Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The conformational analysis of cycloheptane (1), oxacycloheptane (2), 1,2‐dioxacycloheptane (3), 1,3‐dioxacycloheptane (4), and 1,4‐dioxacycloheptane (5) has been carried out using B3LYP, CCD, CCSD, and QCISD with the 6‐311+G(d,p) and cc‐pVDZ basis sets. The twist chair conformers are predicted to be lower in energy than their corresponding boat and chair conformations. All levels of theory predict (4) to be lower in energy than (3) and (5). CCSD predicts remarkably similar activation barriers for the conformational interconversion of the twist chair conformers to their corresponding boat conformers. Small barriers to pseudorotation are also predicted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Freeman et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: