Stone-cut′ter.
A machine for working a face on a stone or ashlar; in other words, a machine for
shaping stone.
It differs from the
stone-dresser, which may be said to begin its duty after the surface is fairly flattened, or brought approximately to shape.
The duty of the
stone-polisher then commences, being to polish the fair surface left by the
stone-dresser or
grinder. The operations are successive, and some machines may be adapted to several, according to the character of the tool employed, or the relative coarseness or fineness of the abradant.
In point of mechanical construction, the distinction cannot always be maintained between the stone dressers, grinders, planers, and polishers (which see). See also figures on pages 1391, 1392.
 |
|
Stone-cutting machine. |
Fig. 5850 is a machine for cutting the molding edge of mantels, tablets, etc. the cutter
D has the converse of the molding required, and revolves with its vertical shaft
E operating upon the edge of the slab
C, which moves with its sliding bed
B.
Fig. 5851 is for circular and other curved work.
The adjustable spindle, carrying the cutting-tool, is arranged so as to operate on any part of the top or sides of the stone.
A pointer is attached to the slide which carries the spindle, and a grooved pattern to the rotating portion of the table, by which the movement of the tool is directed.
See also
Fig. 3055.
The earliest buildings of stone to which we can assign a date are the pyramids of Ghizeh.
Few of the memorials of bygone ages have excited more surprise or given rise to more debate than the obelisks, monoliths, and colossi of ancient
Egypt.
How were they carved out of the mountain; how transported; and how erected?
Our predecessors of 18 centuries since, an interval which spans half the time separating us from Osertasen and Joseph, were as much at fault as we; and
Herodotus, who flourished 23 centuries ago, says that the art was apparently understood in
Egypt 10,000 years ago as well as at the time he wrote.
The early indications of the use of iron are glanced at under that caption in this work (see iron); and a cluster of authorities,
Egyptian,
Syrian, and
Greek, cite periods between 1350 and 1537 B. C.; but how was the colossus of Osymandyas cut?
（2100 B. C. Lenglet, usher.) Iron and steel were known, but the inference and the balance of authorities are in favor of the more general use of a hard and tough alloy of copper and tin; bronze tools of this kind are found among the clippings and rubbish of the quarries, and are shown to have been used by the masons of that day.
Wilkinson is of opinion that the action of cutting and grinding the faces and making the ornaments in relief or intaglio was with emery; for which purpose a softer metal than steel
[
2395]
would answer better, as the emery would imbed itself in the tool and become more efficient.
He, however, says that the tool he found in the rubbish of the quarry was sharpened like a cold chisel, and the head battered by hammering.
It is 9 1/4 inches long; 1 inch in diameter at the summit; the edge 7/10 of an inch wide; the weight 1 3/4 pounds; the material bronze.
 |
|
Stone-cutting machine. |
The obelisks transported from the quarries of
Syene, at the first cataracts, to
Thebes and
Heliopolis, vary from 70 to 93 feet in length.
Wilkinson calculates the largest monolithic obelisk in
Egypt.
that at
Karnak, at 297 tons This was brought 138 miles, from its quarry to its site, and those at
Heliopolis were transported over 800 miles. The statues of Amunoph III are 47 feet in hight, and each made of a single stone, transported from its native quarry.
That of Remeses II., when entire, weighed over 887 tons, and was brought from E'Sooan to
Thebes, 138 miles The pedestal of Peter the
Great's statue in
St Petersburg is estimates to weigh 1,200 tons.
Herodotus describes a block of stone brought from Elephantine to
Sais by
Amasis.
The exterior dimensions, as stated by him, and, converted into our terns, are 31 1/1 feet × 22 feet × 12 feet. Its interior measured 28 1/1 × 18 × 7 1/2 feet
Herodotus gives the dimensions of another which would figure out 5,000 tons; everybody feels bound to notice it, but the remarks are always given with a reserve, and often with a?
The annexed representation from paintings at
Thebes illustrate the operations of leveling, squaring, and chiseling stone The straight-edge seems to be a taut cord; the chisels and mallets much like our own. In a tomb at
Thebes workmen are represented mounted on scaffolding and working at a sitting Colossus of granite The men are polishing the figure.
In the large platform of the temple of Baalbec, the first tier of stones is 12 1/2 feet thick, and the same in width, the length being much greater.
In the next tier are three stones, respectively 64 feet, 63 feet 8 inches, and 63 feet long; the hight about 13 feet, and the width no less.
One of the same class lies at the quarry, about a mile distant; it is 14 by 17 feet, and 69 feet long.
These stones are fitted so that a knife-blade cannot be thrust between.
Drs.
Robinson and
Thompson carefully measured these monsters.
See page 1404.
