Yes, there isn't a molecular difference between the iron found in sand vs the iron found in rock ore. However, the medium in which you harvest your iron and how you're able to heat that iron, dictates the quality not your final product.

[–] Egg_Egg@lemm.ee -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The truth is that the steel made from Iron Sand was not lower quality than the Steel made from other sources of Iron.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's not true, no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim.

[–] Egg_Egg@lemm.ee -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Holy shit you're wrong, now with references

https://gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

My dude, nothing in that blog supports your claim.

First of all, it's talking about the metallurgy of the 16th century and after, which is after Japan had imported blast furnaces. Secondly, it ignores the amount of labour needed to actually produce refined steel from iron sands, which ultimately dictates the quality of the finished product.

This isnt a debatable topic, any steel made from iron sands before modern electromagnetic sorting contains a large amount of impurities when compared to steel made from rock ore.

Even during WW2 the Japanese had a hard time producing high quality steel even with the use of blast furnaces, because the iron sands contains a large amount of titanium.

This blog which falls over itself trying to engage in revisionist history, can only claim that the quality was "perfectly fine"....not good.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

You've proven yourself wrong.

Mochi Tetsu is mentioned in that article as being a source that produces higher quality products than iron sand. Exactly what you're arguing against.

The facts are that due to the limited availability of good quality iron ore the steel produced in Japan often used iron sand and that led to lower quality products.