Here Planck defines what he means by a forbidden perpetual motion machine, as an engine purportedly producing continuous work or energy output, but with no energy input at all (from nothing).  As you can see, an engine producing continuous (perpetual) work or energy output, but with the necessary energy input, is perfectly permissible. Unfortunately most of the skeptical community has never progressed that far in their understanding.  Understand, a friendly skeptic is useful, and keeps one honest and on his toes if the critique is in a reasonable fashion and is scientific. It's the ad hominem attacks and slurs and calling names  that have nothing to do with science, but merely constitutes a cur dog fight, not a scientific exchange or discussion.  Scientists do not have to agree!  They just have to be civil and reasonable in their disagreement. Else they are cur dogs, not scientists.

Now with Planck's definition, and with two kinds of perpetual (continuous) motion systems in mind --- permissible and prohibited --- let us do a little gedanken experiment.

At the origin point of a coordinate system in the lab, one suddenly (let us assume essentially instantly) produces a charge.  Prior to this, along a convenient radial reaching from that origin point across the universe, one has placed perfect instrument packages every microsecond of light speed travel.  Let us disregard the transient pulse formed when we suddenly produced the charge.  We are interested only in nontransient measurements.

One microsecond after the formation of the charge, the first instrument package suddenly reads (values of the E-field and scalar potential, for example, and thereafter the readings remain as long as the charge remains.  Another microsecond later, the second instrument package suddenly reads, and the reading thereafter remains continuously.  And so on.

Precisely one year later, the instrument package one light year from that origin point on earth -- at a point out beyond the solar system --- suddenly reads and thereafter the reading remains continuously.  And so on.

In one year, that charge has changed the energy density of a volume of space one light year in radius, and the energy outflow is continuing at light speed outwards.  If you calculate the energy change for an assumed charge you might produce in the lab, that is an enormous amount of energy that has been poured out.  The charge is pouring out a certain number of joules per second, and it has been doing it for one year.  So simply multiply the joules per second by the number of seconds in a year, and that is how many joules of EM energy that charge has poured out into that volume of space, into its fields and potentials, and it is still doing it at the same rate.

At the same time, a perfect instrument package in the laboratory has continuously indicated that no observable EM energy input to that source charge at the origin has occurred.

Any physicist or electrodynamicist will agree that the experiment works that way (and we can actually do parts of it, just not that far out, and verify it).  Of course, the intensity of the field falls off inversely as the square of the distance, but it does not reach zero at any point in space that it occupies, even for the next billion years.  The intensity of the potential falls off inversely as the distance, but it does not reach zero, even for the next billion years.

Further, it was not a one-time "pulse" of energy that passed each instrument package, but a steady flow, because if only a pulse had passed, the reading would have been momentary and transient, then would have fallen back to zero at each package.

I accent that we have here the most elementary thing in electrodynamics: the production and continuous replenishment of the associated EM fields and potentials from a source charge.  All EM fields and potentials and their energy are formed this way, even according to electrical engineering.  The electrical engineering model  just does not contain the mechanism of where the energy comes from and how and in what form.  That's because it assumes an inert vacuum a priori.

In the EE you took, somewhere back in the 60s  or so they just "dropped" and suppressed all mention of this "source charge problem"; i.e., where is the input energy coming from, if it is coming at all, and in what form is it input?

If there really were no EM energy input to the source charge at all (as EE assumes), then this experiment would falsify the entire energy conservation law.

So we have confronted a seemingly prohibited perpetual motion machine, which is the common charge, at least as is assumed in classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory and in electrical engineering. There is no escape from this problem, because it is experimentally demonstrable.  The connection of the associated EM fields and potentials with their source charges has been demonstrated untold times in science.

But what we actually have is a modeling problem, not a real violation of the conservation of energy law.  We have the violation of one interpretation of that law, and what we have actually falsified is an interpretation of energy conservation (that an observable output demands an observable input; which is untrue).  A good scientist will approach the problem that way, and will carefully state that the conventional EE model assumes the charge to be a perpetual motion machine, freely creating EM field and potential energy from nothing.

Now stop a moment and think.  Try within your own training to think of some way that real, observable EM energy is somehow being input to that charge, and "fooling" a perfect instrument set.  Play with that notion for awhile, and see if you can come up with something.  The best classical EM theoreticians have not done so and have not solved it in that classical model. That is not to say the problem has remained unsolved!  It has just remained unsolved in that one particular model, and it will remain unsolvable in that model.

All we have discovered is that a particular model is never complete.  This does not mean that the classical model is useless!  It means it is useless in trying to describe certain kinds of phenomena, such as where every joule of EM energy comes from and where the EM fields and potentials come from and how they are created from what energy.  For those kinds of things that the EE model describes, it is perfectly useful.  The electrical engineer can certainly design an electrical motor and it will work exactly as intended.

But it means that the model is limited, and cannot and does not explain where the EM energy in an EM field or potential comes from, and how the energy gets to that charge so that it can be absorbed and then re-emitted by it.

As Sen stated:  "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

And Bunge succinctly stated: "...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."  Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176.

Oddly, the physicists themselves have not applied the solution to electrical circuits!  Perhaps they have assumed that is the job of the electrical engineering professors and the classical electrodynamicists.  It seems to have been just one of those things that got discovered and "fell through the cracks" with respect to electrical engineering.

Now let us go and get the solution (I put together the solution in 1999 and formally published it in 2000).

In 1956-57, Lee and Yang theoretically and strongly predicted broken symmetry in physics.  This was such a revolutionary change to all of physics, if it were true, that scientists leaped upon it immediately to see if the prediction was upheld in nature.  Wu and her colleagues rapidly proved it experimentally in early 1957, decisively, with immediate publication of the results in our leading physics journal (C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413).

As stated, this was so revolutionary a change that the Nobel Committee awarded Lee and Yang the Nobel Prize in December 1957, the very same year, at almost unprecedented speed.  In the short space of two to three years, a great revolution in physics -- including electrical physics -- was born.

Let us now examine the impact of this revolution in physics upon the old comfortable classical EM model and electrical engineering.

One of the broken symmetries proven by Wu et al. is the asymmetry of opposite charges --- such as on the ends of a dipole, and as involved in any dipolarity.  Rigorously this means that a dipole or dipolarity continuously absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum virtual energy flux, coherently integrates them into observable photon size (probably by its spin), and re-emits the absorbed energy as radiated normal, observable photons in all directions.  The dipolarity of an EM circuit is what actually produces all the EM energy in that circuit (and lots more that is not caught by the circuit, but is just wasted.  Lorentz also arbitrarily discarded that extra energy).

Voila!  Now we have the magic answer to the source charge problem, once we realize that any "isolated" charge is actually a dipolarity, as shown and proven by standard quantum field theory (our most successful physics theory).  Simply check it out in the popular book by Nobelist Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory.

Per quantum field theory, an observable charge is clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign, in the immediate vacuum.  So we see the "inside" or real charge (the "bare" charge, which is infinite) only through an intense Faraday screen of opposite charges (which is also an infinite charge).  The difference between these two infinite charges happens to be finite, and it is the observed (seen through the screen) value of the observable charged particle that is recorded in all our textbooks and handbooks.

So now we know that the classical "isolated" source charge we placed in the laboratory at the origin point, is actually a very special kind of dipolarity.  Hence we know that the broken symmetry of opposite charge applies to it.  The source charge assembly continuously absorbs virtual EM energy from its vacuum exchange, coherently integrates it into observable photons, and re-emits real, observable, EM energy in all directions. This continuous free emission of transduced real observable EM energy from the vacuum is what provides the continuous, free, energy flow that creates and continuously replenishes the associated EM fields and potentials at light speed, expanding in all directions at light speed from the moment the charge appears.

The easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy from the vacuum, anywhere, anytime. Just assemble a charge or make a dipole.  That is the easy part, and trivial.  The hard part is to then make a circuit which intercepts and collects some of that freely gushing EM energy from the vacuum, dissipates it in a load, and does not use half the collected energy to destroy the source dipole that is extracting the energy from the vacuum in the first place.  All present electrical engineers are taught to only build circuits that destroy their source dipole faster than they power their loads.  So one has to find what characteristic of the circuit does that, and change that characteristic at least an appreciable fraction of the time.

All observable EM energy in the universe --- every joule of it -- comes from the active vacuum via this proven "extraction and transduction of energy from the vacuum" process. 

The charges in the original matter in the universe have been doing that for some 14 billion years, if one accepts the conventional cosmology.   And the charges are still doing it.

All real, observable EM energy in the universe came into 3-space by this process, and the process is ongoing universally.

So now let us apply the definition of COP to the charge, for it is also a Maxwellian system.  Analogous to a windmill's output of mechanical energy, the charge has a free and continuous EM energy output, let us say K joules per second, without any operator input. Understand, it does indeed have an energy input, and so conservation of energy is not violated.  But the operator does not have to furnish any of the energy input himself.  So we have (K>0)/0 for a COP = infinity.  Again, this is a perfectly legitimate COP, and the charge is a perfectly permissible perpetual (continuous) motion in the Planck definition, so long as we do not state that no energy at all is input to it. The energy is indeed input to it, and that is known in particle physics though still unknown in classical EM theory and EE. 

Again, we are speaking models and modeling.  To solve the source charge problem, we simply had to turn to a more extensive EM model, that models phenomenology of the active vacuum exchange with the charge --- which EE and CEM do not.

The bottom line is that every joule of EM energy in the universe, including in every electrical circuit, comes from that process and only from that process.  The mechanical energy input to the shaft of a generator has nothing at all to do with the actual production of the EM energy that pours from the terminals of the generator, filling all space around the attached external conductors.  And that is quite contrary to electrical engineering, which erroneously assumes that the mechanical energy is translated into internal magnetic energy inside the generator by the rotor's rotation (and it is), and then that somehow most of this magnetic energy pours out the terminals (it does not). All of it is dissipated in forcing the internal charges apart between the terminals of the generator, to form the source dipole.  Not one watt of it is sent out onto the external line in the Poynting energy flow in space around the external conductors.   If you are really interested in what powers the attached external circuit, we will go into that in another dialogue.

Since you are fulfilling an assessment role on your website, I very much urge you to read some of the pertinent physics references as you have the time.  In short, simply become as qualified a referee as you can.  And become a fair one.

And watch out about offering money for COP>1.0 systems and their demonstration.  There are already quite a few such systems well known in physics.  The long-proven and widely known negative resonance absorption of the medium can and does produce some 18 times as much energy output as the operator inputs, and nonlinear optical departments regularly perform variations of those experiments routinely.  E.g., check out Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. In the same issue, see also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327 for independent validation of Bohren's experiment.  If you honestly mean your offer, then you already owe the money to Bohren.  It's validated, certified, and bonafide.

A vast amount of new electrodynamics has been generated in particle physics, because the Maxwellian theory is quite limited.  Maxwell wrote a purely material fluid flow theory, in his seminal paper in 1865, in quaternion and quaternion-like mathematics, of 20 equations in 20 unknowns.  His theory was curtailed to vector electrodynamics by Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz etc. into the present four vector equations after his death, although --- heavily criticized because of the difficulties of the quaternions --- Maxwell himself for the second edition of his Treatise (first edition in 1973) was engaged in highly simplifying his own theory when he died of stomach cancer in 1879.