Is this right?:
Energy is absorbed in order to break bonds because bond breaking requires energy.
Or are these two statements completely separate?: "energy is absorbed when bonds break" and "breaking bonds require energy"
i.e. is energy absorption a result of breaking bonds, or is energy absorbed in order to break bonds?
So like... Energy is required to break bonds. Energy is somehow obtained, the bonds break... and this results in the absorption of *different* energy (which is unrelated to the original energy which was required to break the bonds in the first place)?
This question came up because I'm trying to write for the introduction in my lab report, "Energy is required to break bonds, so when bonds break, energy is absorbed". But that sounded off (because that's like saying the absorption of energy when bonds break is due to energy being required to break them first...). So I kept trying to reword it, but kept coming up with stuff like, "energy is required to break bonds, and when bonds break, energy is absorbed." but saying "bonds break" twice makes the sentence weird...
Sorry, I think this sentence should be alright, "Energy is required to break bonds, and when the bonds break, energy is absorbed."
Don't know why I had to go through all that trouble to reach this simple sentence, but...
Basically, ignore the rest of my question if the above sentence is okay.
I think you've being going in circles. Why try to put these two similar things together? Why not this?
"Energy is required to break a bond." or
"Breaking a chemical bond requires energy." or
"The absorption of energy is necessary to break a chemical bond."
I think it sounds awkward because you are re-writing the first part of the sentence by sticking on a second part of the sentence. You can write either part by itself and it sounds ok.