The Baeyer Theory

Many of the properties of cyclopropane and its derivatives are similar to the properties of alkenes. In 1890, the famous German organic chemist, A. Baeyer, suggested that cyclopropane and cyclobutane derivatives are different from cyclopentane and cyclohexane, because their C−C−C angles cannot have the tetrahedral value of 109.5^o. At the same time, Baeyer hypothesized that the difficulties encountered in synthesizing cycloalkane rings from C7 upward was the result of the angle strain that would be expected if the large rings were regular planar polygons (see Table 12-3). Baeyer also believed that cyclohexane had a planar structure like that shown in Figure 12-2, which would mean that the bond angles would have to deviate 10.5o from the tetrahedral value. However, in 1895, the then unknown chemist H.  This suggestion was not accepted at the time because it led to the prediction of several possible isomers for compounds such as chlorocyclohexane. The idea that such isomers might act as a single substance, as the result of rapid equilibration, seemed like a needless complication, and it was not until 1918 that E. Mohr proposed a definitive way to distinguish between the Baeyer and Sachse cyclohexanes.

Table 12-3: Strain and Heats of Combustion of Cycloalkanes

Because cyclopentane and cyclobutane also have nonplanar carbon rings, it is clear that the Baeyer postulate of planar rings is not correct. Nonetheless, the idea of angle strain in small rings is important. There is much evidence to show that such strain produces thermodynamic instability and usually, but not always, enhanced chemical reactivity.