Three Wrong Types

I like the construction of Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoel with 2 "nothings".

I do not understand what's going on in Dawsons problem. Without a stalemate in sight, how would "nothing" promotions help white? And the analysis with queen promotions is not trivial. What's the idea?

First thing: I just edited the kings position slighty since it was misplaced.

To answer your question: promotion to “nothing” does actually help White since a queen promotion would leave with White and a losing position-i.e. White must stalemate themselves while Black tries to prevent that from happening,

I have a feeling we have a different definition of "nothing". I meant that the pawn disappeared as in other promotions but you might mean the pawn stays. Am I right?

Btw, Which one it is makes no difference for the first "nothing" problem but it does make a difference in Dawsons construct.

Yes, I mean that it “promotes” to a pawn. 

It is indeed more fanciful play in the first problem, but heavily impactful in Dawson’s problem.

OK, next step. I can sac the rook on e7 but there is not enough time to free the bQ to capture on g8. May be the pawns ought to be on d5 and d6?

If so, Dawsons problem seems flawed to me. White can decide to queen on e8, followed by locking in his king and saccing his queen in a suicide attack. Only 2 "nothings" where supposedly 3 were intended.

Right?