I understand that forming a bond between $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ is an exothermic process, with negative enthalpy, but won't there be energy required to get $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ close enough together for the bond to form? So we would get an energy hill with activation energy on one side and heat of formation on the other side.
Is it ever possible in a chemical reaction to have more energy required to get the reactants $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ close enough together than the energy released in forming the bond? In terms of atoms I am thinking that the repulsion between two atoms may reach a peak at some distance greater than the bond length, so we might get an energy hill diagram where:
What about a situation like breaking and forming bonds on elemental crystals like graphite and diamond? If graphite pieces $\ce{(A)}$ are sloughed off of a large piece of graphite $\ce{(B)}$ this obviously requires energy to break the bonds, but the graphite flakes don't spontaneously re-bond to the large piece upon light contact.
Likewise, a fractured diamond does not re-bond on contact. Also, in formation of a diamond, why is there a need for a continual input of heat? If the energy of formation is greater than the energy needed to activate the reaction, then wouldn't the released heat of formation cause other diamond bonds to form without more input of energy. This indicates to me that some energy is required to begin the process of combining $\ce{A + B}$ to form $\ce{AB}$, even if the actual bond formation is exothermic - that there is a two sided energy hill in reactions of $\ce{A + B -> AB}$, though the activation portion may be smaller than the formation portion.What about an analogous $\ce{A + B -> AB}$ nuclear fusion reaction with heavy species above iron? Clearly in this case there is a large input of energy needed to fuse elements above iron, and a small release as the nucleons reach a distance that allows the strong nuclear force to dominate. In this case the energy hill has a greater required activation energy than an energy of formation. How is this fundamentally different from chemical bonds?
I understand that a critical component is that nuclear attraction becomes stronger than electrostatic repulsion at a critical distance, but might there be some instances of chemical reactions where $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ have to pass through a less stable conformation to get to the more stable bonded state?
So there are three possible answers:
$\ce{A + B -> AB}$ reactions can be described energetically solely by the heat of formation of the bonds between $\ce{AB}$.
$\ce{A + B -> AB}$ can be energetically described by an energy hill, but the heat of formation will always exceed the activation energy, or the energy required to move $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ through any intermediate states that are less stable than $\ce{A + B}$ (far apart).
$\ce{A + B -> AB}$ can sometimes be exothermic where the energy required to move $\ce{A}$ and $\ce{B}$ into an arrangement that will allow bonding can exceed the heat of formation of the bond between them.
