Any correlation between SAR and quality of transmission?

I am currently shopping for a cell phone and while there are many
criteria for selecting one, I am also interested in reducing health
hazard, given amount of use, proximity to relay stations, etc. is
equal.

I have heard that SAR ratings
(http://www.sarvalues.com/usa-complete.html) can give some indication
(albeit not complete) to this.

However, with my limited knowledge I suspect that a manufacturer can
always reduce SAR ratings if he reduces transmitter power - which could
mean reduced performance of course.

On the other hand, it may be possible to reduce SAR while maintaining
same transmission power, by perhaps clever cellphone antenna placement
and other magic.

But I have no idea what's really happening in the real world: have you
experienced significant degradation in communication when using cell
phones with lowest SARs (< 0.5)?

For a list of the Ten Lowest Radiating Cell Phones (US) look here:
http://www.sarvalues.com/usa-lowest-sar.html

I would appreciate your shared experience and knowledge.

Thanks,
Victor

---

› See More: Any correlation between SAR and quality of transmission?

Yes, there is definitely a correlation between the two. If there
wasn't, all manufacturers would reduce their SAR to < 0.2 because
consumers are extremely concerned about the health risks especially due
to the fact that it has not been established beyond a shred of doubt
that phones don't pose a health risk. If manufacturers like Sanyo would
introduce such phones with SAR of less than 0.2, they will overtake
Nokia and Motorola in handset sales worldwide. However, they have to be
able to do that without the expense of dropped calls and bad reception
which they cannot.

I'd actually prefer a phone with a high SAR value, unless it has a
design flaw like putting the antenna next to the head. SAR value is
given in maximum. Just keeping a phone out of analog is going to limit
the power it can transmit[to the head] by a huge amount.

There's a peak in power output as the phone sets up the call after send
is pushed. IIRC there's another peak when a call comes in.

The easiest way to get one's brain away from the antenna is use a
headset.

An external antenna is another way to get the transmiting power away
from the body.

The network tells CDMA phones to to transmit at the lowest power level.
A fringe analog call is going to drive the phone at the highest power
level.
I'd imagine anthing done to reduce transmision efficiency (like keeping
the antenna in the down position or calling inside a car) is going to
increase power ouput.

One of the tricks to get the antenna away from the head and thus reduce
SAR readings, is to angle the antenna outward, like some Motorola
models.

A metallic phone encloser should also be able to reduce leaked energy
to the head.

An increase in distance between the antenna and head/body reduces that
energy exponetially. The reverse holds true.
This info is a little outdated, but might be interesting to compare
with reported reception quality and SAR values.

AMPS CDMA 800 CDMA 1900
Audiovox 9500 RF Out 0.6 0.311 0.412
Audiovox 9155GPX 0.613 0.344 0.461
Denso TouchPoint 2200 0.6 0.653
Handspring Treo 600 0.151 0.251
Kyocera 2135 0.6 0.714 0.503
Kyocera 2235 0.55 0.384 0.36
Kyocera 7135 0.6 0.512 0.478
LG 4400 0.424 0.278 0.322
LG 5350 0.405 0.362
LG LX5450 0.307 0.233 0.26
LG 6000 0.256 0.324
Motorola P8767 0.538 0.317 0.317
Motorola V60c 0.28 0.14 0.24
Motorola V60i 0.28 0.14 0.24
Motorola V60x 0.23 0.16 0.355
Motorola 720 (6/28/02) 0.14 0.1 0.27
Motorola 720 (9/6/02) 0.23 0.16 0.355
Motorola V120c 0.4 0.15 0.32
Motorola V120x 0.22 0.3 0.3
Motorola 270c 0.353 0.287 0.545
Nokia 3586i/3588i 0.607 0.487 0.335
Nokia 3589i 0.607 0.487 0.335
Qualcomm QCP-2700 0.3 0.2
Sanyo SCP-4700 0.6 0.33
Sanyo SCP-4900 0.627 0.525
Sanyo 5150 0.345 0.507
Sanyo 5300 0.338 0.334 0.487
Sanyo 5500 0.405 0.4 0.399
Sanyo 6200 0.387 0.211
Sanyo 8100 0.306 0.311 0.464
Samsung A310 0.4 0.315 0.285
Samsung A500 0.319 0.284 0.355
Samsung A530 0.349 0.279
Samsung A600 0.322 0.281 0.355
Samsung A620 0.508 0.398 0.514
Samsung I330 0.535 0.477 0.452
Samsung I500 0.401 0.353 0.257
Samsung I600 0.397 0.307
Samsung I700 0.37 0.366 0.419
Samsung SPHN270 0.319 0.253 0.527


http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...5&pagenumber=1

-
David

David, thank you so much for your answer. Now that I have a grip on the
subject, I am basically debating between the following phones offered
by my carrier in my area:
1) Nokia 2285
2) Motorola 120
3) Motorola C343
4) Motorola V60i

Which one would you most recommend in terms of being the *least* prone
to call-drops? In terms of compatibility with networks (mainly in the
US northeast)?

Thanks!
Victor


David L wrote:
> I'd actually prefer a phone with a high SAR value, unless it has a
> design flaw like putting the antenna next to the head. SAR value is
> given in maximum. Just keeping a phone out of analog is going to limit
> the power it can transmit[to the head] by a huge amount.
>
> There's a peak in power output as the phone sets up the call after send
> is pushed. IIRC there's another peak when a call comes in.
>
> The easiest way to get one's brain away from the antenna is use a
> headset.
>
> An external antenna is another way to get the transmiting power away
> from the body.
>
> The network tells CDMA phones to to transmit at the lowest power level.
> A fringe analog call is going to drive the phone at the highest power
> level.
> I'd imagine anthing done to reduce transmision efficiency (like keeping
> the antenna in the down position or calling inside a car) is going to
> increase power ouput.
>
> One of the tricks to get the antenna away from the head and thus reduce
> SAR readings, is to angle the antenna outward, like some Motorola
> models.
>
> A metallic phone encloser should also be able to reduce leaked energy
> to the head.
>
> An increase in distance between the antenna and head/body reduces that
> energy exponetially. The reverse holds true.
> This info is a little outdated, but might be interesting to compare
> with reported reception quality and SAR values.
>
> AMPS CDMA 800 CDMA 1900
> Audiovox 9500 RF Out 0.6 0.311 0.412
> Audiovox 9155GPX 0.613 0.344 0.461
> Denso TouchPoint 2200 0.6 0.653
> Handspring Treo 600 0.151 0.251
> Kyocera 2135 0.6 0.714 0.503
> Kyocera 2235 0.55 0.384 0.36
> Kyocera 7135 0.6 0.512 0.478
> LG 4400 0.424 0.278 0.322
> LG 5350 0.405 0.362
> LG LX5450 0.307 0.233 0.26
> LG 6000 0.256 0.324
> Motorola P8767 0.538 0.317 0.317
> Motorola V60c 0.28 0.14 0.24
> Motorola V60i 0.28 0.14 0.24
> Motorola V60x 0.23 0.16 0.355
> Motorola 720 (6/28/02) 0.14 0.1 0.27
> Motorola 720 (9/6/02) 0.23 0.16 0.355
> Motorola V120c 0.4 0.15 0.32
> Motorola V120x 0.22 0.3 0.3
> Motorola 270c 0.353 0.287 0.545
> Nokia 3586i/3588i 0.607 0.487 0.335
> Nokia 3589i 0.607 0.487 0.335
> Qualcomm QCP-2700 0.3 0.2
> Sanyo SCP-4700 0.6 0.33
> Sanyo SCP-4900 0.627 0.525
> Sanyo 5150 0.345 0.507
> Sanyo 5300 0.338 0.334 0.487
> Sanyo 5500 0.405 0.4 0.399
> Sanyo 6200 0.387 0.211
> Sanyo 8100 0.306 0.311 0.464
> Samsung A310 0.4 0.315 0.285
> Samsung A500 0.319 0.284 0.355
> Samsung A530 0.349 0.279
> Samsung A600 0.322 0.281 0.355
> Samsung A620 0.508 0.398 0.514
> Samsung I330 0.535 0.477 0.452
> Samsung I500 0.401 0.353 0.257
> Samsung I600 0.397 0.307
> Samsung I700 0.37 0.366 0.419
> Samsung SPHN270 0.319 0.253 0.527
>
>
> http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...5&pagenumber=1
>
> -
> David

I'd say stay away from the Mot 120 and the Mot343. Or any VZW with a
short fixed antenna.
If your considering the Mot v120 you need to do more home work!

Don Rennard frequently posts best RF performer lists on cellular
newsgroups and has lots of experience with many phones.
Mountainwireless has some good links is a good place to start.

Phonescoop.com has a huge list of user reviews located in it's find a
phone section.

Howardforums has lots of "best RF" for VZW threads. The Mot v710 might
be worth a look.

I like a handset that can initiate calls from the headset On/Off
button, the handset never has to be touched, once voicedial is
programmed and the CORRECT On/off button headset is found.

I had a v60i and wasn't impressed. The screen is too small. Apparently
there have been some sw improvements to the v60i.

-
David