If a reaction were to be endothermic would we have called it combustion in the first place ?
Implied in the name there is this notion that the reagents are looking for an excuse to combust, a release of bottled potential, this in turn implies this has to be an energy producing reaction rather than one where the reagents need to be coerced into reacting by providing external energy
> rather than one where the reagents need to be coerced into reacting by providing external energy
being endothermic or exothermic and activation energy are orthogonal.
as a matter of fact, burning wood with air is exothermic, but you don't see thees spontaneously burning until some activation energy is provided.
heck, it's not even a given that all exothermic reaction are self sustaining, there's plenty that will go on producing small quantity of heat but will required external energy to sustain the reaction; sometimes it's even the same reaction but in a different environment with a different chemistry or average temperature.
Yes, kinda, with a few small exceptions. Exothermy and being thermodynamically spontaneous are strongly correlated, but you can have endothermic spontaneous reactions, such as dissolving urea in water in those instant ice packs.
You can also drive reactions by removing the end products in lieu of providing external energy.
If a reaction were to be endothermic would we have called it combustion in the first place ?
Implied in the name there is this notion that the reagents are looking for an excuse to combust, a release of bottled potential, this in turn implies this has to be an energy producing reaction rather than one where the reagents need to be coerced into reacting by providing external energy