The harmonic contents and shape of the current waveform will greatly affect the validity of the meter reading.
The meter will respond very differently to a sinewave vs a squarewave. You really need 12bit scope for sensible measurements.
The actual source is a DC source with a halfbridge or full bridge drivers.
Hence why I need highside current sensors.
I've seen the current waveform that is generated by the drivers and the series resonant cirucits.
The filtering is what is going to control the high frequency waveforms.
The input filter shown rolls of at ~7.5kHz not 15kHz. See corrected filter.
Page 5 of "how-to-filter-the-input-of-a-highside-current-sensing" has the equation of the differential filter as 1/(2 x pi x 2 x R x C).
Page 7 has the equation of the Common mode filtering as 1/(2 x pi x R x C).
Using the values in the schematic, the CO frequency is about 15.9khz.
Are you saying that the st microelctronics application note is incorrect?
The amplifier circuit needs to have a BW 3 to 10 times higher than the maximum signal frequency.
If not, there will be further amplitude errors.
The opa2189 with a 10x gain has a bandwidth of about 100khz, well above my 12khz max.
Do you need 5.5 digit resolution?
With a 200,000 count meter and a maximum current of 10A the lsd represents ~ 50uV.
That will be impossible to resolve given shunt drift, external noise sources (eg mains hum and RFI) and thermal emfs in the wiring layout.
5.5 digits equates to 150 ppm.
I never said I needed one, although I wouldn't mind having one or better.
There was discussion about not using an opamp altogether, and just using the multimeter.
My problem is that in order to have the same number of significant digits of the measurement, I would need a more pricise measurement device.
They are too expensive, and I need at least two.
Altogether, it would be about 1600 to 4000 dollar investment, just in multimeters.
Not going to happen.
So the amp's gain error needs to be less than 0.015%. Zero drift INAs can meet that spec. eg LTC2053.
No home-brew diff amp will ever out perform these integrated INAs.
The slew rate of the LTC2053 is 0.2V/us, which is why I dicounted that IA from the start.
Read the datasheet for the LTC6102 or INA241x very high precession CSAs.
The voltage drop across the shunt must be >> greater than the amplifier's offset voltage.
The LTC6102 is not isolated, it requires the ADC, uP, etc.
It's the same as the circuit as MariuszD suggested.
The ADC is going to have error, and that error must be incorperated in to the total error.
The INA241 does not support negative supplies, and it has only 8V/us which is why i discounted that one too.
Kelvin connections are mandatory in precision applications.
Digikey Application notes show how to connect the shunt.
I have included my dual PCB (mirrored) that shows this connection.
The gain network amplifies the OPA129 dc offset by a factor of 10, that's 20mV.
It's an op-amp from a bygone era.
The OPA 2189 is much better, I'm not sure why you brought up the opa 129?
Do you or do you not want isolation?
Yes, isolation is a must.
See offerings from Allegro and TI.
Are you referencing the hall effect current sensor?
If so, list the specific model # and I'll check it out, but most are less accurate than shunt type current sensors.
Consider current transformers, they don't drift and have no DC offsets. Hereward CT?
I can't put inductances in series with the loads which are series resonant circuits.
I'm not sure how accurate those are anyways.
Well, thanks for all the suggestions, but I think this simple circuit I've posted is so far beating all of them.