Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If HN allowed me to edit (can't because it's two days old), I would change "allegedly" to "apparently". Of course there are studies, that is precisely what I was referring to. The fact that studies have shown energy savings, which contradicts what I would expect based on my own mental model of the world and gut feeling, is what I find remarkable. Don't you love it when science challenges your beliefs? I do. I remain somewhat skeptical, but I'm open to the idea that I am just wrong.

The MIT study from 2006 is pretty good.

https://web.mit.edu/~slanou/www/shared_documents/366_06_REVO...

However, I would note:

1. The MIT study makes a lot of assumptions (which they acknowledge).

2. In particular, the MIT study didn't put much effort into carefully measuring real conditions, e.g. using a blower door test. I'd like to see a study that does.

3. The MIT study was arguably more concerned with the psychology of door usage than energy.

4. Other than the MIT study, modern research on this topic is actually pretty sparse. There have been numerous examples of old studies not being reproducible, so I think it's fair to want a reproduction with current materials and building practices.

5. Some of the studies I've seen did not ensure the weather seals were equivalent. Revolving doors tend to have beefier seals. In my opinion, that makes the comparison less meaningful.



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: