M index.rst +2 -5
@@ 20,7 20,7 @@ a rotary menace? Every day, this conundr
The sign may claim it, but is it true? **Do revolving doors really save energy?**
-Reviewing `the research`_, you might be surprised to find that no one has yet set up a simple,
+Reviewing :doc:`existing research <research/index>`, you might be surprised to find that no one has yet set up a simple,
comprehensible experiment to show the difference. A reasonable person might wonder, when it would be
so easy to do, **why has nobody tested the two door types, door to door?**
@@ 31,7 31,7 @@ so easy to do, **why has nobody tested t
For those who struggle with the conflict between love of convenience and duties to sign obedience,
**this site is here to do that test.**
The intuitive case
@@ 110,10 110,7 @@ but `the answer is not ten`_.
YouTube contains much work on `revolving door fail`_.
-.. _The research: research.html
-.. _The experiment: experiment.html
.. _1938 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Guide: http://archive.org/stream/heatingventilati006468mbp/heatingventilati006468mbp_djvu.txt
-.. _We intend to discover whether we've been fooled: experiment.html
.. _avoid his obligation to hold doors for old ladies: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/revolving-doors/
.. _12 revolutions per minute: http://www.hortondoors.com/learning-center/Documents/Revolving-Doors-101-Specifying-a-more-energy-efficient-secure-opening.pdf
.. _Cocoanut Grove nightclub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoanut_Grove_fire
M research/index.rst +2 -3
@@ 46,8 46,8 @@ Despite having studied something complet
Internet's most popular source on revolving door efficiency. Of Google's top ten search results for
"revolving door efficiency," one is the paper itself; eight of the other nine refer to it. So even
though it seems silly to argue with a term paper as if it were intended to be scientifically
-rigorous on a topic it did not even study, it deserves a response. In short, there is `good reason
-to doubt its energy efficiency calculations`_.
+rigorous on a topic it did not even study, it deserves a response. In short, there is :doc:`good reason
+to doubt its energy efficiency calculations <mit-study>`.
The paper is useful, however, as a starting point to the sources it used to calculate the
difference. For swinging doors, it used some charts from 1958 `Winter Infiltration Through Swing-door
@@ 156,7 156,6 @@ So the ordinary curious and responsible
that more than a century's science has yet to yield something useful.
.. _MIT says so (PDF): http://web.mit.edu/~slanou/www/shared_documents/366_06_REVOLVING_DOOR.pdf
-.. _good reason to doubt its energy efficiency calculations: mit-study.html
.. _Winter Infiltration Through Swing-door Entrances in Multi-story Buildings: http://books.google.com/books?id=G47biva6gtwC&pg=SA2-PA196#v=onepage&q&f=false
.. _International Building Performance Simulation Association's review (PDF): http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2003/BS03_1193_1200.pdf
.. _replicate Schutrum's work (PDF): http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/976715/1/MR67309.pdf#page=30&zoom=auto,0,603