Active Users:510 Time:27/12/2024 12:28:16 PM
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" Corwin Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM

I agree with you that Sanderson's perceptions of angreal/sa'angreal are flawed. I think Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" theory from the old wotmania theory post does a great job explaining these concepts. I have it saved on my computer, and would post the relevant sections here, but don't want to without his consent.

Essentially, though, he argues that the amount of power a channeler can draw can be modeled on a funnel. The area of the circle at the top of the funnel is equivalent to the potential of the channeler. He also argues that angreal/sa'angreal add to the area at the mouth of the funnel exponentially, not linearly. An example provided by Sidious from the books is Elayne thinking that her weak angreal will allow her to draw about twice as much as Nynaeve could unaided. Because of this, the amount of additional power that is provided by an angreal/sa'angreal is unique to the strength of the channeler using it; it is not a reservoir of power, as Sanderson describes it. The mathematical formula Sidious uses to determine this is as follows:

radius of funnel: r
potential: Pi(r.r)
angreal: Pi(r+1)(r+1)

Two examples of this applied to characters, based on their comparative One Power strength as predicted by Sidious:

Egwene
radius of funnel: 5
her potential: 78.5
angreal: 113

Nynaeve
radius of funnel: 7
her potential: 153.9
angreal: 201

You can see from this that Nynaeve is almost twice as strong as Egwene when both are using an angreal of the same strength, because angreal appear to add exponentially to a channeler's strength.

Sidious goes on to give some examples of this with sa'angreal. His formula for determining strength with sa'angreal, with approximate values, is as follows:

Channeler
potential: Pi(r.r)
sa’angreal: Pi(r+2)(r+2)
Callandor: Pi(r+50)(r+50)
Choedan Kal: Pi(r+2000)(r+2000)

This yields the following estimates of strength with sa'angreal for two characters:

Rand (radius – 13 – the strongest of all)
Potential: 530.8
Sa’angreal: 706.725
Callandor: 12466
Choedan Kal: 12.7 million

Verin (radius – 1 – a moderate Aes Sedai)
Potential: 3.1
Sa’angreal: 28.27
Callandor: She can’t use Callandor
Choedan Kal: 12.6 million

This makes sense with the descriptions given in the books.

Sidious also tries to explain why the Choedan Kal have a minimum strength requirement based on his funnel theory. His argument is that stronger channelers have more reinforced conduits for channeling larger amounts of the Power. A weak channeler, without such a reinforced conduit, cannot physiologically channel as much of the Power as is provided by the Choedan Kal, even though this may be less than what a stronger channeler can hold with the Choedan Kal based on the idea that angreal/sa'angreal act exponentially. This idea of conduit strength may also be partially explained by the fact that weaker channelers tire more easily than stronger channelers, and why weaker channelers tire even more quickly when using angreal/sa'angreal, in comparison to someone like Rand.
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 701 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 759 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
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 732 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 634 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1054 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