I try a super simple test to learn SEAMCAT. The situation is co-channel interference. But the unwanted interference and blocking interference are different.

Looking further in the log file, I found out the source of this difference is in this line:

Relative Unwanted Emission = .integrate((VrFreq - ItFreq), VrBandwith) = -1.9808567249667528 dBc

 Why do we have to calculate “Relative Unwanted Emission”?

Thanks.

 Why do we have to calculate “Relative Unwanted Emission”?"

You may find some helpful information on the online manual.
But please be aware that there is still a typo:

.... triplet (frequency offset (MHz), relative emission level (dBc) and reference bandwidth (MHz)).

should be read

.... triplet (frequency offset (MHz), relative emission level (dBc) and reference bandwidth (kHz)).

Btw, why do you want to simulate blocking if it is co-channel?

Regards,
Karl

Thanks Karl for your respond. Actually I want to do something else, but to check my understanding, I just fall back to a very simple case. My initial thought is in this co-channel case, the Unwanted interference and Blocking Interference (with default User Defined Blocking mask) are the same. But it is not the case.

Studying the manual, Calculation of total emissions, does not give me a very clear procedure to reproduce this result. I did try several times but end up in nowhere near the value: -1.9808567249667528 dBc. Trying to change the interfering Tx emission mask yields other value. 

Do you aware of a simpler explanation/procedure or should I have to study the source code?

 Regards,

Thanks for your interest.

I attach the file, which is essentially the simplified version of the very first official examples. I also include the two tested emission masks.

Looking for your comment.

Please find attached a short explanation. Additionally are the masks described in it attached as library.
Hope it helps :)

Thanks for your interest.

I attach the file, which is essentially the simplified version of the very first official examples. I also include the two tested emission masks.

Looking for your comment.

Thank Mr. Karl Koch for your help. Sorry for my late reply as I am outside the country for a meeting.

Your explanation is quite clear, though I have not have enough time to recalculate by hand - to check my understanding :)

Dear Mr. Karl Koch,

I try to run the SEAMCAT again following your suggestion. It is unfortunate that I still cannot recreate the expected outcome (iRSSunw  ~ iRSSblock). I attach with this note the SEAMCAT file, explanation are embedded and add to your original doc file.

I did try different masks. Those masks are bundled with the attachment as well to explain my experiments.

Regards.

Dear Mr. Karl Koch,

I try to run the SEAMCAT again following your suggestion. It is unfortunate that I still cannot recreate the expected outcome (iRSSunw  ~ iRSSblock). I attach with this note the SEAMCAT file, explanation are embedded and add to your original doc file.

I did try different masks. Those masks are bundled with the attachment as well to explain my experiments.

Regards.