Another document here, (an HTML version of a MS-Word document), states:quote:
After 1900 the Bessemer process was rapidly replaced by an alternative method, the Siemens-Martin or open hearth process. This allowed precise control of temperatures resulting in better quality steel.
Given the above, I don't think it's necessarily "absurd" to assume that one country's process is/was potentially superior to another's. Improvements and innovation happen continuously and therefore someone must lead the field at any given point in time. Different manufacturing processes will yield different results after all.quote:
Although Bessemer steel was slow in being adopted, and suffered from poor quality control, [my emphasis] it nevertheless stimulated demand for low phosphor ores. Demand further increased after 1868, and the development of the Siemens open-hearth process. Production of Siemens steel was slower, controllable, and better able to provide a consistent product. [my emphasis] It still required pig iron low in phosphor but, in addition, it could process a high proportion of scrap iron and steel. These were later collectively referred to as the ‘acid’ steel processes.