For a simple cubic (SC) lattice:
Number of atoms per unit cell .
Relationship between edge length of the unit cell and atomic radius : .
Density of the unit cell is given by:
where is the atomic weight (in g/mol), is Avogadro's number, and is the edge length.
Given:
Atomic weight g/mol (since 250 u per atom implies 250 g per mole).
Density .
Avogadro's number .
(Given as N in question)
.
Substitute these values into the density formula to find :
Let's use for a quicker estimate:
.
.
No, .
: .
So it's between 1 and 2, closer to 2.
, .
So .
More precisely, .
Let's use .
Using :
.
.
.
So .
Convert cm to Angstroms ( ): .
So .
For a simple cubic lattice, .
So, radius .
This does not match any option closely.
Let me recheck calculation or formula usage.
Options are 1.
93, 2.
93, 3.
04, 4.
04.
My is around their .
Maybe the I found is actually .
Is the atomic weight definition different? No, 250u is 250 g/mol.
Let's check my value again.
.
This is correct.
.
, , , .
So is slightly less than 1.
8.
About 1.
7935.
.
Then .
Let's check if one of the options for gives the density.
Option (3): .
Then .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Density
.
This is very close to 7.
2 g/cm .
So is likely the correct answer.
My calculation of was correct, but the value of might have been interpreted as the final radius by mistake, or there's a factor of 2 error.
Let's retrace calculation for :
.
My prior calculation of was .
This is .
Then .
What if for simple cubic? No, for simple cubic, atoms touch along the edge, so .
What if the problem uses instead of ?
.
.
.
Still around .
The options are: 1.
93, 2.
93, 3.
04, 4.
04.
These values seem to be rather than , or my density formula is off by a factor.
Density .
This is .
Mass of one atom g.
Mass of unit cell (Z=1 for SC) g.
Volume of unit cell .
So for Z=1.
This is correct.
Let's check the calculation using which implies .
If is radius (in ), then cm.
.
(if r is in cm)
If is in , then .
Substitute values: .
Now, .
.
So is close to 2, slightly less.
.
.
Let's calculate : .
.
.
This is very close to .
So, .
This matches option (3).
My initial placement of in the main density formula denominator was correct, but I solved for first, then .
Direct formula for is better.
My error was in .
Original: .
If , then .
So .
This formula is for in cm.
.
.
Since ,
.
This is consistent.