Active Users:261 Time:29/03/2024 02:31:49 PM
Don't those two facts explain each other? fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM

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.
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2122 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 999 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1122 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 812 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1069 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 934 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 993 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1056 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 920 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 816 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 870 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 958 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 726 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 962 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 831 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 973 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 793 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 984 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 1106 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1053 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1001 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 976 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 794 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 1090 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 438 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1039 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1180 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 940 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1233 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1005 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1144 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 939 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1043 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1198 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 777 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 810 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 848 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 791 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 913 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 701 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 916 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 495 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 474 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 819 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 837 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 911 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 894 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 839 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 985 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 704 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 780 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 674 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 574 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 791 Views

Reply to Message