Active Users:912 Time:17/09/2026 05:35:36 PM
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
I nearly made a post about this, but decided not to because Brandon himself said he was unsure how they worked. According to Brandon angreal may be multipliers but sa'angreal provide a fixed amount of the One Power.

I'd agree with you and Shannow that sa'angreal are multipliers too, not granters of fixed amounts of power. However, if RJ's notes state otherwise, I don't think anything in the text exists to prove it wrong.
I also don't agree with this. The first evidence we have of this is Siuan saying that a strong Aes Sedai could crumple the walls of Tar Valon with Vora's sa'angreal. That means that a weak one would not, and therefore not all channelers gain the same amount of saidar from the sa'angreal, which strongly indicates that Vora's wand is a multiplier.

Or it could mean that a weak Aes Sedai could not use the sa'angreal at all.
I considered this, then dismissed it since the weakened Siuan used it in tGS.
I can come up with two explanations for why weak-Siuan could use it, and still not crumple the walls of Tar Valon:

1) Maybe RJ had it that if a channelers strength is reduced by means like forkroot, shields, stilling, etc., it does not change what sa'angreal they can use or not use. Given that Brandon said there were specific notes about sa'angreal useage by people made weaker, this may well be true.

2) This is more convoluted. It may be that a sa'angreal will allow anyone to draw amount X of the power. However, for each sa'angreal, a user has to be of a certain strength to be able to draw X amount without their connection to the source being destroyed. Thus, a weak woman like Siuan can use these sa'angreal, but if she attempts to draw its full strength, she will be burned out. It could be that the same is the case with the CK.
Secondly, when Elza draws on Callandor through Narishma, it glows like a flame. When Rand uses it, it is so bright that you can't even see that it's a sword. It's another indication that Rand gains more from Callandor.

This could simply be because Rand is drawing through Callandor minus a buffer, so he's overdrawing, whereas in a circle, Narishma can only draw to its set amount.
As for Egwene, it's possible that if the leader of the circle gets hold of a sa'angreal or angreal, the whole circle is augmented. This is further substantiated by the scene where Siuan Heals Mat while using Vora's wand, and in the end every Aes Sedai is tired and sweating - another indication that they all drew on great amounts of saidar for a prolonged time. I'm not sticking up for this theory too much, but I do think it's a possibility.

Can't agree with this.If this were the case, Elayne would have had Nynaeve hand over her angreal to Caire for using the Bowl. The strength multiplication would have been much greater in that case.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1945 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1133 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1199 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 1079 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1060 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 1075 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1081 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1052 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1090 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1157 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1039 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1226 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1093 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1052 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1214 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 501 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 540 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1172 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1151 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1062 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 996 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 450 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 465 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1046 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1086 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1307 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1036 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1573 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1091 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 486 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 970 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1440 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 992 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1057 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 962 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1044 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 973 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 991 Views

Reply to Message