sub-zero khukuris

[Kazeryu]

I think windchill is a factor even for inanimate objects. As materials experience temperature change, they expand and contract. If the rate of temperature change is too abrupt, there can be failures in the material.

An example of this was one rather cool evening when I sloshed boiling soup directly from the pot into a large glass bowl. I was pouring down one side of the bowl instead of into the middle, and the bowl split evenly into two pieces.

Darndest thing I ever saw, now that I think of it; but at the time all I could think of was the fact that my soup was all over the floor and table instead of in my belly. (This was particularly annoying since I had got out of bed to make the soup as a midnight snack. )

 

[Thomas Linton]

I think windchill is a factor even for inanimate objects. As materials experience temperature change, they expand and contract. If the rate of temperature change is too abrupt, there can be failures in the material.

An example of this was one rather cool evening when I sloshed boiling soup directly from the pot into a large glass bowl. I was pouring down one side of the bowl instead of into the middle, and the bowl split evenly into two pieces.

Darndest thing I ever saw, now that I think of it; but at the time all I could think of was the fact that my soup was all over the floor and table instead of in my belly. (This was particularly annoying since I had got out of bed to make the soup as a midnight snack. )

Didn't report that wind chill has no effect. It changes rate of cooling. NASA, which knows somethings about inanimate object getting cold, just concludes that they can't get colder than the ambient temp.

Didn't look into heating, as in your example, but I suspect it's the same.

 

[Kazeryu]

Yep, not arguing there. You can't cool something below the ambient temperature using wind because heat stops transferring from the object to the wind once they're at the same temperature. If you take a second look at what I wrote, you'll see I was talking about rate of change -- the same thing as you.

 

[Yvsa]

To get back to the original question I'm thinking that horn would be more prone to cracking in cold weather than wood.
The reason being is in its makeup as horn is the same makeup and material as fingernails.
Anyone being out in the cold a lot knows that fingernails crack more easily than when warm.

Shamelessly stolen off the Internet:
The two major chemicals in wood are cellulose and lignin. Lignin makes up
about a third of the mass in typical wood. Cellulose is most of the rest.
Lignin adds great strength to the wood. Although cellulose is a polymer of
the sugar glucose, lignin is a complex set of what we call aromatic
molecules...complicated structures made out of 6 carbon atoms bonded
together in ring shapes called a benzene ring. These are the main organic
chemicals...BUT there are also other forms of cellulose and other sugars and
lots of water and even metals extracted from the soil. I have made this
overly simple, so I want assure you that there are hundreds of books on the
structure and chemicals that make up wood and there are thousands of "minor"
chemicals in various woods that are very important for the health of the
tree...not to mention all sorts of medical remedies such as the chemical
quinine from a Cinchona tree as a cure for malaria and everyday chemicals
such a turpentine from pine trees and of course latex from rubber trees.
Wood is good!

From what I understand the lignum helps hold the cellulose together so in a cold environment it should hold together better.
But then I not only like the wood handles, I prefer them 10 to 1 over horn.
Horn is too much like plastic for me.