When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:
I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.
I will replicate this device next. The majority of it is off the shelf components.