Strange

Can you provide any data to support these guesses?

This wasn't funny 3 pages ago. It still isn't. Grow up.

I assumed you would, as you know what this generator is. Why wouldn't it turn at steady rate? And depending on how much variation there is, then it might be enough to have a capacitor. If the generator is very intermittent then you may need batteries (but you need to work out how much energy needs to be stored - i.e. how long is the generator off for, versus the power used by the lights). The current is going to be determined by the load (the lights). Is this a wind turbine? Steam? Hydroelectric? If you use a charge controller to charge the batteries from the generator, and the battery voltage is the same as that required by your lights, then there is nothing else required. Thanks. I have never come across such a shunt regulator. I don't know when or why they would be used. (The referenced document is no longer available.) I would imagine you could buy a charge controller for whatever type of batteries you decide to use. It should charge the batteries whenever the [wind] turbine provides enough power. Then just run the lights off the battery.

The trouble is, it is impossible to say what a realistic solution is without details. For example, why does your "simple" setup have batteries? Why not just drive the lights directly from the generator (via a DC-DC converter if necessary)? Because this depends on the characteristics of the power source, the type of batteries and the type of load. Can you provide the link where you read this.

How do you (or we) know that, as you have provided no numbers to back up your claim?

What extra energy? A charge controller will deliver a constant voltage and a controlled current to charge the battery. The current required depends on the type of battery - some require a constant current, some need the current to reduce as the battery approaches full charge. When the battery is fully charged, the controller will detect that and stop the charging current. Unless you can give some details of what your initial power source is, why you need to charge a battery, how much energy you need to store, what the load is (lights?), and what voltage and current the load requires, etc. no one can tell you anything very helpful. Unknown energy source: it may need to be converted from AC to DC, the voltage may need to be stepped up or down. Energy storage: how much, what voltage and whether it will be used occasionally at high current or continuously at low current, whether it will be trickle charged or needs to be charged quickly when power is available. Load: voltage, current, AC or DC, power factor, ... Switch mode power supplies can do this. If you have a laptop, look at the power supply: it will probably cope with any input voltage between 110 and 240V, but provide a steady 12V (or whatever) output. Edit: An important factor here might be noise rejection: the amount (dynamic) change in the input that can be coped with and still provide (nearly) constant output. Of course, as you won't tell us what the characteristics of your power source is, I have no idea if that is relevant or not... Wha! You think electric cars have water heaters in them?

You could look at some of jeremyjr's threads (He tried to use this paper - or something similar - as support for his ideas.)

Can it? With what efficiency? And what costs? Why not just set up a giant treadmill powered by unicorns?

Of course, you have looked into the costs of getting the energy from there to where it is needed? Or not ...

I assume he made some sort of veiled threat/insult (1). But because most of his posts are almost totally content free, I completely missed it. (1) Slartibartfast: Come. Come now or you will be late. Arthur: Late? What for? Slartibartfast: What is your name, human? Arthur: Dent. Arthur Dent. Slartibartfast: Late as in the late Dentarthurdent. It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I'm told they can be terribly effective.

That's a no, then. (As usual.)

Do you think the article you linked to shows that the observation of accelerating expansion is wrong?

All science is always open for debate. That is why the Nobel (note: NOBEL) Prize committee cannot wait for "The Truth". As it was, they waited 50 years before Higgs' predictions were confirmed. Where? Do you think that the article you linked to shows that discovery to be wrong? Except, so far there is no evidence that the interpretation is wrong. Despite that fact that, contrary to your (emotional) claims, people have proposed alternative explanations.

There have been a number of papers published suggesting alternative explanations. None of these people have been called fools or quacks.

Its is NOBEL. What is wrong for people getting a Nobel prize for detecting the expansion of acceleration? It was a major new discovery. Please explain exactly what your problem is with it. As it is, these sort of emotional anti-science rants are the sort of thing that attract negative votes.

This would have made an interesting new thread (perhaps in "News"). I'm not sure why you put it here. Unless you think that the discovery that the expansion was accelerating has been shown to be wrong? (Which it obviously hasn't). Science is a process of continuous discovery. So it isn't practical to wait for ever in case a discovery is overturned one day. Nobel's will said that the prize should be for discoveries made in the previous year. Because there have been a few cases (not this one!) where prizes were given for things that were later shown to be wrong the Nobel committee now delays prizes (interpreting Nobel's wish as the year the discovery was found to be significant). Higgs and Englert got their Nobel prize 50 years after their initial work. Is that long enough for you! The delay for awards in physics is longer than the other sciences. And getting longer: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.2012 Maybe. If it is confirmed, it seems like a pretty important discovery.

Of course, your posts are always full of objective evidence, well-researched data and copious references, aren't they. Aren't they? Oh no, they aren't.

How does the cost and efficiency of this of this compare to alternatives such as producing hydrogen, pumped hydroelectric, batteries, etc.

This is a TERRIBLE option. It depends on the type of battery and the type of power source, but it is very unlikely that a resistor is adequate to provide correct charging control and prevent over-charging. This is particularly true for modern battery technologies. If you don't know what you are doing you could, at best, shorten the life of the batteries. At worst you could cause a fire or an explosion.

1. There are things which happen with no (apparent) cause. 2. There doesn't seem to be any logical connection between causality and whether something can come from nothing. You are using "illogical" in the sense of "doesn't make sense to me" I assume.

This was in reference to radar. It is quite plausible that the radar operators would interpret random noise on the radar screen as "objects" following the craft - influenced by the reports of what others had seen. These sort of sightings are "contagious". Given the fact that memory is even less reliable than eye witness accounts, I wouldn't put too much faith in that. http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/article00651.html

Sigh. No. (Again.) Velocity is purely relative (you can never tell if you are stationary or moving, without reference to something else). But acceleration is absolute: you can always tell if you are accelerating. You will feel a force pushing you back in your seat, for example. (OK. You can't tell if you are accelerating or in a gravitational field, but that is another matter.) That is explained in detail in the referenced paper: http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/2006AJP.pdf (The Wikipedia page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#cite_ref-19)

If there are no quantum properties, how did you detect a "single photon" - that is what "quantum properties" means. But it has been feasible to generate single photons for a long time (using "non-existent" quantum effects): http://www.mpg.de/551429/pressRelease200703091 http://phys.org/news/2013-10-power-photons-illuminate-quantum-technology.html

OK. Didn't realise you were not a native speaker. For words that begin with a vowel but are pronounced as if they began with a consonant (which, I think, is always a "y" sound - [y]uniform, [y]European, etc) then it would be "a" not "an". Hope that helps...

Large, relative to what? Please tell us exactly how large, in numerical terms, these variations are. I will type this very slowly so you can follow it: ALIGNMENT IS NOT PLACE. Again, where did I say that? Are you dishonestly putting words in my mouth? Or you unable to understand what I say? Then start a thread on that in the mainstream part of the forum. But, as far as I know, the current best answer is "we don't know". If it was in a "special place" when you wrote that, then it isn't any more. Because it is moving.