Cyclohexene lower-energy conformation

Figure 1.5 Lower-energy conformations of cyclohexene and cyclooctene.

Such a structure implies that there would be a barrier to rotation about the C(2)—C(3) bond and would explain why the s-trans and s-cis conformers lead to different excited states. Another result that can be explained in terms of the two noninterconverting excited states is the dependence of the ratio of [2 + 2] and [2 + 4] addition products on sensitizer energy. The s-Z geometry is suitable for cyclohexene formation, but the s-E is not. The excitation energy for the s-Z state is slightly lower than that for the s-E. With low-energy sensitizers, therefore, the s-Z excited state is formed preferentially, and the ratio of cyclohexene to cyclobutane product increases. ... 

The origin of the observed 1,4-asymmetric induction in Michael reactions of chiral imines (Scheme 28) has been rationalized by conformational transmission of chirality. Thus, the phenethylamine auxiliary forces the cyclohexene part of the intermediate enamine into a half-chair conformation (140) that is 0.8 kcal mol-1 lower in energy than (141). Axial attack as shown then leads to the major product the energy difference between (140) and (141) roughly correlates with the observed diastereoselectivity ( 9 l).105... 

---