Since Robin has not yet tuned-in from down-under with the hydrino perspective...
...and since he calculated, IIRC that the energy derived is consistent with maximum shrinkage of hydrino states, then it should be noted that the di-hydrino would probably be expected to add the equivalent of two neutrons to copper 63, and this would explain the preponderance of that isotope balance: shifting to Cu65. That is, assuming Focardi got it right. Usually when neutrons are absorbed singly, a rapid secondary reaction takes place, but presumably with the di-hydrino end-reaction, since it is already maximally depleted in energy, the secondary reaction is avoided and the new isotope is stable. Of course, that is "new physics." That does not mean it is wrong, since by now it is pretty obvious that we are in new territory in either physics ... or practical magic <g>. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene 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 Cu63 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
