@AndyD273 The curse of perpetual motion isn't that it's hard to do. Sling something into a suitable orbit and it's technically a perpetual motion machine, the problem is that people always want to extract energy from it somehow.

@Separatrix You say that, but by the strict definition, even that is not perpetual motion. Eventually the orbit will decay, or the earth will be swallowed by the death of the sun, and the motion will cease. My question is, if you can't get more energy out of something than you put in, how close to a break even can it be pushed, using every trick possible to get every last joule of energy possible.

For instance, take a look at this crappy MS Paint waterwheel/pump "perpetual motion machine"

The falling water turns a turbine, which powers a pump, and the water goes up to turn the turbine. But unless the turbine and pump are impossibly efficient, there is no way that it will break even, let alone make power. So, could there be things to make it more efficient, so that it gets closer? More water in the catch basin so the water pressure lets the pump work less hard maybe? Don't know

Multiple turbines maybe, so that the falling water gets used a lot of times before it lands in the catch basin?

I just wonder if it might help if the goal was not to make a perpetual motion machine, but instead have a contest to see who can get the closest to break even.

As a contest, you give every team one 100 watt lightbulb, and enough power to keep it running for 10 hours. Then see if they can design something to use that power to keep it running as long as possible, without wiring it up to the bulb directly. Whoever gets the closest to a directly wired bulb is the winner of the prize, and if you go longer than the directly wired bulb you probably get a Nobel prize.