SAR Rating, Is Higher Better?

[dglively]

Does a higher SAR rating translate to better reception?

...or better transmission?

... or both?

Oh heck, or, for that matter, neither?

[xikle]

I think that the higher the SAR the more radiation that is put out by the phone, but I'm not sure.

[GoodmanR]

Right, SAR is the "Specific Absorption Rate" and is used to measure the radiation levels of a phone on a specific area of the body. That's why there is an SAR for ear, and one for when your wearing it on your belt. Just about all the published SAR rates are the radiation levels to your head/brain depending on where the phone is held (ear, headset with waist etc...) If anything you want a low SAR. A high SAR just means the phone gives off more radiation. While we don't really know whether or not the radiation is harmful enough to worry about, your safest not trying to get a phone with a high SAR. A higher SAR really also doesn't mean that the phone will get a strong signal. My old T28w had a 1.53 or something like that SAR (the limit is 1.6) and the reception was not great.

[xikle]

So, the higher the SAR the worse it is to have the phone next to you. Makes me glad I use a hands free unit almost all of the time.

[GoodmanR]

Originally posted by: xikle
So, the higher the SAR the worse it is to have the phone next to you. Makes me glad I use a hands free unit almost all of the time.

yep! that's pretty much all you can do if your concerned about radiation

[xikle]

Actually if I was really concerned about it I wouldn't have a cell phone. I just find it easier to use a hands free unit because I am usually typing on the computer or doing something else that requires both hands.

[dglively]

My apologies, my question, as posed, wasn't entirely as clear as it should have been.

I'm familiar with what the FCC's SAR rating is with regards to radiant energy absorption rates of human tissue. However, I am unclear as to whether there is any coloration between that measurement and actual transmission or reception quality.

[xikle]

Ahh. I don't know that having a higher SAR rating has anything to do with the reception quality of the cell phone. I could be wrong though.

[xikle]

The SAR at ear on my V60s is 1.6 while on the A530 it is 1.39 at ear. Both phones get close enough reception that I don't notice a difference while talking on them. Based on that I don't think the SAR has anything to do with the reception, but that is only comparing 2 phones and is not scientific just my observation.

[GoodmanR]

Originally posted by: xikle
The SAR at ear on my V60s is 1.6 while on the A530 it is 1.39 at ear. Both phones get close enough reception that I don't notice a difference while talking on them. Based on that I don't think the SAR has anything to do with the reception, but that is only comparing 2 phones and is not scientific just my observation.

Right, there really isn't any significant correlation between SAR ratings and reception/signal strengeth and quality. Sure, the old 3 watt bag phones would have had an astronomical SAR rating, and got better reception than anything on the market now, but within this relatively narrow range that the SAR ratings fall (like 1.1-1.6) there really shouldnt be a relationship between the two.

[dglively]

Originally posted by: GoodmanR
...but within this relatively narrow range that the SAR ratings fall (like 1.1-1.6) there really shouldnt be a relationship between the two.

Your comparison between the bag phones (we had a Motorola in the early-mid 90's) and the pea shooters of today is very good point. Thinking of it mathematically it's more like an exponential curve (SAR rating) over a linier increase (measurable signal strength). It seems likely (though this is just a theory) that as one drives increased signal strength with increased power an undesirable side effect is radiant energy output. However, at the currently regulated levels of radiant energy output tangible increases in reception or transmission is insignificant. Therefore, the two probably do correlate, however, any difference is so small as to not be useful.

Just a guess though...

[GoodmanR]

Originally posted by: dglively

Your comparison between the bag phones (we had a Motorola in the early-mid 90's) and the pea shooters of today is very good point. Thinking of it mathematically it's more like an exponential curve (SAR rating) over a linier increase (measurable signal strength). It seems likely (though this is just a theory) that as one drives increased signal strength with increased power an undesirable side effect is radiant energy output. However, at the currently regulated levels of radiant energy output tangible increases in reception or transmission is insignificant. Therefore, the two probably do correlate, however, any difference is so small as to not be useful.

Just a guess though...

I would tend to agree. At such low and narrow SAR levels, there isn't much of a correlation between the two, but when you open up the range between high and low, there definitely is some relationship, and probably a fairly strong one.