SAR values - published, not published, conflicting info


    I'm looking at SAR values for phones and find that it's often very difficult to find published values or even the FCC ID of the various devices.  That said, what I have found published for the REVVL is encouraging to someone (like me) who is looking for a device with minimal SAR emissions, especially at the head (i.e., when used as a phone).  With the caveat that FCC documents simply provide the manufacturer's own test reports, I approached the issue with the hope that the tests were conducted properly and the results were provided in good faith.


    As someone who is considering switching to T-Mobile, the new REVVL looks interesting (although the lack of Gorilla Glass and water-resistance, and the non-removable battery are drawbacks).  I found that the "head" SAR rating for the REVVL published on PhoneArena is an astonishingly low "0.20 W/kg".  But heading over to a different site yields a reported head SAR of "1.18 W/kg", more in line with a lot of other GSM phones.  The discrepancy bothered me and I tried to understand it.


    In the case of the REVVL, the FCC ID is available (2ACCJB089) and I think that the FCC document "I17Z60508-SEM01_SAR_Rev0_part1" found at explains the discrepancy: the head SAR tops off at 0.20 for the GSM emissions but is 1.18 for WLAN (2.4GHz) emissions - something that I guess can be avoided by simply leaving wifi disabled when the device is being used as a phone.


    For comparison (at a similar price point) The Motorola Moto E4 (model# XT1762) can be found at, and the document "Test Report RFExp Part 1" reports SAR values as high as 0.52 W/kg for GSM transmission with WLAN at 1.10 W/kg.


    While I prefer a non carrier-branded phone like the E4, with the expectation of timely software updates and the absence of "bloatware", I think I'm going to give the REVVL a try.