I'm the younger son of the late inventor of these igloos and I just want to share this product with a wider audience.
Of tech interest, 2 Igloos are being used as meeting rooms in Google's Zurich HQ.
Would love to hear your thoughts on other possible tech related uses too.
Because every Igloo is made to order and can may include additional wall panels and furniture then there is no set price range. Best to contact directly for further info.
http://www.icewall.com.au/about/faqs/ and http://www.icewall.com.au/contact/
Not nearly as solid, but inexpensive, easy to pack, and quick to set up. Tape down to a tarp to keep out the dust. Stake out to survive 50mph winds.
Pressurize in bio-warfare environments- assemble 2 together sharing a wall as an "air lock"... enjoy!
Warning- Does not keep out "rage zombies"
Yurt: Protection from sun and wind
Igloo: Insulation from cold and wind, structurally protected against weight of snow on top of it
The modern iterations on both of these ideas will have similar constraints (though modern materials can push the constraints further).
Pykrete-reinforced igloo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete#/media/File:Ice_Dome_-...
Not that these don't melt; they're mostly fiberglass and polyurethane.
edit: It seems it doesn't melt even then.
That sounds like as close as we'll get to melting the stuff.
Kind of an amusing phrase, though I imagine it makes more sense out in the Australian bush.
Heck, not even the state capital (population 31,000) is on the road system.
Nope, though that's a common misconception.
"Iglu" just means "house". It can refer to any type of dwelling, made of any material (even a modern wood-frame, brick, or concrete house). Only a few groups of the Inuit/Inupiat/Yup'ik people actually lived in iglus made of snow (not ice), though many groups used them for temporary shelter while on (e.g.) hunting trips. Other groups made their iglus of hides, sod, driftwood, or whatever other local material was available (some of the southern groups, such as the Alutiiq, dug pit houses in the ground).
No, it is not.
"And snow is a type of ice."
No, it is not. Snow (of the type used to construct shelters) is a mixture of ice crystals and air. The air is extremely important for the purpose under discussion. Snow is a pretty good insulator. Ice is not.
Also, "Inuit" is the name of only one group of people. Using their name for (say) Yup'ik is like calling an Italian or Romanian "French" just because they all speak a Romance language.
"igloo" is a word, like "hamburger" or "silhouette" or "denim" or "thug", which has passed into general English use.
Just as "hamburger" doesn't mean "a resident of Hamburg", "silhoette" doesn't mean "a penny-pinching finance minister of France", "denim" doesn't mean "from Nimes", and "thug" doesn't refer specifically to "an Indian religious assassin", "igloo" as used in English doesn't mean simply "house", but rather, a dome-shaped structure made of snow blocks.
Which, incidentally, makes the title here clickbait through misrepresentative word use.
Mind: words may still exist and have independent meanings in their original tongues. This doesn't preclude them from having other meanings, sometimes closely related, sometimes not, in other languages.
He claimed that igloos are made of "ice".
That is not correct. At all.
Your claim is as nonsensical as saying a bottle isn't made of hydrocarbons because it's actually made of plastic. If we were talking about the mechanical properties then "plastic" would be appropriate. But if we were talking about peak oil, "hydrocarbons" would be more appropriate. But both are correct and making the suboptimal choice is merely a matter of style.
In this discussion we are talking about melting, so I claim that "ice" is good style. You might think it bad style, but going as far as calling it incorrect makes you factually wrong.
And while insulation is an important property of snow, for the purposes of the discussion where we were talking about melting not insulation, "ice" is a good word to use. Snow is made of ice, so this is 100% correct.
And "Inuit" is absolutely the correct name for the closely related languages/dialects shared by several groups of native Alaskan/Canadian/Greenlandic peoples. I realize the distinction between language and dialect is politically contentious, but speakers of Inuit from close geographical areas have excellent mutual comprehension, so it is not similar to your Italian/Romanian example.
As Wikipedia says "Outside Inuit culture, however, igloo refers exclusively to shelters constructed from blocks of compacted snow, generally in the form of a dome."
No, it absolutely is not. Yup'ik is not Inuit. It is not mutually intelligible with any dialect of Inuit. The Yup'ik languages split from Inuit around a thousand years ago (i.e., just about as long ago as Romanian, Spanish, etc. split from Latin).
The correct name for the language group is Eskimo–Aleut. Not "Inuit".
I realize that it's become fashionable in Canada to simply ignore Yup'ik and Aleut people and just call everybody "Inuit". However, Canada isn't the whole world.
Neither professional linguists (source: Wikipedia article below) nor the people themselves (source: I live in Alaska and actually know Alaska Native people) consider Inuit the "correct name" for all Eskimo-Aleut languages. While an Iñupiat person might not get pissed off at you for calling him an "Inuit" (even thought they don't call themselves that) a Yup'ik person probably would. Just as an Italian would be upset by being called "French".
Build a shelter out of ice instead of snow and you'd learn the difference in a hurry.