Diene–iridium–tin complexes. Comparison of conjugated versus non-conjugated dienes and trimethyltin versus trichlorotin as ligands. Ring opening metathesis polymerization of norbornene by Ir(1,5-cycloocta-diene)2SnCl3

Heavy metalla vinyl-cations show metal–Lewis acid cooperativity in reaction with small molecules (NH3, N2H4, H2O, H2)

“…Please do not adjust margins Please do not adjust margins bond lengths between these elements (Table 2). 32,[42][43][44][45] (The data of 3' and 4 are results of disordered structures, 4: distance of the 90% component is shown.) Scheme 4.…”

“…The found interatomic distances of Ge-Ir 2.225(2) Å and Sn-Ir 2.4135(5) Å are short bond lengths between these elements (Table 2). 34,[44][45][46][47] (The data of 3 ′ and 4 are results of disordered structures, 4: distance of the 90% component is shown).…”

Crystal structure of chloridobis[(1,2,5,6-η)-cycloocta-1,5-diene]iridium(I)

“…Ideal SP geometry ( 5 = 0) would have very similar Irmid-point(C C) distances as they would involve the same metal and ligand orbitals, while ideal TBP geometry ( 5 = 1) would involve different orbitals, dependent upon on whether the ligand's C C bond lay in an axial or an equatorial position. We see the former (SP) in Ir(SnCl 3 )(nbd) 2 (nbd = norbornadiene; Malosh et al, 2013), for which 5 = 0.06 and the Ir-mid-point(C C) distances are similar, ranging from 2.067 (4) to 2.089 (4) Å . An example towards TBP is found in [IrCl(cod)…”

“…Both Ir(SnCl 3 )(cod) 2 and Ir(SnMe 3 )(cod) 2 exhibit the same long-short variation of the Ir-midpoint(C C) bond lengths within each cod ligand and have similar 5 parameters of 0.53 and 0.55, respectively (Table 2). Malosh and coworkers concluded that the bulk of the cod ligands relative to that of the nbd ligands was responsible for the geometric distortion from SP geometry, specifically due to CH 2 Á Á ÁMe and CH 2 Á Á ÁCl repulsions (Malosh et al, 2013). And indeed the two nbd complexes have near-perfect SP 5 values of 0.10 and 0.06.…”