Yes it makes no sense at all. More likely is that the Forcardi information is mistaken.
The Swedes found there was no ratio difference using a proper technique, and the technique use by Focardi is questionable for isotope determination. Caveat: I have no expertise in this and am passing along comments from other forums. -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton > The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - > Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu > 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu > 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might > reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal > predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
