Kirk, I have no issue with what little I know of your analysis of errors. It's a very interesting line of inquiry, one that I hope people with relevant expertise can discuss further here. I will readily agree with you that any work that is genuinely in the noise is inherently unsatisfying and unpersuasive.
What we are discussing is not that part of your work, which seems uncontroversial. We're talking about the elements of your papers in which you introduce novel suggestions for what is going on in LENR electrochemical systems. How do I know for sure you've introduced new notions that have yet to be given an empirical basis? Because 10 people with expertise in electrochemistry or related fields believe that to be the case, even allowing that they have misunderstood and misrepresented important parts of your critique. It is these novel suggestions that must be established before they will provide an effective criticism. Until that is done, LENR researchers can heed or ignore these parts of your critique without being remiss in their duty to respond to criticisms.
I'm not at all a scientist. I don't even know how to calculate AC input power or read a circuit diagram. I would spill dangerous chemicals everywhere if I ever stepped foot in a lab. I'm just making a small but subtle point about who has an obligation to do what, given what we know.