I'm trying to draw a McLafferty rearrangement with chemfig (great tool btw). With
MWE:
\documentclass[a4paper,landscape]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{chemfig}
\renewcommand*\printatom[1]{\sffamily{#1}}
\newcommand*\radcationvert{\raisebox{4.7pt}{\hspace{.5pt}\lewis{6.,\scriptsize +}}}
\setcrambond{5pt}{1pt}{2pt}
\setlewis[]{2.5pt}{}{}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows}% per right to e left to
\usepackage{tgheros}
\renewcommand*\familydefault{\sfdefault}
\usepackage{sansmath}
\sansmath
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\begin{document}
\chemfig{C*6((-[:-150]Y)(=[@{b6}:90]@{O}{\lewis{4:,O}\rlap{\radcationvert}})-[@{b1}]@{C2}C(<[:-110]H)(<:[:-70]R\rlap{'})-[@{b2}]C(<[:-50]H)(<:[:-10]H)-[@{b3}]C(<[:10]H)(<:[:50]R)-[@{b4}]H-[@{b5},,,,draw=none]\phantom{O})}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=2pt,shorten >=2pt](b2).. controls +(120:5mm) and +(90:5mm).. (C2);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-left to,shorten <=2pt,shorten >=2pt](b2).. controls +(120:5mm) and +(180:5mm).. (b3);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=2pt,shorten >=2pt](b4).. controls +(-120:5mm) and +(180:5mm).. (b3);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-left to,shorten <=2pt,shorten >=2pt](b4).. controls +(-120:4mm) and +(-60:4mm).. (b5);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=5pt,shorten >=2pt](O).. controls +(-15:6mm) and +(-60:5mm).. (b5);}
\end{document}
I get this nice odd scheme, which is clearly useless:
A possible workaround is to redraw the arrows kind of like this
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=3pt,shorten >=3pt](b2).. controls +(140:3mm) and +(70:3mm).. (C2);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=3pt,shorten >=3pt](b2).. controls +(100:4mm) and +(190:4mm).. (b3);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-left to,shorten <=3pt,shorten >=3pt](b4).. controls +(-100:4mm) and +(170:4mm).. (b3);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-right to,shorten <=3pt,shorten >=3pt](b4).. controls +(-140:4mm) and +(-50:4mm).. (b5);}
\chemmove[->]{\draw[-left to,shorten <=5pt,shorten >=3pt](O).. controls +(-15:6mm) and +(-70:4mm).. (b5);}
which throws out a pretty good
Note that usually the fishook arrows have the barb on their convex side, and that's how they're drawn in the first example. In the second one that would mess up the newly formed bonds zone.
My question is: is there a way to shift the start/end points of the arrows in the first example so that I get something nice and uncluttered kind of like this?
I've tried designating the same bond two times, one with @{b,0.4}
and
the other one with @{b,0.6}
but that doesn't seem to work.
Please allow me to ask two more questions which I believe are quick for the knowledgeables but not for me:
1) I use a macro to write the radical cations (it comes from a previous question)
\newcommand*\radcationvert{\raisebox{4.7pt}{\hspace{.5pt}\lewis{6.,\scriptsize +}}}
The problem with this is that when I draw the bond between the oxygen and the hydrogen north-east from it, the + sign of the charge is in the way. How can I lower the "+" a bit?
I've tried putting \raiseboxes everywhere (the heuristic way to LaTeX, notoriously the best) but that always moves the dot too, while I need them to just get closer.
2) Can I place a third control point for the arrows? Sometimes they don't come out as nice and as rounded as I wanted them and I feel like another control point is just what I need. Again, my heuristic attempts didn't do the job, but TikZ doc freakes me out more than my pathological finickiness wants to get it done.