Here is an extract of the few interesting comments from YouTube:

Garret Moddel: The second law has been proven theoretically for some idealized conditions, but there isn't a general proof that covers all possible initial conditions. I believe that the main reason the physics community adheres to it so faithfully is that there are no generally acknowledged violations of the second law. That doesn't mean there haven't been violations presented in the scientific literature; it just means that they're not generally accepted. For that to happen, we need to have lots of replications of our work, and a scaling up -- which we're working on. There is another issue, and that is that it's human nature to believe that you there's no free lunch. Violating the second law may be viewed as having that. Please note that I do believe that we're violating conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics). For our system to obtain energy, I believe it has to extract it from somewhere -- also to be elucidated in the future.

od1exx: Great video I watched this all the way to the end but I'm not quite sure, what is the call to action here?

Garret Moddel: At this point we, or others who have read our papers, will use the resources we have to slowly demonstrate more. Alternatively, if a deep pocketed benefactor or foundation finds this to be sufficiently intriguing, the process will speed up.

Mevio Colucci: This would be a tremendous achievement and I really hope you succeed. That said, any skepticism is still valid unless you can scale the device so that it can produce many orders of magnitude more power to offset any systemic error. For example, having a ~143 cm^2 device constantly producing 1W of energy in any condition and for a sufficiently long period of time would be the definitive proof that the source of energy can't be chemical or even nuclear in origin (betavoltaics from impurities?). Do you have any plans to scale the device in the near future? How much is the expected power density (per volume)? Thanks!

Garret Moddel: I agree fully about the need to scale up. We're working on it, but with limited facilities and personnel, it's slow going. Regarding power density, so far the devices have been planar, and up to about 70 W/m^2. Once the devices can be stacked, the volume density will be substantial -- assuming everything scales.

Chip Guy: Sorry this video screams: "We have overlooked some thermal EMF problems, or bias, offset or leakage currents from our measuring equipment."

Garret Moddel: Those are exactly the concerns. That's why we took about a year to look for artifacts, and ruled out 8 different types, as described in Section 3.2 of the paper published in Symmetry: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/3/517   Even after all that, we have to be vigilant in checking, and are continuing to do so.

----

[Vlad] I would recommend you to check the very interesting comments regarding this video from the E-catworld site below:

And another post there related to ZPE topic, about an old friend and contributor to ZPEnergy.com - Douglas A. White (check the comments as well):