Just because the question used "thermodynamic law" when I wrote it, does not make it a duplicate of something that IS a perpetuum mobile. The reason I asked it in the first place is that I cannot judge if it is consuming anything to generate energy. It seems it is, hence no violation
Originally, you asked if it was a perpetual motion machine. That has been answered in general in the question this was marked as a duplicate of.
Secondly, you changed it to ask if it was viable: not a dupe anymore, but certainly an overly vague question. Does "viable" mean that it can be built? That it works? That it is economical? Which claim are you skeptical of? Is it a factual, notable claim? If not, we won't be able to answer.
Finally, you are asking "What makes Bat Gen work?", which is off topic on this site. because it's not about a claim.
Here are a couple of resources to help you write better questions, this site is different from other sites in the network. so I suggest you read them if you haven't done so already:
Thanks for bringing this up in meta, and happy continuation.
So a fourth version just came in. I think it's not answerable and off topic (sorry!).
The title question seems to be simply written in error: it is asking about what claims "Bat Gen" is making, not whether they are correct. The question is about the claims themselves and assumes there's no doubt about them. Which is which?
The question asks about theoretical chemistry and as such it's off topic here and on topic on http://chemistry.stackexchange.com. We know absolutely nothing about how something would work. This site is to verify, for example, if it has been observed to work, in practice.
There's the last question that may be viable, but not without eliminating all the rest: "Is the article describing the process in a misleading way?" This we can answer, but probably you'd still get a better answer at http://chemistry.stackexchange.com, since you probably have all the evidence available and you need expertise in interpreting it, not finding it.