I notice in the more rough construction, the knobs are usually closer to the bottom of the stone and many times near a feature of a corner or a complicated compound angle bordering another rock. Because of this observation, it was my thought that these knobs were the area of contact or focus of the source of this stone softening device.
If you consider the possibility of this technology being a focused directional affect essentially aimed at a stone, and you allow for the possibility that the stone softening occurs the most at the point of penetration and radiates out through the stone with decreasing effect the farther away from the source of focus, it presumes you might want to aim that focal point closer to an area where you want the most form change to occur, like for instance a corner where there are more than one surface you want to shape.
I also presume with a stone being softened, its natural weight and the effects of gravity would make the soft stone sag and droop into a space, therefore necessitating the need to apply the focus of this affect towards the lower point where you want the most deformation to occur.
It sounds like you make the observation that where the knobs are more centered, the stone work is more precise and rectangular. Given the possibility of the above aspects of this technology, perhaps on stone work that has a more precise flat symetry, and knobs more centered, used some kind of mold assistance. If you presume the focus of the beam is not biased to particular corners where you want the deformation to settle into, perhaps the beam would have to be stronger to assure the softening effects reach the full volume of the stone, but with that intensity, the stone might sag too much and bulge out from the wall. In this case perhaps they had a large metal sheet up against the wall with a hole in the middle to shoot the beam. In this case, were this the case, you might find that the surface of these blocks would be perfectly flat and the knob would have a uniform shape that is identical in each block, rather than the nonuniform nature of the knobs on the walls that show a bias to their location on the stone itself.
Based on these above presumptions, a way to confirm this might be to evaluate the two surfaces of two blocks above and below each other, (obviously in the case where a wall has come apart rather than actually disassembling a wall). If you presume the stones were originally cut to approximate sizes, (approximate being good enough considering the possibility of this second stage of in situ stone softening to perfect the contact points), then you might find that the cut surface would never have a convex feature, but it is possible it might have a concave feature. This presumes that if you were to be able to evaluate the upper surface of the lower rock and the lower surface of the upper rock, you might never find a convex surface on a lower rocks upper surface and just as likely you might never find a concave surface on the lower surface of an upper rock.
And even further, where there are no visible nobs on obviously huge megalithic structures with more precise surfaces and stone shapes, perhaps the focal point of this softening was applied to the top surface between the stones. As in these cases the walls appear to near perfection on the surface, it could be another case of some metal sheet barrier held to the outside to prevent sagging on the surface while the focused effect is aimed at the top surface of the stone, therefore concealing the source deformation. In other words, perhaps between the joints of these stones is evidence of a concave deformation showing the volume sag a that point accounting for the stone volume settling into the nooks and cranny's of the surrounding stones. Again, it would require observation of the surfaces between these stones to corroborate.
However, there is evidence of concave shapes at the joint points on the tops of stones, thought to incase metal brackets. It was thought that these metal brackets helped hold these stones together, but I've never heard of any evidence of these brackets being found. Perhaps these shapes are merely the shape of the beam applied to these points. It would therefore make sense the beam would be applied to the seam joint between two stones allowing for both stones sides to form together. Just a thought.
Just some observation and presumptions. Do your observations play these thoughts out?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29-Aug-16 13:41 by Open mind.