Slowswift

Condensed Metals

65 posts in this topic

I'm not sure that Zane's fake atium proves that. It was a hunk of lead covered in atium. Vin can't detect lead, so there's no reason to assume she wouldn't be able to burn from the inside-out or sort of everything at once. If we saw her swallow a bead of Allomantic metal A covered in metal B without detecting any reserves of metal A, then we might guess it has something to do with surface area.

Vin could burn lead, it would just kill her/make her very sick.

Even given that, the only thing the Atium covered lead bead proves is that 1 metal blocks the visibility of another metal, which makes a lot of sense given what metals do to Ruin's and Preservation's ability to see.

I think the only way for us to really know how a metal burns would be for an allomancer to swallow a bead, burn half of it, and vomit the remainder up.

As for the original question. I, like I saw others say, don't think that extra-dense beads would really be a big advantage. Beads vs flakes definitely gives an advantage to flakes, IF you're worried about burning through an entire reserve, but if you go through all 4 books looking for examples of people running out of metals I think all you'll find is:

Unusual overuse, which can't be planned for.

Trickery (Burning Aluminum/fake Atium)

Burning Duralumin.

Expense

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vin could burn lead, it would just kill her/make her very sick.

 

Could she? I don't recall that being mentioned. Bad alloys, yes, but lead doesn't really qualify as an alloy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelsier's 1st lesson, when he's talking about bad alloys.

I'll look the quote up in a bit, but he says something like "bad alloys will make you sick, non-allomantic metals can kill you"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelsier's 1st lesson, when he's talking about bad alloys.

I'll look the quote up in a bit, but he says something like "bad alloys will make you sick, non-allomantic metals can kill you"

I thought that non allomantic metals were inert and bad alloys will make you sick or even kill you.

 

 

It was my understanding that burn rate was set by the metal not surface area. the reason they used metal in powder/shavings form was so they could better control the amount of metal used at any time so as to not have any toxic metals in their bodies that night. This also prevents waste of metals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it, it was later in the book than I thought.

 

Never try to burn a metal that isn't one of the ten. I warned you that impure metals and alloys can make you sick. Well, if you try to burn a metal that isn't Allomantically sound at all, it could be deadly

 

p165 in the eBook, Chapter 8

Book 1

 

Granted, because this is in the days of the Ten Metals, this isn't ironclad, since that warning could be about bad Bendalloy. I do, however, this it's telling that a Mistborn would even BOTHER to warn another Mistborn about burning random metals if the possibility didn't exist.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it, it was later in the book than I thought.

 

Never try to burn a metal that isn't one of the ten. I warned you that impure metals and alloys can make you sick. Well, if you try to burn a metal that isn't Allomantically sound at all, it could be deadly

 

p165 in the eBook, Chapter 8

Book 1

 

Granted, because this is in the days of the Ten Metals, this isn't ironclad, since that warning could be about bad Bendalloy. I do, however, this it's telling that a Mistborn would even BOTHER to warn another Mistborn about burning random metals if the possibility didn't exist.

 

Thank you for looking that up.

 

Granted most common metals have some allomantic property. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Allomancers seem to be able to sense their entire reserves upon ingesting it not just the surface area I'd say it wouldn't matter, also Atium is generally ingested as beads and it's still the fastest burning metal we know of I believe.

One quick point of order. Take into consideration that that Atium differs as it is being burned for power (of Ruin) as opposed to the other metals (of preservation) which are being burned to allow you to access another source of power. This per WoB.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick point of order. Take into consideration that that Atium differs as it is being burned for power (of Ruin) as opposed to the other metals (of preservation) which are being burned to allow you to access another source of power. This per WoB.

You have ressurected one of the first topics I ever posted on. Congratulations!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now...I'm terrible at looking up WoBs...but a while ago on the shard, I remember reading something about how the metal doesn't even have to be in your stomach to burn, just in your body.  Also, I don't think that shaving or powdering is a requirement to make to metal allomantically viable, just easier to swallow.  I believe that Wax keeps a steel button on his shirt to be "used as a weapon or fuel" should he need it.  Swallowing Atium beads just supports this more.  Maybe I'm not understanding the question well, but I think, definitely yes, however you go about swallowing metal would work just fine.  Just don't choke...

Edited by hoidhunter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have ressurected one of the first topics I ever posted on. Congratulations!

Yeah. I searched on Toxicity for some other questions I had about bendalloy & cadmium and this inconsistency bothered me enough to grave dig a little.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Spook use Tin powder in HoA?

Yes he does. There is a moment when he literally grabs a few finger fulls of tin and swallows it dry after waking up in the morning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So theory, very speculation. Wow.

 

*ahem*

 

A bit of clarification: Could you take a bunch of metal (say about a few cubic inches, I don't know, I'm bad at math) and condense it to about something the size of a pill, a la black hole (I don't know, I'm bad at science too)?

 

Gallifreyan gel capsules, bigger on the inside.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you can have literal iron in your diet.

I'm sure some will prefer the swig of spiked whiskey though.

'Spiked' means something completely different on Skadrial...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmation! :D

 

I asked Brandon at LTUE today, and he said something like "Yes, you would be able to burn [the denser bead] longer." I take this to mean that the dense bead would have the same burn length as the original-density block.

Edited by Slowswift
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes, you would be able to burn [the denser bead] longer."

 

the dense bead would have the same burn length as the original-density block.

 

Aren't these two statements contradictory??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't these two statements contradictory??

 

If you look at it as "it would burn longer than another bead of lesser density would," no, I don't think so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at it as "it would burn longer than another bead of lesser density would," no, I don't think so.

 

The statement you said

 

"the dense bead would have the same burn length as the original-density block."

 

means the same thing as

 

"The dense bead would burn as long as the piece of metal would have before it was made denser."

 

(dense bead = dense bead), (have the same burn length = burn as long as), (original-density block = metal before it was made denser)

 

Which contradicts Brandon's statement that the denser piece would burn longer.  Like, it does confirm that if you have two pieces of metal with equal mass then the denser one would burn longer.  I was just confused because what you said it meant contradicted that, so I thought you had made a simple mistake so I asked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The statement you said

 

"the dense bead would have the same burn length as the original-density block."

 

means the same thing as

 

"The dense bead would burn as long as the piece of metal would have before it was made denser."

 

(dense bead = dense bead), (have the same burn length = burn as long as), (original-density block = metal before it was made denser)

 

Which contradicts Brandon's statement that the denser piece would burn longer.  Like, it does confirm that if you have two pieces of metal with equal mass then the denser one would burn longer.  I was just confused because what you said it meant contradicted that, so I thought you had made a simple mistake so I asked.

 

He's referring to an earlier post, I think, talking about taking a block of metal and force-condensing it down to a bead.  The bead would have the same burn length as the block of metal it came from.  Not from another bead of different density.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's referring to an earlier post, I think, talking about taking a block of metal and force-condensing it down to a bead.  The bead would have the same burn length as the block of metal it came from.  Not from another bead of different density.

 

Except that's not what Brandon said?  Brandon said the piece with greater density would burn longer, presumably referring to compressing a chunk of metal into bead shape.

 

"you would be able to burn [the denser bead] longer."  doesn't have much wiggle room.

Edited by Master_Moridin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be able to burn a denser bead longer than a less dense bead of the same volume.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be able to burn a denser bead longer than a less dense bead of the same volume.

 

And?  That doesn't mean that a chunk of metal with the same mass but larger volume would burn the same length as a denser bead with the same mass but smaller volume.

 

That very well could be what was meant, but it is not what was said, at least in the quote as it has been delivered to us.  In the quote he addresses density, and says nothing about volume or mass specifically.

 

If we had a more complete quote that actually stated the exact question asked and the entirety of Brandon's response this would be much simpler to come to a conclusion on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I took it to mean, but I know Slowswift pretty well and am probably a bit too good at extrapolating what he meant to say out of what he actually said. I'll stop rudely trying to speak for him now and let him wander back and respond in his own time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I took it to mean, but I know Slowswift pretty well and am probably a bit too good at extrapolating what he meant to say out of what he actually said. I'll stop rudely trying to speak for him now and let him wander back and respond in his own time.

 

You got it pretty good, actually. :P

 

What I probably should have done is clarified my question to Brandon with a follow-up about whether density influences Allomancy. Heck, I can ask him to clarify on Tuesday if you'd like. :P

Edited by Slowswift
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it pretty good, actually. :P

 

What I probably should have done is clarified my question to Brandon with a follow-up about whether density influences Allomancy. Heck, I can ask him to clarify on Tuesday if you'd like. :P

 

^_^

 

Doo eet.  (You darned lucky Utahans and your proximity to Brandon to pester him with questions for the rest of us.)

Edited by Kaymyth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^_^

 

Doo eet.  (You darned lucky Utahans and your proximity to Brandon to pester him with questions for the rest of us.)

 

I shall, then! 

 

He doesn't do conventions and tour signings, etc in your region?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.