, you can link to an angreal and potentially overdraw. We know from RJ's statement on Callandor that adding a buffer is advanced work. I think once someone's potential (or many people's with sa'angreal) are invested in the object which is to become an angreal, you make some advanced modifications that prevent it from being able to draw anymore.

The reason I think the CK can only be used by people above a certain strength is that if you have a greater potential, your soul is better able to deal with massive amounts of the OP flowing through. We know stronger channelers tire slower, for the most part. So when a new conduit is plugged into their soul in the form of an angreal/sa'angreal, they are better able to deal with the increased exhaustion that comes with using all that OP. For most sa'angreal and angreal, this just means that you give the stronger ones to the stronger channeler. But the CK are SO powerful, by several orders of magnitude compared even to Callandor, that the exhaustion will quickly kill some weaker channelers. You need to be at least as strong as Siuan, and preferably much stronger to be able to have that amount of the OP flow into you and not immediately die of exhaustion.

Here's a clue from Cadsuane that hints at this:


Cadsuane hesitated, something she was not accustomed to doing. The girl could not leave the circle until young al’Thor released her, but unless these Choedan Kal were flawed in the same way as Callandor, she would be buffered against taking in enough of the Power to damage her. Except that she was acting as a conduit for far more of saidar than the entire White Tower could have handled using every angreal and sa’angreal the Tower possessed. After having that flow through her for hours, simple physical exhaustion might be killing her.

Excerpt From: Robert Jordan. “Wheel of Time [09]: Winter's Heart.”


For Nynaeve, several hours of that flow wasn't enough to kill her. For someone weaker than Siuan, it might be a few minutes, or even less.


Perhaps Sidious is correct and we'll just have to file this under "nerd dissatisfaction"

Sure, but for myself, I'm perfectly satisfied that it is a pool of additive power. The only wrinkle is Elayne's "weak angreal" statement, but that isn't much of a one, for me.

The problem with that idea is that Angreal enhance channeling endurance hand in hand with raw power... As is why they are even usable in the first place. Otherwise channeling twice you normal amount of Power would do little but burn through your stamina twice as fast... Likely faster, given that you are most likely using it for larger then normal weaves. Characters have even used them for no other reason then to make normally hard, but still perfectly do-able, task less tiring.

The reason for Nynaeve's tiredness is likely as simple as the fact that she HAD been going at it for hours, and at a pace set by Rand.

Really, if you could resist the temptation to use it for bigger things, you could likely use a sa'angreal for nothing more then to all but eliminate the tiring effect of channeling. Even normally big weaves would feel like next to nothing.

... Indeed, that was more or less what Demandred was DOING in the Last Battle, so as to keep himself fresh for when Rand showed up.

This message last edited by Dunstan on 08/10/2016 at 05:07:56 AM
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2289 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1077 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1215 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 909 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1158 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1024 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1086 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1147 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 999 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 911 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 967 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1035 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 820 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1048 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 932 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1064 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 872 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1077 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 1200 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1148 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1090 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1064 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 882 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 1187 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 487 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1125 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1265 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1039 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1314 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1095 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1251 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1032 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1129 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1306 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 867 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 889 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 933 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 876 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1005 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 777 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 998 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 538 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 514 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 895 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 912 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1005 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 989 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 917 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1065 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 797 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 863 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 757 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 674 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 887 Views

Reply to Message