The crystal structure of 1,3,5-trithiane: a refinement

The crystal and molecular structure of 3-(2-diethylammoniumethoxy)-1,2-benzisothiazole tetrachlorocuprate

“…Perhaps these angular deformations are due to some steric hindrance between S and C1(2) of an adjacent molecule. Indeed, the distance between these two atoms (3.34 A) is appreciably shorter than the expected value (3.50 A), assuming 1.70 A for the van der Waals radius of sulphur (the value 1.85 A, usually given, is too high as it has been shown in many instances" Donohue, 1950;Zdanov & Zvonk0va, 1950;Van der Helm, Lessor & Merritt, 1960;Nardelli, Fava Gasparri, Giraldi Battistini & Domiano, 1966;Andreetti, Cavalca, Manfredotti & Musatti, 1969;Valle, Busetti, Mammi & Carazzolo, (a) In [CuCI4] 2-Cu-CI (1) 2"259 (3) A. Cu-CI (2) 2.220 (2) Table 3. Bond distances and angles…”

The Structure of Thiobinupharidine

“…As in neothiobinupharidine, there are some unusually and significantly long bond lengths in the sulfur-containing ring. The S-C bond lengths lie on either side of the expected value of 1.81 A (15), unlike those in neothiobinupharidine where both the C-S bond 'In a recent personal communication Professor R. T. LaLonde has informed us that he has reached the same conclusion regarding the structure of thiobinupharidine and has found that the structure of thionuphlutine-B is that represented in l h . His conclusions were reached as the result of more extensive chemical and spectroscopic studies on the alkaloids and on model systems.…”

The crystal structure of trans-1-thioniabicyclo[4.4.0]decane bromide

“…Long S-C bonds have also been reported in meso-3,3'-dithiobisvaline (1.853, 1.858 ,~; Warner, Ottersen & Serf, 1974) and in 3,3,3',3'-tetramethyl-o-cystine (1.865, 1.866A; Rosenfield & Parthasarathy, 1975). The values of the angles C(1)-C(2)-C(3), C(2)-C(3)-C(4) and C(3)-C(4)-C(5), larger than the tetrahedral angle, are not unusual for cyclic molecules containing one or more S atoms, as has been pointed out by Valle, Busetti, Mammi & Carazzolo (1969). On the other hand, both the angles S-C(1)-C(2) and S-C(5)-C(4) are found to be smaller than the tetrahedral angle.…”