4 ms·

Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT, or even a battery for that matter. It contains basically zero releasable energy. It needs oxygen

Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT, or even a battery for that matter. It contains basically zero releasable energy. It needs oxygen or another oxidizer to react with to actually release any energy. TNT and batteries' energy density calculations include the oxidizer and the oxidizer is in close proximity to the fuel (molecularly so in the case of TNT). If you 10x the "energy content" of gasoline it's still rate limited by access to oxygen. If you 10x the energy density of a battery (the type with the oxidizer contained within the battery, not a fuel cell or metal air battery) you've got 10x the energy ready to be released quickly if oxidizer and fuel mix in unfortunate ways

lightedman 2mo ago
"Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT," Energy density of gasoline is approximately 44 to 45 megajoules per kilogram. Energy density of TNT is approximately 4.184 megajoules per kilogram.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- vitally3643 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - lightedman 2mo ago
    I read it all and even what is stated is mostly wrong UNTIL THE EXACT UNIT IS SPECIFIED. And I'd know because I have to work with this IN ORBIT. I've had this conversation a dozen times in meetings with military and government.
- K0balt 2mo ago
  A snickers bar has nearly 5× TNT’s energy per kilogram—TNT merely has the habit of being extremely impatient about releasing it.
  - moffkalast 2mo ago
    I'm still surprised we haven't figured out a bioreactor you can feed your scrap food and turn it into energy, methane combustion notwithstanding. Like imagine feeding a roomba some sugar and it's set for a few days lol.
    - mathgeek 2mo ago
      You could probably even power a time machine without needing plutonium.
    - imp0cat 2mo ago
      But only if said Roomba is unable to find enough sugar on the ground for a few days. Otherwise, it's completely self-sufficient, you just have to leave enough crumbs on the floor.
    - K0balt 2mo ago
      Lots of experiments along those lines, actually.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- leonidasrup 2mo ago
  Gasoline, when in liquid form, is not mixed with oxygen and burns, releases energy slowly. In comparison with TNT which is both the fuel and oxidizing agent releases energy very fast, it has detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_velocities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_... There is a way how to use the energy density of gasoline for explosive purposes, Thermobaric weapons. "A fuel–air explosive (FAE) device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud and creates a massive blast wave." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
csours 2mo ago
It's an interesting discussion, because if you assume access to atmospheric oxygen, gasoline is MUCH more energy dense. TNT.....: 4 kJ/gram and 7 MJ/liter Gasoline: 43 kJ/gram and 33 MJ/liter
- ranger_danger 2mo ago
  That's a huge assumption that won't always be the case though. A gasoline tank with a small hole in it is a lot safer than a liquid-electrolyte battery with a hole in it.
  - csours 2mo ago
    Yes, that's what makes it interesting. Interesting discussions about energetics are best had from a distance.
    - K0balt 2mo ago
      I can remember several situations where “a little bit of gasoline” caused a lot of problems. It’s a relative term. You need a lot of air to make it really shine, but “a little bit of gas” goes a long way lol.
- saltcured 2mo ago
  The previous point is fair though. What is the energy density of gasoline in a stoichiometric mixture with its oxidizer and not already detonated? That's where TNT beats it by a long shot. The mixture with any chance of being stored would be some relatively low pressure gas. Edit: Or, a fair closed-system comparison to a battery would need to include a liquid oxygen tank or similar so you have the two components stored but can control the delivery...
  - ux266478 2mo ago
    In the context of the conversation, it doesn't actually refute the point though, which is that explosive danger is contingent on a much broader set of relations than simple energy density. Gasoline just demonstrates the disconnect. Tacking on additional conditions to make high-density batteries dangerous is exactly what the engineering goal should be. As a stupid example, if we have a high density battery technology that never explodes unless, say, under magnetic forces only seen being produced by magnetars, that's a pretty safe battery.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 2mo ago
Energy capacity vs. energy release rate, or energy vs. power, tends to follow an inverse relationship, at least within similar domains. The fuels which afford the highest rates of storage tend to release it more slowly. Chemical explosives typically have about 1/10 the energy storage capacity (by mass) of fuels, as several people have pointed out. Similar relationships exist for other forms of energy storage. For electricity, fuel cells, chemical cells ("batteries"), flywheel / reaction storage, and capacitors tend to offer a trade-off between total storage capacity and reaction time. Capacitors can react at intra-phase rates (that is, within a single 60Hz power cycle), whilst batteries and flywheels can take longer to come online. See for example: "Battery Parameters" <https://www.monolithicpower.com/en/learning/mpscholar/battery-management-systems/introduction-to-battery-technology/battery-parameters https://www.monolithicpower.com/en/learning/mpscholar/batter...>.

lightedman 2mo ago

"Liquid gasoline does not have anywhere near the energy of TNT," Energy density of gasoline is approximately 44 to 45 megajoules per kilogram. Energy density of TNT is approximately 4.184 megajoules per kilogram.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
vitally3643 2mo ago
[flagged]
- lightedman 2mo ago
  I read it all and even what is stated is mostly wrong UNTIL THE EXACT UNIT IS SPECIFIED. And I'd know because I have to work with this IN ORBIT. I've had this conversation a dozen times in meetings with military and government.
K0balt 2mo ago
A snickers bar has nearly 5× TNT’s energy per kilogram—TNT merely has the habit of being extremely impatient about releasing it.
- moffkalast 2mo ago
  I'm still surprised we haven't figured out a bioreactor you can feed your scrap food and turn it into energy, methane combustion notwithstanding. Like imagine feeding a roomba some sugar and it's set for a few days lol.
  - mathgeek 2mo ago
    You could probably even power a time machine without needing plutonium.
  - imp0cat 2mo ago
    But only if said Roomba is unable to find enough sugar on the ground for a few days. Otherwise, it's completely self-sufficient, you just have to leave enough crumbs on the floor.
  - K0balt 2mo ago
    Lots of experiments along those lines, actually.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
leonidasrup 2mo ago
Gasoline, when in liquid form, is not mixed with oxygen and burns, releases energy slowly. In comparison with TNT which is both the fuel and oxidizing agent releases energy very fast, it has detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_velocities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_... There is a way how to use the energy density of gasoline for explosive purposes, Thermobaric weapons. "A fuel–air explosive (FAE) device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud and creates a massive blast wave." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

csours 2mo ago

It's an interesting discussion, because if you assume access to atmospheric oxygen, gasoline is MUCH more energy dense. TNT.....: 4 kJ/gram and 7 MJ/liter Gasoline: 43 kJ/gram and 33 MJ/liter

ranger_danger 2mo ago
That's a huge assumption that won't always be the case though. A gasoline tank with a small hole in it is a lot safer than a liquid-electrolyte battery with a hole in it.
- csours 2mo ago
  Yes, that's what makes it interesting. Interesting discussions about energetics are best had from a distance.
  - K0balt 2mo ago
    I can remember several situations where “a little bit of gasoline” caused a lot of problems. It’s a relative term. You need a lot of air to make it really shine, but “a little bit of gas” goes a long way lol.
saltcured 2mo ago
The previous point is fair though. What is the energy density of gasoline in a stoichiometric mixture with its oxidizer and not already detonated? That's where TNT beats it by a long shot. The mixture with any chance of being stored would be some relatively low pressure gas. Edit: Or, a fair closed-system comparison to a battery would need to include a liquid oxygen tank or similar so you have the two components stored but can control the delivery...
- ux266478 2mo ago
  In the context of the conversation, it doesn't actually refute the point though, which is that explosive danger is contingent on a much broader set of relations than simple energy density. Gasoline just demonstrates the disconnect. Tacking on additional conditions to make high-density batteries dangerous is exactly what the engineering goal should be. As a stupid example, if we have a high density battery technology that never explodes unless, say, under magnetic forces only seen being produced by magnetars, that's a pretty safe battery.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 2mo ago

Energy capacity vs. energy release rate, or energy vs. power, tends to follow an inverse relationship, at least within similar domains. The fuels which afford the highest rates of storage tend to release it more slowly. Chemical explosives typically have about 1/10 the energy storage capacity (by mass) of fuels, as several people have pointed out. Similar relationships exist for other forms of energy storage. For electricity, fuel cells, chemical cells ("batteries"), flywheel / reaction storage, and capacitors tend to offer a trade-off between total storage capacity and reaction time. Capacitors can react at intra-phase rates (that is, within a single 60Hz power cycle), whilst batteries and flywheels can take longer to come online. See for example: "Battery Parameters" <https://www.monolithicpower.com/en/learning/mpscholar/battery-management-systems/introduction-to-battery-technology/battery-parameters https://www.monolithicpower.com/en/learning/mpscholar/batter...>.