Thread: Bull Nose Brace Bit.

Hi Martin,
Cornelius Whitehouse described himself as "edge-tool and auger-maker" of Bridgetown, Near Cannock in the county of Stafford England, patented these bits in the USA in 1869 (US Pat's 88760 & 91503) and in 1887 (US Pat 364153)
Various brands: C.Whitehouse, Whitehouse & Sons and Whitehouse Bros, and often "Unbreakable" as well.
https://patentimages.storage.googlea...19/US91503.pdf
I'll try to do some more digging today.
An amusing story attributed to Cornelius' father Edward. He used to make swords for the British army, one day the Gov't buyer dropped by to inform him they'd no longer be buying his swords because they'd found a cheaper source elsewhere. Cornelius enquired whether the buyer had an example of this sword with him and if so could he bring it in, which the buyer duly did. Cornelius got one of his own swords out and told the buyer to hold the alternative out at arms length, at which, with one swipe of his sword, Cornelius cut the opposition sword in half. His comment to the buyer was something along the lines of " good luck with your next invasion". Soon after the buyer was back to inform him that he had ben reinstated as the governments favoured manufacturer.

Cheers,
Geoff.

Martin,
Have a look at this article, it doesn't mention him manufacturing auger bits. If it's the same Cornelius Whitehouse I guess the enormity of his tube forming breakthrough would probably push an auger bit well into the background. In the article it says he died in 1883 yet one of the US patents in my first post was awarded in 1887, so I hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree.
http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/article ... ehouse.htm

Cheers,
Geoff.

Hi Geoff,
It must have been quite a skilful job to make the moulds
in sand. To set up a patent he had to give a lot of information to
achieve it. I have come across a few more Bull Nose bits on the
internet, but most are about 9" long. Mine is 14" long but I
wonder if he made longer ones and would it have been harder.


Martin.

Hi Martin,
This catalogue reprint from 1952 shows quite a variety of bits that they made, one is referred to "Unbreakable" Sash Bit 18in.
A McPhersons Australian catalogue from the 1930's shows Scotch bits longer than usual listed as "Fencers Bits".


https://www.timelesstools.co.uk/imag...0catalogue.pdf

Cheers,
Geoff.

Great catalogue. Thanks for the link. I think I might have a Lathing hammer now I have seen a reference to it.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Great catalogue. Thanks for the link. I think I might have a Lathing hammer now I have seen a reference to it.

That is another great catalogue for information. I always knew that
Augers were made for deep boring but you could use two hands. It
must have felt quite strange to have an 18" sash bit in a brace.
I was working on an old convent 3 years ago and an boy came to
do some moulding work on the old chapel and he was still using a
lathing hammer.

Martin.

I've had a look through my handful of Whitehouse bits, none of them are anywhere near 14in long. Those by Whitehouse are varied branding reflecting the many years of their production, C. Whitehouse & Sons, Cornelius Whitehouse and Whitehouse Bros. Also including the words Inventors and Unbreakable and a couple with the British patent number 13603 of 25th October 1886. I can't find a copy of that British patent, but Whitehouse mentions it in his US patent No 364153.
Other brands in this style are, Buck & Hickman, W. Marples & Sons, W. Gilpin Wedges Mills and one by PS&W (Peck Stow & Wilcox) with the patent date May 31 1887 on it.
The link I posted in #3 I now think may actually be about our Cornelius' father therefore making Edward his grandfather.

Now the Gilpins brand is interesting in that as far as I can understand Cornelius started out working there before going out on his own. In 1914 a chap named W.A. Morgan who may have been an employee of Gilpins patented an auger bit with huge resemblance to that of Whitehouse's with the accompanying text:
GB19143542. Morgan, S. W., and Gilpin, Senior, & Co., W. Feb. 11. Augers having a round fronted nose formed with a pair of helically disposed holes leading from opposite sides of the centre into the twist in the body, are provided with cutter-edged wings or spurs "b".
To date, I haven't seen an example of this bit.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Yes I notice in the Graces Guide it states that he was
employed by Messrs Gilpin. By 1881 he was in business
for himself. Did the cutter wing replace the older bits?

Martin.

Martin,
So far, I haven't seen a bit like that, all mine are Whitehouse style.

Cheers,
Geoff.

OK, so can someone tell us what makes these holey bits superior to "regular" auger bits? From what I can see in the drawings, the hole feeds the chip through to the opposite land, so instead of being pushed up the facing land, it just goes up the opposite one?? Why does this work better than being pushed up the facing land, i.e., how does this aid chip ejection?

Has anyone used them sufficiently to report on their performance compared with the boring regular style of auger bit? You've got me really curious!

Ian

Hi Ian,
They work the same as usual bits as far as ejecting the chips, and of course all inventors will claim their tool is superior to others. In a way they are similar to the Cook or Gedges bit which have curved wings but in this case he's continued them right round to create a short tunnel for the chips to exit via. In Martins original post his third photo shows a close up of the nose.

I've added links to the three Whitehouse patents that I am aware of.

https://patentimages.storage.googlea...5a/US88760.pdf
https://patentimages.storage.googlea...19/US91503.pdf
https://patentimages.storage.googlea...b/US364153.pdf

Cheers,
Geoff.

OK, ta Geoff. I misinterpreted the crude drawings in the earlier attachments & got my perspective a bit skewed. The original patent drawings you linked to are much clearer plus there's a verbal explanation.

So it would seem the principle advantage claimed is protection of the cutting edges, he hasn't claimed any superiority of function other than it makes "a clear & decisive cut", whatever that may mean. I would've thought spurred cutters have the drop on clean cuts (at least clean entry), but spurs are not part of the patent application (having been invented quite a bit earlier, unless I have my dates scrambled).

I commend anyone who seeks to build "better mousetraps", but there is always a risk of solving problems that don't really exist.....

There may be an advantage that a curved cutting edge, when boring on an angle (chair legs etc) will enter the wood with less tear-out than a flat faced bit. In his 1851 patent https://patentimages.storage.googlea...826/US8162.pdf Ransom Cook says in part '...in order to give said edges a sliding askew or drawing movement in cutting".

The most well known patent for a bit with the vertical spurs that lead the cutters slicing the wood fibres is that of Russell Jennings from 1855. https://patentimages.storage.googlea...a6/US12318.pdf
His idea was by no means the first, having been preceded by other inventors, but perhaps a hundred years or more by the common centre bit made by many European manufacturers.
Centre bit 002.png

I'm by no means an expert woodworker but I am sure that tradies worldwide would have had a preferred type and brand of auger, as with other tools, to suit the species of wood they were using and the project they were working on.

Cheers,
Geoff.