Dear all,
I want to understand the injection function of heavier nuclei.

In 5.5.1 of the manual,
in normalization of the nucleon primary source function,
the source abundance of heavier nuclei is
X = Q_A/Q_1 = A*C_A/C_1 ...,
C_A/C_1 = X*A^(gamma-1)*Z^gamma
Why there is one more A here ?
If it is like this: q_A(p_A) dp_A = q_A(p_A) *dp_A/dEk_n *dEk_n,
where Ek_n is the kinetic energy per nucleon, and dp_A/dEk_n = A/beta
Then in flux I(Ek) = c/4pi *n *A, and at last both of A are cancelled actually.

And for the corresponding secondary particle, there is one more A is formula 13
for secondary positron.
And for secondary electron and antiproton. Maybe A_j ?
But in secondary nuclei, there is no A, for example formula 20.
Because it is the integral in p_A space?
Here I have a question.
In some literature, people assumed hard sphere approximation, i.e. before
and after spalltion, kinetic energy per nucleon is conserved.
But here in 19 and 20, it seems that you don't use that assumption. Right?
How large is the difference between both two?

Thank you very much for your reply!

Wei

Thanks for your questions, I will prepare a reply. Such comments are very useful!

_________________
Andy Strong, MPE

I read manual again, I find in spallation,
galprop still applies hard sphere scattering approximation.
but just in momentum space.

yes it does that approximation. The grid is aligned on kinetic energy per nucleon for this reason, although the propagation is done in momentum. So that is correct.

_________________
Andy Strong, MPE

thank you very much for getting back to me!

in decayed cross section,
when spallation, rather decay,
is branching_ratio = 1？
what is its vlaue?
or it has value when decay appear?

thank you very much !

re: X = Q_A/Q_1 = A*C_A/C_1 ...,
this is from (8) since p' = p_A /A
Q_A(p')dp'=q_A(p_A)dp_A
Q_A(p')=q_A(p_A)dp_A/dp'=Aq_A(p_A)
The algebra seems correct.

The relation p' = p_A /A should be written explicitly, I will do that in the next version.

For the fragmentation the sitiuation is similar, going from 'per nucleon' to 'per nucleus'.

I agree the formulation is confusing, and should be clarified, and checked too (comments like yours help!).
We need to think more carefully about how abundances are defined in fact.

_________________
Andy Strong, MPE