While I didn't personally find any mathematical errors or problems in your paper, I'm admittedly a bit biased in your favor and your math skills are superior to mine to start with, but I could at least follow along.
I have however had the opportunity to debate your paper recently with at least two prominent/vocal EU/PC haters over at CF, one of whom at least seems to be pretty mathematically literate. Neither of them managed to find any mathematical errors in your paper either, not that I thought they would. I also wanted to mention that after a recent conversation with Nick, and after my recent debates about your Birkeland current paper and your neutrino production concepts with members of the EU/PC hater posse, I'm definitely starting to lean your way over the neutrino debate.
I've never been particularly satisfied with the oscillation evidence to begin with, most of which could be just as easily explained by scattering/absorption IMO, but until now I've simply chosen to pick my public battles with respect to neutrinos. While I still staunchly favor a Birkeland cathode solar model over an anode model, I'm finding myself moving in your direction with respect to neutrino production. Your heavy element production concept is entirely congruent with the Birkeland cathode solar model described on my website, particularly considering the composition aspect that I discussed and published with Dr. Manuel. I think you're probably right that all three flavors of neutrinos are more likely to be related to heavy element production, high energy collisions and bremsstrahlung related neutrino emissions in high energy collisions rather than oscillation at this point.
I may continue to pick my battles with respect to neutrinos in public debates for while, but I'm finding your neutrino arguments to be more compelling over time, and I suspect I'll ultimately end up in your camp on that issue.
I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work over the years.
Sincerely,
Michael
Another great admirer of your work.....