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

▲ saltcured 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 27 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	SV_BubbleTime 10 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Air is usually quite available though.

▲ ranger_danger 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that's what makes it interesting.

Interesting discussions about energetics are best had from a distance.

	▲	K0balt 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.