Rotation barriers models

Calculate the rotational barrier between the anti and anticlinal forms of N-butane using the AMI (or PM3 if you prefer) and HF/6-31G(d) model chemistries. Use the results for the anti form that you obtained in Exercise 6.1. Note that the anticlinal form is a transition structure you will find the Opt TS,CalcFC] keyword helpful in optimizing this structure. 

The experimental result seems to support this model. Table 11 lists values for rotational barriers in some allyl radicals (Sustmann, 1986). It includes the rotational barrier in the isomeric 1-cyano-l-methoxyallyl radicals [32]/ [33] (Korth et al., 1984). In order to see whether the magnitude of the rotational barriers discloses a special captodative effect it is necessary to compare the monocaptor and donor-substituted radicals with disubstituted analogues. As is expected on the basis of the general influence of substituents on radical centres, both captor and donor substituents lower the rotational barrier, the captor substituent to a greater extent. Disubstitution by the same substituent, i.e. dicaptor- and didonor-substituted systems, do not even show additivity in the reduction of the rotational barrier. This phenomenon appears to be a general one and has led to the conclusion that additivity of substituent effects is already a manifestation of a special behaviour, viz., of a captodative effect. The barrier in the 1-cyano-l-methoxyallyl radicals [32]/... 

Recently a very detailed study on the single chain dynamic structure factor of short chain PIB (M =3870) melts was undertaken with the aim to identify the leading effects limiting the applicability of the Rouse model toward short length scales [217]. This study was later followed by experiments on PDMS (M =6460), a polymer that has very low rotational barriers [219]. Finally, in order to access directly the intrachain relaxation mechanism experiments comparing PDMS and PIB in solution were also carried out [186]. The structural parameters for both chains were virtually identical, Rg=19.2 (21.3 A). Also their characteristic ratios C =6.73 (6.19) are very similar, i.e. the polymers have nearly equal contour length L and identical persistence lengths, thus their conformation are the same. The rotational barriers on the other hand are 3-3.5 kcal/mol for PIB and about 0.1 kcal/mol for PDMS. We first describe in some detail the study on the PIB melt compared with the PDMS melt and then discuss the results. 

In 2002, Winter and coworkers reported that aminoallenylidene complexes trans-[Cl(dppm)2Ru=C=C=C(NRR )(CH3)] were obtained from the regioselective addition of secondary amines to frans-[Cl(dppm)2Ru=C=C=C=CH2] [133]. They also found that unsymmetrically substituted amines gave rise to Z/E isomeric mixtures. To study the Z/E isomeric interconversion, they calculated the rotational barrier around the C—N bond of the model complex shown in Scheme 4.23. The orthogonal... 

For alkenes ll- and 11-Z, the syn methyl groups have lower rotational barriers than the corresponding anti ones by 0.5 kcalmoG. This is in the opposite direction to the proposed theoretical model. However, for alkene 4 there is a correlation between rotational barriers and ene reactivity. Alkenes 12 and 59 also demonstrate impressively that there is... 

Closely related to conformational energy differences are barriers to single-bond rotation and to pyramidal inversion. Here the experimental data are restricted to very small systems and derive primarily from microwave spectroscopy, from vibrational spectroscopy in the far infrared and from NMR, but are generally of high quality. Comparisons with calculated quantities are provided in Table 8-3 for single-bond rotation barriers and Table 8-4 for inversion barriers. The same models considered for conformational energy differences have been surveyed here. 

MP2 models provide broadly similar results to the best of the density functional models for both rotation and inversion barriers. For rotation barriers, the MP2/6-311+G model provides improvement over MP2/ 6-31G. On the other hand, the two models yield very similar inversion barriers, perhaps reflecting the fact that bond angles involving nitrogen and phosphorous change only slightly between the two. 

Semi-empirical models are markedly inferior to all other models dealt with (except the SYBYL molecular mechanics model) for barrier calculations. Major trends in rotation barriers are often not reproduced, for example, the nearly uniform decrement in rotation barrier from ethane to methylamine to methanol. None of the semi-empirical models is better than the others in this regard. One the other hand, AMI is clearly superior to MNDO and PM3 in accounting for nitrogen inversion barriers. All in all, semi-empirical models are not recommended for barrier calculations. 

Semi-empirical models do not provide good descriptions of the energy barrier to ring inversion in cyclohexane. The MNDO model underestimates the barrier by a factor of three, and the AMI and PM3 models by almost a factor of two. This behavior is consistent with previous experience in dealing with single-bond rotation barriers. 

A number of azabicyclic derivatives have also been investigated (7 ICC 1104) as model compounds to study the effect of increasing the nitrogen inversion barrier upon the amide rotational barrier. From the experimental results and simplified MO pictures of the inversion and rotational mechanism, the authors (71CC1104) conclude that changes in the amide rotational barrier do not necessarily correspond to enhancement of the nitrogen inversion barrier. 

The observed low Tg s of most polyphosphazenes are consistent with the low barrier to internal rotation predicted for them and indicate the potential these polymers have for elastomeric applications, Theoretical calculations, based on rotational isomeric models assuming localized it bonding, predict the lowest ( 100 cal per mol of repeating unit) known polymer barrier to rotation for the skeletal bonds of polydifluorophosphazene,... 

---