20nyg07 said:
but I assume there would be an advantage to sticking with the active filter?
I don't see any advantage to an active filter (as shown) other than avoiding loading effects... But perhaps I'm not savvy enough with signal processing to see it.
I'm curious about the two bottom op-amps. Vr is set to 2.5V(nom), which is pulled slightly up or down by the input common-mode. It is then buffered to drive the shield (kinda makes sense, although I don't see much difference to just grounding the shield since Vr is virtually constant) and then the difference between the shield voltage (=Vr) and Vr (=Vr) is amplified for the RLD. Wha? Normally people obtain RLD by letting Vr remain constant, then integrating the difference between Vr and the input common-mode, thus driving the common-mode to Vr. This circuit doesn't do that.
Additionally, when people have an active shield, the goal is to have a single shield for each signal cable and to drive the shield to the potential of its conductor (thus eliminating the LPF effect caused by the signal's source impedance (skin is high Z) and the shield's capacitance). Simply driving the shield to the common-mode doesn't fix this issue—although it does solve another issue, specifically that common-mode noise can get passed through if the two paths have different impedances (if the skin contact is different, etc). But this circuit doesn't even drive the shield to the common-mode, so whatever.
I don't know... something just smells fishy about this ECG schematic. It probably still works, but something tells me it's
in spite of its engineer rather than
because of him. Considering that the datasheet mostly describes applications that don't use a RLD or an active shield, I'm guessing the engineer never tried it. Thankfully, for a lot of applications which involve heart rate monitoring (like exercise machines), nobody really cares if it works or not.