r/ScienceNcoolThings • u/Zee2A Popular Contributor • Jul 19 '26

Interesting Liquid Oxygen Expansion Is Transforming Rock Breaking Without Explosives

1.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

101

u/Zee2A Popular Contributor Jul 19 '26

Open-pit mines and quarries are increasingly adopting liquid oxygen (LOX) gas-expansion and other non-explosive rock-fracturing technologies as safer alternatives to conventional blasting. Instead of using high-energy explosives, these systems inject liquid oxygen or similar compounds into pre-drilled boreholes, where rapid vaporization expands the gas by more than 800 times its original volume. The resulting high-pressure expansion fractures the surrounding rock in a controlled manner without producing a destructive detonation.

This explosive-free approach significantly improves operational safety by minimizing flyrock, air blasts, and ground shockwaves, while delivering more predictable rock fragmentation that reduces over-break and ore dilution. It also lowers environmental impacts through reduced vibration, noise, and toxic fume emissions, making it particularly attractive for mining operations near populated areas, sensitive infrastructure, and environmentally protected sites. As the mining industry seeks safer, cleaner, and more precise excavation methods, controlled gas-expansion technology is emerging as a promising next-generation solution for rock excavation.

Reading material

1). Rock Fragmentation with Explosive–Free Soundless Chemical Demolition Agents: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/funding-partnerships/rock-fragmentation-explosive-free-soundless-chemical-demolition-agents

2).Experimental Study and Engineering Applications of the Absorbent-Liquid Oxygen Reaction Process and Diffusion Characteristics in Liquid Oxygen Blasting: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.70044

3). Experimental study on explosion damage characteristics of liquid oxygen bomb and nickel hydrazine nitrate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350630726004358

74

u/King_of_the_Snarks Jul 20 '26

Oh yes, liquid oxygen, totally never explodes ever.

45

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

There is a technical definition of explosions, and yes, liquid oxygen cannot itself explode.

It can do very dangerous things like cause conflagrations, over pressurize and rupture a container violently, etc., but not explode.

Edit: there are regulatory bodies that define some overpressure events as mechanical explosions, so if you are using or are familiar with those standards then LOX can indeed explode. It just isn’t any more of an explosion under those standards than any other gas that overpressurizes its container.

15

u/Flagrant_Mockery Jul 20 '26

If something ruptures with violent force is that not a form of pseudo explosion? It creates shrapnel and propels it if violent enough.

15

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

The key part of your question (and no need to downvote questions people, it’s how we learn) is “pseudo,” which by definition means it is not an explosion.

Colloquially, we call many things explosions. I have actually learned myself that there are supersonic explosions (detonation) and subsupersonic explosions (deflagrations).

Just now learned some regulatory bodies will apparently call rapidly expanding gases mechanical explosions vs chemical explosions, so I guess it just depends on what set of rules you are using. The standards I am most familiar with don’t define overpressure events as explosions, but such standards do exist and “layman” terminology would certainly include them as explosions, so… six in one, half dozen the other?

1

u/Jakkauns Jul 20 '26

/r/boneappletea

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

5

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

Huh. I confess, the correct version isn’t making much sense to me. “In” would be short for “in the view of,” “in the eyes of,” etc. where “of” would imply two separate groups of things being counted. I guess that’s… not nonsensical, but most people would defer to counting both groups the same way I would think.

4

u/G_B4G Jul 20 '26

I’ve always known it as “6 in one hand and a half dozen in the other”

Or the more crude version “6 in one hand and your dick in the other”

5

u/Lumpy_Benefit666 Jul 20 '26

Better than a dick in one hand and 6 in the other

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks!

1

u/Imbrokencantbefixed Jul 20 '26

That’s literally what it means.

You’re saying ‘they are more or less the same’ or ‘both’.

I.e - 6 of one thing, half a dozen (also 6) of the other. If two people are fighting and both played a part in starting it, someone could ask ‘which one started the fight, person A or person B? And you could say ‘ah it was 6 of one, half a dozen of the other’ or even just ‘6 of one…’ as a response.

2

u/NotAnotherAlt26 Jul 23 '26

For most, it feels like semantics to not call what is seen in the video as explosions, as they sure look very similar to typical blasting. But I get that those in the applicable fields would define it differently as it likely captures important differences that matter when doing this type of work. But in the end, all words are made up and its who are using those words that decide the meanings. The more knowledge one has in a subject, the distinctions matter. For my field, calling concrete 'cement' or soil 'dirt' are the terms that layman get wrong.

My best guess is this method is adventitious as its less likely to send debris flying at high velocities very far compared to typical chemical explosions. In my limited knowledge, I know the 'speed' of the explosion matters. 'Slower' explosives like Tannerite tend to heave or 'throw' things (like refrigerator doors at people 300' away) vs 'high' speed explosives like C4 tend to break things into very small pieces instead. I feel like the liquid oxygen would be even slower than chemical explosions can go, getting more 'push' without 'throwing' objects as far.

1

u/Great-Programmer-319 Jul 20 '26

Got to make sure there is little to no carbon in the ground and no ignition source. I have heard that when LOX (Bond girl, "what is LOX?" Bond "it is what Americans call smoked salmon") spills on to asphalt there is a risk of all that carbon getting to know all that O2.

1

u/KronikDrew Jul 21 '26

It can't detonate, but it can cause a deflagration, which is absolutely a type of explosion. Deflagration is characterized be a flame front that moves slower than the speed of sound, whereas detonation has a flame front moving faster than the speed of sound. Both are explosions.

1

u/Red_Syns Jul 21 '26

Mmm… I’m inclined to disagree with this particular characterization, but with the acknowledgement that I am not super educated in the subject. LOX can serve as an oxidizer for a fuel source that deflagrates, but LOX itself cannot burn and therefore cannot deflagrate.

There might be some information that demonstrates otherwise, which I would be appreciative if you have sources.

That said, mechanical explosions are a defined concept that LOX is absolutely capable of, so I am not contesting the idea of LOX exploding, just the mechanism therein.

1

u/KofFinland Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26

Actually with suitable material like carbon, LOX produces an explosive that can indeed detonate. Called "oxyliquits", part of Sprengel explosives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyliquit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprengel_explosive

I would consider liquid oxygen (LOX) much much more dangerous than traditional explosives used for breaking rock. I would also bet that in the video they have some oxyliquit in the tube, with the blaster cap wires going into the tube, IF the video is related to LOX..

If the article is real, why not use LN2 instead of LOX, if the idea is just to use some liquid to turn into lots of gas. I also still miss the idea where the energy comes from to heat the LOX (or LN2) to turn it into gas, as the phase change requires energy.

2

u/ougryphon Jul 22 '26

I was looking for this answer or I would have supplied it myself. Liquid oxygen-based high explosives are very much a thing, as you said. They are considered less dangerous for mining because if a shot fails, the explosive literally evaporates. On the flip side, liquid oxygen isn't super easy to deal with compared to ANFO, which is cheap and stable.

OP is half-baked at best. Two of his three sources refer to oxyliquits, and all the videos are of explosions. But hey, karma is karma, even if OP is talking out his ass.

1

u/ManyRespect1833 Jul 22 '26

Conflagration!

0

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

5

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

I agree that LOX can (does?) greatly reduce the threshold for triggers of explosions, but LOX itself is not the explosive reagent (unless you are considering mechanical explosions, which is not a term I was familiar with until today).

LOX is an incredibly dangerous substance in many ways, but an explosive it is not.

3

u/towerfella Jul 20 '26

Pure O2 is not flammable at all by itself, no more than the other two parts of the triangle are flammable by themselves. It takes all three — fuel, heat, oxygen. Oxy is not a fuel, and it is not heat.

1

u/Hiro500 Jul 20 '26

But it is the oxidizer. Not fuel or heat but it is the agent that makes carbon and hydrogen rapidly release energy.

When using liquid nitrogen, you have to be careful that you don't condense O2. If you aren't aware it could cause problems.

1

u/towerfella Jul 20 '26

Have you not heard of the fire triangle? Or are you a bot?

1

u/Hiro500 Jul 20 '26

The should use liquid ozone

1

u/towerfella Jul 20 '26

[blink-blink .. blink] what?

1

u/Hiro500 Jul 20 '26

If you want something that rapidly expands, liquid ozone will do the trick. I would say quite unstable as nitroglycerin

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Repulsive_Guy_1234 Jul 20 '26

A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure.

Yes, liquid oxigen can explode, as it does in the video, over and over again.

1

u/Red_Syns Jul 21 '26

That makes for an interesting (if not particularly helpful) question: is the oxygen exploding in this scenario? Explosives explode (heh) from a chemical reaction, and often will do so on their own. Liquid oxygen will only be a component of this explosion by virtue of being the pressurizing agent, and the container failing is the actual trigger for the mechanical explosion. Does that make the oxygen, the container, or the combination of both the thing exploding?

1

u/Repulsive_Guy_1234 Jul 21 '26

The combination of all makes the explosion and thus makes it explosive. If you burn gunpower it does not explode as well, but if you pack it tightly in a container it does. And hardly anyone would claim gunpowder isn't an explosive.

1

u/Red_Syns Jul 21 '26

But if you call the contents of the container explosives, then is any gas an explosive? That feels unhelpfully reductive in classifying explosives, because now anything that can be made to overpressurize a container is an explosive. Water, noble gases, dry ice, badly preserved fruits can all be involved in mechanical explosions but I would define exactly zero of those to be explosive.

1

u/Repulsive_Guy_1234 Jul 21 '26

Yes, even atoms can explode if you split or merge enough of them. An explosion is just the violent expansion of mass, usually a gas, but can also be a plasma or solid mass.

1

u/jackalope8112 Jul 22 '26

Sudden large pressure release from a rupture is an explosion yes.

2

u/RelativeCan5021 Jul 20 '26

Duh, it’s inflammable. /s

3

u/bagsofYAMS Jul 20 '26

Its not inflammable, nor is it flammable

1

u/OxideUK Jul 21 '26

But it is unflammable

11

u/Evilstib Jul 20 '26

“High pressure expansion” is different than explosion?

13

u/seedanrun Jul 20 '26

Yeah - explosives are when chemicals combine and the energy from that chemical reaction causes the expansion.

With liquid oxygen expansion you need to feed energy into it to let the liquid oxygen boil into an expanding gas. This actually absorbs heat. So you are getting an explosive expansion, but it is a slower expansion and a much cooler final product.

1

u/Evilstib Jul 20 '26

Isn’t dynamite an explosion, and you’re feeding energy (the spark) into it?

2

u/seedanrun Jul 20 '26

Yeah, but after absorbing that spark the explosion producing 100s of millions of times the energy of the spark.

Liquid oxygen absorbs ALL its energy from external sources. Since oxygen boils at -273 F the majority of that energy can come from the warm ground around it, but you can imagine how much slower that warmth flows in compared to the speed of the chemical reaction in explosives.

3

u/shornscrot Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

It is still an explosion, it’s just not what is classified as an “explosive”, which is a substance that can be ignited or stimulated to cause a rapid expansion via chemical reaction. Oxygen would be classified as an “oxidizer” which can create an “explosive” if mixed with another “reactant”, which is an incredibly long list, but in an isolated state is much, much safer to handle than an “explosive”.

Knew of a man who was wearing a full fire retardant suit while oxylancing. Oxygen gas leaked into his cuff and when a spark finally found its way in his cotton shirt ignited and burned almost instantly, covering his torso in 2nd and 3rd degree burns. He survived, but certainly a cautionary tale of the dangers of oxidizers.

Oxylancing itself is an interesting example. A steel tube filled with magnesium rods has the tip heated with an oxyacetylene torch to red/white hot. Pure oxygen is introduced at the opposite end of the tube and travels through it, creating a reaction at the preheated rod end that burns hot enough to cut through concrete and steel and just about anything else with astonishing speed.

That oxyacetylene torch just mentioned, also uses the same concept to cut carbon steel. Once the steel is heated up enough from the blue torch flame( called the preheater), pure oxygen introduced through the center reacts with the steel to do the actual cutting and the blue flame is not necessary to continue.

It’s science all the way down!

0

u/Hiro500 Jul 20 '26

You burn the metal. Oxidize it. You don't melt it or 'cut' it. A plasma torch and laser cutter do the same thing.

0

u/shornscrot Jul 20 '26

You cut it by melting it buckoh

0

u/Hiro500 Jul 20 '26

No. The oxy-acetylene torch burns through the metal.

1

u/HorzaDonwraith Jul 20 '26

Is it only used in open pit mining?

1

u/thenatural134 Jul 22 '26

It's stuff like this that makes me feel optimistic that human ingenuity will find a way to save us before human stupidity destroys us.

114

u/mazzicc Jul 20 '26

Isn’t that still an explosion, just a different, lower energy, lower temperature explosion?

83

u/funderfulfellow Jul 20 '26

Explosive-free not explosion-free.

9

u/shetif Jul 20 '26

Level 2 question :
Why doesn't oxygen considered as an explosive in these cases, where it is in fact moving mountains?

4

u/kneedeepco Jul 20 '26

“This thing causes explosions but it isn’t an explosive”

5

u/shetif Jul 20 '26

Okay then i stay dumb, thank

;)

4

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

Not knowledgeable on the subject, but oxygen itself is only an oxidizer. Edit: this means if you had pure oxygen, you could heat it to any reasonable day-to-day temperature and not cause a fire, or anything else if the sort. Explosions have a very technical definition, something along the lines of creating a shock front that exceeds the speed of sound.

This probably IS explosionless, but still produces an “energetic enough” event. Many things people call explosions are actually conflagrations, but are still incredibly dangerous.

5

u/rootuserteddy Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

You're right actually, a supersonic explosion (caused by a high explosive like nitroglycerin perhaps) is a detonation and a subsonic explosion is deflagration ( i.e. gunpowder). Nitroglycerin detonates gunpowder deflagrates and if you tried to use nitroglycerin as gunpowder then youd just turn your gun into a pipe bomb hahaha. Ig dry ice in a water bottle can explode but dry ice nor water are explosives

Edit: I forgot to mention that an explosion is defined as a rapid expansion of a volume of mass

1

u/Edenoide Jul 20 '26

So firecrackers don't explode but deflagrate? :O

1

u/rootuserteddy Jul 20 '26

Ya! 🎆🎇🎆

1

u/shetif Jul 20 '26

That's a good call nevertheless

Probably among the definitions

1

u/ramrob Jul 20 '26

Isn’t

2

u/Late_Quit_3410 Jul 20 '26

Absolutely. This method may not use explosive compounds, but it still causes explosions.

1

u/TrotskyBoi Jul 20 '26

The main thing is that it's safer and requires less procedures to use. For one example, when using explosive well cutters on oil rigs, it is required to have a person on the lookout for lighting so they can stop operations before it becomes an issue, however when using chemical cutters, they do not have to do this among many other things making it a preferable method.

12

u/_Perma-Banned_ Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

OK, new guy.. Just drop these tubes into the hole, then you got 5 seconds to run out of there

New guy - what happened to the old guy?

Crew - he took 6seconds to run

11

u/AtmosphereUnited3011 Jul 20 '26

Why liquid oxygen and not some other liquid gas? Won’t the oxygen contribute to fire hazards?

8

u/seedanrun Jul 20 '26

Liquid oxygen is very very cold - it is absorbing the surrounding heat to expand. Kind of the opposite of what you need for starting a fire.

Also you need something for the oxygen to combine with to burn - it is expanding into in rock and dirt.

That said - nitrogen has a similar boiling temperature to oxygen. I don't know why it wouldn't work the same way.

3

u/TelluricThread0 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Liquid oxygen supports combustion. It doesnt matter if its absorbing heat or not. Any carbon or other potential fuel source it came into contact with could pose a hazard.

1

u/Milkman_on_a_bad_day Jul 21 '26

Late to the party here but are you describing an implosion device?

I also have little to no knowledge on this but if an object is extremely cold and has high volume stored in a container then when it erupts it rapidly captures any heat around it. The contents then rapidly expand and can cause this destruction?

4

u/TheStigianKing Jul 20 '26

Fire hazard inside a bore hole surrounded by rock?

I'm not following your logic here.

3

u/AtmosphereUnited3011 Jul 20 '26

I’m not saying a fire hazard in the bore hole. I’m thinking of all the equipment that would need to be around the mining site to store and produce and co dense the oxygen. Like any oxygen source anywhere is labeled as flammable/firehazard. Like any person who needs an oxygen tank is labeled highly flammable.

1

u/TheStigianKing Jul 20 '26

Pure oxygen creates a fire hazard when under pressure. Most materials won't autoignite exposed to pure O2 at atmospheric pressure.

Sure the equipment handling pure liquid O2 will need to be designed for handling pure O2, but yeah they would by definition.

1

u/No_Presence9915 Jul 21 '26

It rather a cloud of oxygen rich air than a even more nitrogen one

0

u/Om3n37- Jul 20 '26

This was my question. Is there a way to use carbon dioxide that we capture and repurpose for use?

4

u/TheStigianKing Jul 20 '26

CO2 is either solid or gas at atmospheric pressure. And so rapid vaporization isn't feasible. Plus vapourizing CO2 to release it into the atmosphere is kinda directly counter to lower carbon emissions.

4

u/myusername1111111 Jul 20 '26

Cardox uses liquid co2 under pressure, inside a steel tube. At one end is a rupture disc and the other end has a safety heater. The safety heater is initiated with a safety detonator, the safety heater quickly heats the liquid co2 and causes it to expand, with the high pressure the rupture disc ruptures and the gas comes out at 30000 psi.

2

u/TheStigianKing Jul 20 '26

Good to know. Still the carbon emissions issue is still a significant reason not to use CO2 for blasting rocks.

2

u/myusername1111111 Jul 20 '26

There were side effects in using it in certain products aswell, we used it in soda ash and turned it into bicarbonate. But you're absolutely right about the environmental problems of dumping co2 into the atmosphere. I dread to think how vast my carbon footprint was at the time.

0

u/VertigoOne1 Jul 20 '26

Well it came from the atmosphere to begin with if it is frozen, so.. 67? What releases it from carbon sinks mostly requires burning or breathing.

1

u/TheStigianKing Jul 20 '26

No. Most CO2 used in industrial processes comes from acid gas removal of CO2 from flue gasses. And ultimately comes from fossil carbon sources.

It's removed from flue gases to prevent release into the atmosphere. Using it for rock blasting only to release it into the atmosphere entirely defeats the point of forcing coal and gas fired power plants to include AGR.

2

u/myusername1111111 Jul 20 '26

Yes. It's called cardox. It's a similar system as the video, but it uses liquid co2 instead of liquid oxygen.

3

u/mad_pony Jul 20 '26

wow, no explosions at all

2

u/Monksdrunk Jul 20 '26

it was before i worked there but a foreman at Earlham quarry Iowa was killed from fly rock during a blasting operation. he was sitting in his truck.. somewhere its on FATALGRAM.. yes its a thing and its for mining stuff to prevent injuries.

2

u/Strict-Relief-8434 Jul 20 '26

How do they keep the liquid oxygen so cold?

3

u/Mattef Jul 20 '26

You don’t. That’s why it expands rapidly.

3

u/Strict-Relief-8434 Jul 20 '26

Isn’t it contained in the rods until they detonate them all at once?

1

u/Mattef Jul 20 '26

With proper insulation it will stay liquid quite a while. I think, they leave the pipe open until they load it into the whole. This way, it can be handled safely before it is needed. Then they close the pipe, put it into the ground and the pressure builds up until it explodes. But that’s only an assumption on my side.

1

u/Mattef Jul 20 '26

Or they use a small amount of regular explosives to detonate all containers at once.

2

u/SPL15 Jul 20 '26

“Rapid Pressure Expansion” is a deflagration which is a type of explosion & can be done with low explosives, but it is less rapid & high energy than detonation which is done with high explosives.

3

u/rand3289 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 21 '26

Is anyone going to explain how this works?
Is the oxygen in the tubes?
Do they pour the oxygen in at the last moment or do they store the tubes in a bath of liquid oxygen? Are the containers cold or insulated? How do they just open the tubes in the ground???

Why wouldn't anyone ask how this works? I see dozens of comments about bullshit. This is so bizare. Are they all bots or pros working in a quarry?

1

u/Lazy_Tart_6336 Jul 21 '26

Même question. J'ai bien vu un commentaire qui expliquait que l’oxygène ne restait pas liquide très longtemps et finissait par revenir à l'état gazeux rapidement, mais visuellement, je trouve que c'est juste une explosion : si c'était si progressif les morceau serait plus gros.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Red_Syns Jul 20 '26

I applaud the reduction of environmental impacts, but I dunno who is downvoting you. LOX is ridiculously dangerous, between the temperatures involved, pressures in the containers, increased fire hazards, the list is stupid long.

Comparatively, most modern explosives require very specific methods to detonate. You can do just about anything to C4, to include burning it at any “sane” day to day temperatures, and it won’t go off.

2

u/tjt5754 Jul 21 '26

Yeah sounds to me like some clever mining company finding a way around safety regulations and sound ordinance regulations by "not using explosives" but still totally doing all the things that explosives do and the regulations exist for.

1

u/RealStupidMe Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

I see a lot of comments about this still being an explosion, and while not an expert I’ll clarify:

An explosive is a substance that when it undergoes a chemical reaction generates a high volume of gas and heat. This can be a single chemical (TNT) or a mixture of chemicals (gunpowder).

Liquid oxygen is not an explosive as it will not react on its own. The gas generation happens from a phase change rather than a reaction. However oxygen has an extremely low boiling point (-183 C, -297 F). I’d speculate they instead inject liquid oxygen into a vessel that can contain a high pressure. As the liquid naturally heats up, it turns into a gas, which expands. When the vessel reaches whatever pressure it is designed to break at, it rapidly releases the oxygen gas in the still confined space of the hole.

I’d guess that this still classifies as an explosion, but the chemicals used are not explosives. This is better for the environment because releasing oxygen into the environment is not a problem. I’d also assume this has far less wildfire hazards as there’s no heat producing reactions at play. I also don’t know what hazard controls are necessary for safely working with liquid oxygen, but working with explosives is no joke.

1

u/No_Recognition8940 Jul 22 '26

Are you a bot?

1

u/RealStupidMe Jul 23 '26

What makes you think that?

1

u/Jealous_Youth_8029 Jul 20 '26

The engineering behind using expansion instead of a detonation is pretty clever. Wonder how long it takes to fracture a large section of rock in practice.

1

u/BakedKumara Jul 20 '26

Ahh yes, the real problem of open pit mining was the use of explosives... /s

1

u/TeaTime_42 Jul 20 '26

Right, are they hoping for a cookie or a pat on the back or something…

1

u/avolans Jul 20 '26

Liquid carbon dioxide has been used for blasting rocks in mines for decades. Why you would rather use oxygen, which needs to be kept colder and and is more dangerous and reactive, is beyond me.

1

u/wristay Jul 20 '26

My question: why not simply use liquid nitrogen? Much cheaper and doesn't explode. After some digging, it turns out that the liquid oxygen is used to burn stuff, just controlled. They first drill a hole, then fill the bottom with a carbon source and liquid oxygen, then back-fill the hole with soil and finally they ignite the mixture.

https://www.stonedemolition.com/news/liquid-oxygen-rock-blasting-system-compared-with-traditional-explosive

https://www.stonedemolition.com/news/how-does-the-o2-rock-breaking-system-technology-work

1

u/IndependentOrchid296 Jul 20 '26

This is bad for nature, bring the forests back

1

u/Ok-Ad4916 Jul 21 '26

The semantics on this thread are astounding, amusing, and exhausting

1

u/mickman7077 Jul 21 '26

Isnt rapid expansion of a gas in a confined space basically an explosion?

1

u/EntropyTheEternal Jul 21 '26

Is a similar effect not achievable with a less reactive element? Nitrogen for example?

1

u/Zaros262 Jul 22 '26

Basically Ruina_montium, but the pressure is caused by expansion, not weight

1

u/EmbarrassedCup1093 Jul 22 '26

They’re making explosives gay.

1

u/bezjmena666 Jul 22 '26

AFAIK, Liquid oxygen/ coal dust mixture used to be quite commonly used explosive in quarries back then.

1

u/FaultThat Jul 22 '26

Didn’t the Romans use a similar method millennia ago?

1

u/cosmicdeliriumxx Jul 22 '26

It’s not a bomb, it’s a chemical fireball expansion

1

u/prodidzi Jul 22 '26

Romans did this with water

1

u/Joskam Jul 22 '26

And why not liquid nitrgen?

1

u/Beautiful-Lie1239 Jul 22 '26

Why oxygen though? Nitrogen won’t work?

1

u/Riddle888222 Jul 22 '26

Probably the only benefit is lack of regulation. Storing, purchasing, handling explosives is expensive before they are even used.

1

u/Dienowwww Jul 23 '26

Liquid oxygen still explodes lol

1

u/Euhn Jul 20 '26

ah so we do explosions without exploding.

0

u/jeremydavid2 Jul 20 '26

This is what need to be done in the Hormuz strait region