What Went Wrong with My Calculation for Iridium Atomic Radii?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a calculation error regarding the atomic radii of iridium, which crystallizes in a face-centered cubic structure with an edge length of 3.833 Å. The original calculation involved using the Pythagorean theorem to find the diagonal length of the face, resulting in a value of 2.710 Å for the radius. However, the correct approach requires recognizing that two atomic radii fit along the face diagonal, leading to the correct answer of 1.355 Å. The key correction is to divide the diagonal length by 2 to account for the two atoms involved. This clarification resolves the misunderstanding in the initial calculation.
Taryn
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
hey just wondering where I went wrong

Iridium Crystallizes in a face centred cubic unit call that has an edge length of 3.833A
The atom in the cantre of the face is in contact with the corner atoms

calculate the atomic radii of the irridium atom
I did this
using pythag, (3.833^2)+(3.833^2)=c^2
b^2= 29.384
b=5.42
Then I divided it by 2 as it was the radius and got 2.710
But I am assuming that this is wrong due to the qu asking for the atomic radii. So I divide it by 192.272 and I still get the wrong answer.
The answer is meant to be 1.355Angstrom

So if anyone could tell me where I went wrong I would be much appreciative
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Taryn,

try to revisualise one face. How many atom-radii will fit into the length of the face-diagonal? You are close to the correct answer. :smile:

Regards,

nazzard
 
Last edited:
figured it out, u divide by 2 as the atomic radii is being asked for and there are two atoms. So simple!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top