I'm not. This is utter bollocks and is simply a scam, as shown by them refusing to have anyone independently test it. Notice in particular that they've taken a name similar to General Motors (usually known as GMC)to try and con the unwary into thinking this is a big company making the claim.

the second effect is that of a back electromagnetic force (Ke)

Which is produced by *all* electric motors. Time for a quick lesson in how motors work, for those who didn't pay attention in school... ;-)

When it's stationary, the motor sees the full battery voltage across the motor. It draws a load of current from the battery and starts the motor turning.

But a motor and a generator are basically the same thing - a coil and a magnet rotating. So that means that when the motor starts spinning, the generator principle starts to kick in. The motor starts to produce what's called a "back EMF", which is a voltage opposing the battery voltage.

The effect of this is that as the motor speeds up, the back EMF tends to increase to match the battery voltage. As this happens, the current drops (because the two voltages are starting to cancel each other out). The maximum speed of the motor/battery combination is reached when the back EMF equals the battery - at that point, no current is drawn so the motor has stopped taking power from the battery and therefore can't go any faster. If you put a load on the motor (eg. using it to drive a car or something) then this slows down the motor and it starts drawing more current.

Suppose you could take this back EMF and use it to charge your battery. Then as the motor speed goes up, you're still drawing full current from the battery, instead of the current decreasing. And because your charging mechanism has some losses in it, it's going to be less efficient overall than just letting the motor do its thing.

This school science tutorial quotes electric motors as being 85-95% efficient. Donuel, your link says "Careful analysis of the video data provided on the GMC website shows system efficiency of about 20%." Somehow I don't think a four-fold REDUCTION in efficiency is going to impress anyone!

Graham.