I was shopping for cordless phones the other day. Is a Mhz stronger than a Ghz?

ajdale

With radio technology higher frequencies have better penetration through solid objects, so your cordless phone will have longer range and appear "stronger" if it operates on a high frequency. The best quality cordless phones use 5.8 ghz wheras the basic models are typically only 900 mhz. The lower frequency means that the phone will lose reception through thick walls in a building and the signal won't be as strong. So a gigahertz is stronger than a megahertz.... Aug 18 03, 6:52 PM

sequoianoir

I hate to disagree but most of what you have said is not exactly correct. As an example. A standard AM/FM radio (as sold in the UK anyway)responds to frequencies in Kilohertz and Megahertz. Precisely - AM: 525 - 1710KHz. FM: 88 - 108 MHz. Some stations broadcast in FM on the 88 to 108 Megahertz and whilst the quality of reception is generally better it is subject to interference called multipath. This is because the signal can be easily reflected by buildings etc. Secondly as you leave the local area of the transmitter you lose the signal altogether. (I'm talking 20-35 miles depending upon the power of the transmitter) With AM stations on 525 to 1710 Kilohertz , "generally" reception quality is not quite as good as FM, but a good signal can usually be obtained by rotating the aerial (turning the radio) and multipath distortion does not occur. Furthermore, if the transmitter is broadcasting at the same power level (as the 25-40 mile range FM) the radio will still recieve the rdaio signal at a distance of 100 to 150 miles. So the lower frequency is obviously "stronger" ! Aug 18 03, 7:21 PM

ajdale

Maybe it depends on the application the technology is being used for. The question specifically relates to cordless phones and it is certainly true that the strongest reception is offered by the models which operate on highest frequency. It's a different situation from broadcast radio. Aug 18 03, 7:53 PM

sequoianoir

Radio or phone is irrelevant. Radio signals are "the same" for both. Lower frequencies "travel further" and "go through" rather than "bounce off" Aug 18 03, 8:03 PM

ajdale

Nevertheless you will get much better, stronger reception and longer range on 5.8 ghz cordless phone than on a 900 mhz phone. Which is why the 5.8 ghz models are typically 4 or 5 times the price... Aug 18 03, 8:17 PM

gmackematix

If they are the same, Dark Bark, then why do we seem to get more interference with radio signals than mobile phones? Maybe the answer lies in there being generally more cellphone masts per unit area than radio transmitters, thus making the size of frequency a more important factor? Aug 18 03, 8:49 PM

quietcool

Radios and phones are not different, but their needs are. Nobody wants a cordless phone to be able to work 25 miles from their base. (Well, it would be cool, actually, but unecessary.) Their biggest need is to work within a couple hundred feet at most, but be able to go around/through obstacles. Radios, on the other hand, are usually broadcast from tall antenna towers with little obstacles between you and the transmitter. So lower frequencies work better with radio, while higher frequencies work better with cordless phones. Aug 18 03, 10:16 PM

sequoianoir

The reason you get more interference on a radio than a MOBILE phone is due the "method of data transmission" and not the frequency it is sent on. Most radio is analogue, mobiles are digital. (difference between VINYL records/cassette tape and a CD). I've got a DIGITAL radio tuner that receives and decodes radio signals with ZERO interference and CD quality output. Many modern cordless phones are built to the DECT standard (digital) and work better than the cheaper analogue ones, BUT this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the radio frequency that they transmit/receive on ! Aug 19 03, 5:52 AM