My thought on this subject is, has science been misleading us into not asking the right questions? Why does a machine have to be a "perpetual" motion machine to give us benefits? Why couldn't someone just invent a machine that once set into motion might just run on it's own inertia for say a month or two, generating electricity until it finally winds down and needs to be started up once again? That's how an old fashioned spring-wound clock operates. You wind up the spring and the tension on the spring keeps the hands moving for days or weeks at a time, depending on the size of the spring.
Let's say you had to use an electric powered motor to start a large flywheel turning and after an hour you turn off the motor and the flywheel keeps turning through it's own inertia for a month through a system of cleverly balanced weights. That flywheel in turn spins a large alternator that generates electricity. As long as you're generating more electricity than it took to get the flywheel going in the first place, I would see that as being a great scenario without it having to be perpetual. Maybe we need to stop thinking that something has to run on it's own inertia forever and just find a way to harness what I'll term, the "temporary motion machine".
