Active Users:526 Time:27/12/2024 12:53:19 PM
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books. Tedtheman Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
Nowhere does Sanderson say that angreal work differently to sa'angreal.

And even regarding the reservoir statement, he says he will have to check the notes to make sure he knows what he's talking about.

As for the Choedan Kal, he doesn't even know how many times it magnifies Rand's strength. He uses the example of 100, which is ridiculous, as we have a quote in CoT, that the entire White Tower, using every angreal and sa'angreal in their possession, couldn't channel even a fraction of what Nynaeve was channeling through the Choedan Kal. And the amount of saidar used by Nynaeve was called a foothill next to Dragonmount, compared to what Rand used through the male access key.

So basically, we are talking about the order of a million times magnification, not 100 times.

Sanderson doesn't really know the answer to this. He was making it up as he went along during that Storm Leader discussion.

He didn't even know definitively how far back Rand's balefire burned Rahvin's thread out of the Pattern. Some reader had to correct him, saying that it was probably closer to an hour, rather than 15 minutes.

And Sanderson didn't even realise that Rand was using his small man angreal at the time, which probably halves the calculation again.

My point is, Sanderson is not as clear on many of these things as you might think. And it does come through in the writing, from time to time.


I just think it is extremely hard to keep all of this accurate given the wealth of data out there.

I think the most likely scenario is that this is somewhat vague in the notes, since we really do not see much 'typical' sa'angreal use in the books.

I would bet however that you could easily call it a Resevoir, vs a magnifier since essentially its the same thing for most people.

If the CK grants you 50,000 times your power... a "strong" sister which was I believe 15-25 in the old power scale.. gets 750,000 to 1,250,000??!? And Rand gets 5 Million?!!? I mean these amounts of power are so vast to be irrelevant.

Also I would not put much stock into the clensing comparison of a mountain to a molehill for Saidar and Saidin. Remember that the conduit Rand weaves of Saidar is JUST that... the funnel through which the taint cannot pass but he has to in essence funnel the entirety of Saidin through it. Of course there is a difference in the 'amount' of power used.

I believe more conclusive is the explanation for how angreals buffer the user from over use. As does Sa'angreal which was stated about Nynaeve at the cleansing. If it granted a well, how could there be a flaw in Callandor? It grants what it grants, you can't 'flaw' that and kill yourself. That imo is the evidence supporting its a higher multiplier, even though it could be viewed as a huge reserve of power given the numbers. I believe the power required to use these strong devices are because lifting 200 pounds is far harder than lifting 50 regardless of the relative ease of the stronger person, they still use far more energy or calories to do it in proportion.

So Egwene on forkroot is a 5? Strong pre WoT Aes Sedai are 30's and 40 for cadusane? well Vora's granting some insane multiplier like 1000 makes her a 5,000. Case closed in my opinion.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1596 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 784 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 840 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 767 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 708 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 744 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 746 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 702 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 727 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 803 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 715 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 887 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 760 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 719 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 866 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 334 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 370 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 780 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 779 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 678 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 663 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 293 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 311 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 700 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 750 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 868 Views
Response to both points... - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 769 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted. - 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM 668 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books. - 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM 719 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 696 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1154 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 733 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 323 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 635 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1055 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 667 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 674 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 579 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 680 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 625 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 643 Views

Reply to Message