Talk:Ironsand

Temperature

Anyone got any figures about exactly how hot ironsand beaches can get? --Roguebfl (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

hazard

Iron sand can cause burns anywhere, not just in Piha! Obviously the sentence was written by a parochial New Zealander.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No it's just the result of deletionist, the only cite they could get for the hazard only talks about Piha, and with out the cite the deletionist would remove it. Find a site the talks about the hazard on multiple beaches and we can talk about it. --Roguebfl (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Biased

Originally, before my deletions, this article presented Japan to be the first and extensive/exclusive users of iron sand, with no mention of the Chinese, who predate the Japanese, literally on all forms of iron metallurgy. This is absolutely biased and deceiving to the reader. Removed immediately. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Spare us the hyperbole.

The content, which you have repeatedly deleted, said no such thing. It said that Japan had a long tradition of using ironsand, which indeed it does. It made no comment about Chinese use of it, or priority between the two (a topic which I consider to be utterly trivial). Your edits did nothing to mention China, to add WP:Verifiable content about China, or to do anything other than to remove some true content about Japan. As such, you were reverted.

If you want to add coverage about China, then do so, with sources. But do not remove sections just because you dislike them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read a lot about this topic but have seen very little evidence of the Chinese using iron sand for steel production. In the book, Still the Iron Age: Iron and Steel in the Modern World, Vaclav Smil says, "Unlike in Europe, where solid-state reduction of iron in bloomeries dominated the metal's production until the late medieval period, there is only sparse and inconclusive evidence of bloomery smelting in ancient China, but plentiful evidence of producing liquid iron for casting."

Although extensive iron-sand deposits exist in China along the south coast (in Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Fujian), the ancient Chinese used mostly iron ores with a high phosphorus content, extracted from hard-rock mining, which was ideal for producing pig-iron, as described by both Needham and Wagner. The bloomery process didn't really catch on in China until the 1800s, where it was used mostly by locals for tools and to supplement farming income, and the iron sand was mined by placer mining. Although iron sand is mined extensively in China today, most of the steel produced in ancient China was made from pig iron using the puddling process.

In contrast, what the ancient Chinese called "iron sand" (thieh sha) was actually powdered cast-iron. It was used to make "Chinese fire". By tossing the powder into a campfire, it would cause an eruption of bright, colored flames, smoke, and silvery sparks (as described by Needham). This was later replaced with magnesium and aluminum, which was even more brilliant. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly are you fellows getting your information from on this subject? This is rather amusing now. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody here seems to be an expert in this subject, please do not revert my edits. Slag has been found in nearly all places with iron sand deposits in China. Believe me, I know this as fact. Your sources are very weak. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So, post some sources.

As noted first, ironsand was used in Japan and that's what the article states (whether it was used in China or not). I've no objection to you adding sourced content supporting China's use of it, but that's not the same as the removal of the Japanese content, as you've been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I already listed three well-known experts on the subject. I will list more if you like, from Vagn Buchwald to Cyril Stanley Smith, to Shen Kua, and their books on the subject. What you don't seem to realize is that the iron industry was very secretive in ancient times. People didn't share their secrets methods, and what was known was either passed on through apprenticeship, stolen during espionage, or independently discovered along the way. The Chinese had an effective way of producing large quantities of steel, why would they want to bother with a process that made such small amounts? The Japanese didn't have that luxury. This is all very well documented by historians and archeologists around the world. Where does your information come from?

For example, the Hittite production of iron predated Chinese production by 600 years, yet the Hittites never used a blast-furnace to make pig-iron. They did, however, use ore for their bloomer process rather than sand. Nobody had all the answers, but people learned new stuff all the time. (It doesn't surprise me that the greatest advances in producing high-quality steel occurred on islands on opposite sides of Eurasia, about as far as you could get from the central point of origin.)

And Andy is right. The Japanese used iron sand, and still do, in the production of their swords, so the information about it definitely belongs here. If it's not balanced then add some. If you have sources that show the Chinese use predated theirs, them please add them (I would love to see them). Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone really believe I would bother contributing sources here? This place is a joke. You guys can't be serious. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we probably don't. But we're absolutely certain that until you do, you aren't changing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sticks and stones... If you're unable to back up your claims with evidence, then it's difficult to take them seriously. I've told you what I've read, but am always eager to learn more. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sticks and stones? How about you just cut the biased BS rather than draw up this entire pointless conversation? Pro tip: the Chinese really did master ironsand before the Japanese, I'm really not making this up. Perhaps this article actually is biased? Wow, who would have thought. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Prove it. That would be awesome if it is true. I've researched this most of my life, and just did a pretty thorough search of google books trying to prove you right. Alas, I can find nothing but the same results. Stick and stones is an old English saying, basically meaning that name-calling is not impressive. (It reflects more on you than anyone else.) It's the last resort when a person has nothing of substance to offer. Bias is a human quality, but Taoism teaches us that the universe is self-balancing, and any attempt to artificially create balance only imbalances it more. (See: Okrent's law.) Zaereth (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? All your life you say? I love how you suggest the Chinese merely took an iron ore with high purity and tossed it away in fire as some kind of amusement rather than smelt with it. Ironsand is very easy to smelt compared to other common iron ores. Do you really believe anyone, especially someone who mastered iron literally before anyone else on earth, would simply throw this high quality ore into the trash? What you're suggesting is absurd. Trust me, your grasp on history is absolutely pathetic, it's not even worth arguing with you. You wouldn't even know where to begin looking for proper information. This is truly hilarious now. You really believe you know this subject. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Lets just make a list of things you don't know, then we can start from there.

• You don't know where ironsand is found naturally in China
• You don't know how common these slag deposits are found among these sands
• Your knowledge of this subject also seems totally biased. I have a very strong feeling that most of your research is focused on Japan, and that you have neglected everything else. This is very common, even with contemporary historians.
• You don't know how to research this information
• You don't even know who actually does this research (I do)

I do feel your knowledge of this subject really is biased and limited. Please take a break.76.90.112.41 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the sad reality of the world we live in today, where high quality information is on the decline and popular opinion gives priority over truth. Truly the product of institutionalized learning. Bravo. 76.90.112.41 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, commenting on other editors rather than the topic at hand is the last resort for someone who has nothing to offer. It's a way of deflecting from the real issue. (ie: if you don't know then simply claim I don't know and hope no one sees through the smoke screen.) What I know is you don't know me, thus your comments do not bother me, they only reflect on you. Since I am not claiming to know, but only that I've read in sources, you are not talking about me but rather the multitude of experts in the field. (Psychologically speaking, the unfounded insults we throw at others unconsciously describe ourselves.)

Forgive me if I don't take your word for it, but as far as anyone can tell you are just some IP who could be anyone from a child to an expert yourself, who knows? That's why we don't take people's word. We require them to bring reliable sources. Any expert should have plenty of them. Your language suggests a dislike for the Japanese (or at least a preference for the Chinese) so do you think it's possible that you may have a personal bias that is clouding your judgment?

I would love to add information about this if it exists. I've asked you to help me find it. You must have gotten it from somewhere (that is, if you are not making it up) so I don't understand why you can't show your sources to us. I'm trying to help, and it would be great if you'd stop fighting and collaborate. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did some more checking, because this interests me and I wanted to find out more. Donald Wagner mentions nothing about the use of iron sand in his book, The Traditional Chinese Iron Industry and Its Modern Fate. Likewise, Needham makes no mention of it in his books, many of which are translations of the ancient Chinese historian Shen Kua. None of them mention iron sand (except Needham, but that was a different thing, as described above) nor the use of the bloomery process in China. Probably the foremost expert in pre-industrialized Chinese techniques is Felix Tegengren. His book, The Iron Ores and Iron Industry of China is mentioned at least once by every other source (including Needham and Wagner). Tegengren says that, although iron sand was sluice mined in Henan and Fujian and smelted using charcoal, the material was considered "economically unimportant" in China. It was only smelted by local farmers, because it required no special tools or techniques (even women and children were skilled in the craft), and used for making tools to sell --but only where there was enough fuel for the fires and cheaper steel could not readily be purchased. (Keep in mind that mining was considered a lowly profession in China, whereas farming was a "respectable" profession.)

It seems clear that the Chinese knew about bloomery smelting, yet for some reason chose not to use it. Cyril Smith attributes this to being in part due to tradition and in part due to the human tendency to become so focused on one particular technology that they do not rationally pursue others. This can be seen as iron-making technology spreads outward from Turkey. When people found a way that worked they invariably stuck to it. As it progressed outward, new people (usually with very limited information) try new things, and when they find one that works, the same things happens; they pursue that particular path and refine it as far as they can. The Chinese did this with pig iron (cast iron), which was right up their alley, because they were already masters at casting bronze. They developed amazing casting techniques, and were even able to cast extremely thin items like woks.

Smith argues that most advances in iron technology more likely was the result of simple curiosity rather than someone pursuing a specific goal. Keep in mind that the ancients knew nothing about metallurgy, and purity to them simply meant removing copper and slag. Iron sand is not necessarily very pure, but if it contains fairly pure quartz (silica) it helps remove many impurities during smelting. It still required substantial working with the use of fluxes to make it the quality of a Japanese sword. I hope that helps, because I think it would be worth adding something about it to the article. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I should probably mention that, while the Chinese interest in iron sand was low, Tegengren was very interested in mining it for industrial smelting. He notes that, although it was capable of producing iron and steel with superior quality, it was extremely labor-intensive and the ore-per-metal yield was extremely low using the ancient techniques. For 1000 pounds of sand smelted, only 60% at best (by weight) was left in the bloom. Much of the iron was bound in the slag and scale, so only 40% of the bloom was left after being wrought of which typically less than a third was steel. After working the steel to purify it, only about 10% remained to fashion tools out of. What it gained in quality it lacked in cost and quantity. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

High quality ore

Ironsand is actually the highest quality, natural iron ore. The only thing higher found on earth would be meteoric. Thus ironsand is the best ore for primitive smelting, or bloomery. I Hunger For The Jew (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There are too many factors involved to make such a broad, overall statement. Meteoric iron is not usually what I'd call high quality. It always contains well over 5% nickel, plus cohenite, troostite, and many other impurities, plus the presence of very course Widmanstatten structures. Like meteors, the quality of iron sand depends on many factors, such as where it came from and what other minerals constitute the sand. The types vary widely across the world. Consider that nearly all sand contains some amount of iron. This iron was the reason ancient glass was almost always tinted dark green. (Clear glass didn't exist until soda-lime glass.)

What are you talking about? Are you trying to be clever here? I literally don't care about the macronutrients of ore, "quality" is defined as amount of usable iron from within the mass of the ore. If this is not immediately obvious to you, then may god help you. 172.115.26.224 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The main constituent in the sand is usually silicon dioxide (silica, or quartz), and this is especially true of Chinese and Japanese sands, where the sand washes downriver from granite mountains. In some cases, the sand may consist of other minerals. For example, the iron sand found in Aberdeenshire Scotland, Long Island New York, New England, and the Great Lakes area consists mostly of feldspar, a type of volcanic rock, and often garnet. The "iron" portion of the sand are usually small grains of magnetite mixed in with the sand. This magnetite may contain other elements (impurities) in varying amounts, such as chromium, manganese, arsenic, or titanium. Lewis Caleb Beck notes that the constitution is "peculiar" and can vary wildly even in the same geographic region. In West Haven, Connecticut, the sand washes ashore from the surrounding chlorite slate, while around the Hudson River and Lake Champlain it contains much more feldspar and the magnetite beds from which they originate are a very long distance from the sand deposits.

In all cases, the sand usually needed to be separated, or the magnetite concentrated. In Asia, this usually meant "washing" the sand in sluices. Around 1913, the process of magnetic separation was invented. After washing, the grains were sintered together to form sponge iron (or what the Chinese called "lump iron"). The sponge iron then had to separated into iron and steel, and each wrought into a solid billet. This billet (initially full of slag, phosphorus, sulfur, and other impurities) then had to be worked extensively to purify it. The level of purity achievable depended on the initial sand constituents, the types of fluxes used, and how well they could protect the steel from decarburization.

In all cases, mining the magnetite beds directly would be the most effective way of gathering the ore, likely producing higher quality and much higher yields (although mountainous deposits were often unreachable), but the silica content in Asian sands acts as a natural flux during smelting. However, gathering the sand was more like panning for gold; it required little skill or specialized tooling, but, like gold-panning, the yield was low and the work load high.

In New Zealand they came up with a method of first sintering the sand into a bloom, and then putting the bloom through a blast furnace to make pig-iron, overcoming the problems of using raw iron-sand for that purpose. What makes this important is the yield was much, much higher and the process much easier, providing a means of using iron sand on an industrial scale. Zaereth (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this information and more. We've now covered the three main production areas, but there is probably room for others where production is low or nonexistent. I may continue to tinker with it from time to time, but I how the information and sources provided helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

Ok, so where does Ironsand actually come from? My guess would be from Magnetotactic bacteria. 172.115.26.224 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Given the location of ironsand found locally in my area, (mountains, and much further inland eastern CA deserts) and also given the lack of information on this subject, the possibility of these high concentrations of magnetite being deposited by bacteria does seem viable. Otherwise it would have to be produced by another uncommon scenario involving erosion which may also be interesting in itself. 75.82.214.248 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you heat iron or steel deep within the coals of a forge, devoid of oxygen, a layer of oxide called wustite forms on the surface. Wustite is highly unstable. As soon as it contacts air, the wustite turns into magnetite, which is metastable. The magnetite then turns into hematite, which is the stable form of iron oxide. This forms the three outer layers called slag, with the hematite being the thickest, outermost layer and wustite being the thinnest, innermost layer. Both hematite and magnetite have a higher melting point and a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than wustite, so it flakes off forming scale. The longer the iron is heated in the presence of oxygen, the more it transforms into slag and scale.

The same thing happens in the crust and mantle of the Earth. Most minerals such as quartz are rich in oxygen, but it is locked away and difficult but not impossible to get to. Thus, nearly all iron in the Earth's crust except telluric iron turns into one of these three oxides, with hematite being the most prevalent, magnetite much rarer, and wustite the rarest of all.

Beyond that, the ironsand forms like any other sand, from water and wind erosion of the Earth, which contains these minerals. (Or blown 60,000 feet into the air, like what happens here when the local volcanoes erupt every ten years or so.) There are plenty of sands that contain high quantities of hematite as well (even those that contain the magnetite as well), as I described above, but they're usually reddish in color, like Mars. Those aren't mined or smelted. It's only the heavy, black grains with the curious magnetic properties that were ever used for that purpose. Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. One might easily think this, but whenever I check the surrounding area, there is no apparent source for the ironsand deposits. Out here in Southern California (Los Angeles), ironsand is typically found in the mountains, but also other places too, such as deserts; and there is never any apparent source. Yes obviously such deposits must be placed by erosion, thank you for essentially summarizing this, but no obvious source exists. Such concentrations of magnetite or hematite don't just magically appear. There really is no information regarding ironsand anywhere across the internet. This is one of those things you actually have to know, and your entire response is textbook and generic. Please try harder. 75.82.214.248 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I shouldn't say hematitic sand is not mined. It's apparently used in agriculture for its high nutrient content. For example, it was imported to the man-made islands of Dubai to grow lush, tropical vegetation, because the native quartz-sand used to make the islands is nutrient free. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That sounds like a very silly use of ironsand. I honestly believe you need to go out and actually see real, non-costal ironsand for yourself. You probably have never done this. 75.82.214.248 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw it on a Nova documentary about the islands just before I wrote that. It doesn't seem very silly when you see the prices they're selling some of those houses for.

Check out the article on magnetite. Magnetite inclusions are extremely prevalent in nearly all igneous rock (and likewise, sedimentary rock too). This means nearly all mountainous rock contains inclusions (small, sand-sized grains) of magnetite. It gets into the streams the same way the rest of the sand does. The same way gold does. (Do you think there are gold-pooping bacteria? Yet no one can trace the river and find big veins of gold --and you can bet your ass they've tried-- because they're usually either tiny inclusions of metal or tiny inclusions of ore.) Heavier sands get deposited first, while lighter sands flow farther with the currents. You can find this described in any number of sources in the article, from Wagner, to Smith, to Needham, to Tsunashirō.

I live in a place where over 95% of all industry is in mining, from gold panning, to oil drilling, or lots of jade, to some of the largest gold and zinc mines in the world. (I bet you've never seen rivers like the banks of Valdez Creek, lined with black, sandy ore of gold, or that black sand piled up at the mine ten stories high, being guarded by dudes in uniform sporting automatic weapons.) There is plenty of ironsand here in Alaska as well; the Kashwitna River is full of it. It is nothing special to live in a place where ironsand can be found. It's everywhere if you just look. (Whether it's suitable for forging a katana or not is a different story, and I've forged many of those in my life as well.) Zaereth (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I might also mention, as a side note, that agricultural mining is indeed big business. Anywhere you build around here you first have to extract all of the peat and fill with hard rock, and make sure to get it all no matter how deep. That peat is then mixed with sand to make topsoil. Dolomite is an incredibly important nutrient for those who grow "tomatoes" (and we all know what they're really growing). Lime is used to "sweeten" the soil of lawns. Diatomaceous earth is one of the best insecticides I've ever used, wouldn't plant a garden or get rid of an ant hill without it (gets all into their joints like broken glass, yet it's perfectly safe for humans, and that one is made by microorganisms). Unocal has a huge nitrate plant just a few hundred miles from me (the next town over by local measure; 20 minutes by plane or 5 as the F-22 flies). You have to be very careful working around their equipment. Steam lines everywhere running 40,000 psi often get pinholes in them. It makes an invisible jet of steam, so you wave a broomstick in front of you. If the broomstick suddenly slices in half, don't take another step. (But slice off a few more pieces of broomstick so you can say, "Whoa, dude...") Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I will add just one more thing, and that is that, like all mining, these resources are finite. You can find in several of these sources just how much ironsand in total is estimated to exist in places like Japan or New Zealand. Nearly all sand on Earth formed over long periods of geologic time, and there have been many changes to what you know the land to be like now. At on point, nearly all of the central US was under water. (And may be again if global warming keeps up.) In the Triassic, when T-rex roamed the Earth, nearly all the US, and for that matter all of Pangaea was a big, hot desert. It takes thousands of yea to accumulate the sand but only a few hundred to use it all up.Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for taking the time and improving this article, friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.26.224 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ironsand has no value

If you are looking for high quality ore, go sweep the dust from any freeway, this will actually produce a high quality platinum ore. There is a popular internet video of an amateur scientist demonstrating this. There is no reason to harvest significant amounts of ironsand from outdoor areas.