Options for ridding records of static electricity

Triboelectric Effect (source MIL-HDBK-263B): “The generation of static electricity caused by contacting or rubbing two substances is called the triboelectric effect. A triboelectric series is a list of substances in an order of positive to negative charging as a result of the triboelectric effect. A substance higher on the list is positively charged (loses electrons) when contacted with a substance lower on the list (which gains electrons). The order of ranking in a triboelectric series is not always a constant or repetitive. Furthermore, the degree of separation of two substances in the triboelectric series does not necessarily indicate the magnitude of the charges created by triboelectric effect. Order in the series and magnitude of the charges are dependent upon the properties of the substance, but these properties are modified by factors such as purity, ambient conditions, pressure of contact, speed of rubbing or separation, and the contact area over which the rubbing occurs. In addition to the rubbing of two different substances, substantial electrostatic charges can also be generated triboelectrically when two pieces of the same material, especially common plastic in intimate contact, are separated as occurs when separating the sides of a plastic bag. Some metals, can create significant charges from triboelectric generation. Aluminum, when rubbed with a common plastic can generate substantial electrostatic charges.”

There are a number of published Triboelectric series, the most recent Quantifying the Triboelectric Series published 2015. The table in this recent series compares similar to the previous widely accepted The Triboelectric Series, Bill W. Lee, David E. Orr). ©2009 by AlphaLab, Inc.  PVC is very high (negative charge) on the triboelectric series.   

In the triboelectric series, human hands are very positively charged (loses electrons) while vinyl records are very negatively charged (gain electrons). Use of a conductive brush to remove static from a record that is intended to use the human body as the ground path may not work if the human body is not grounded, and even then, the human body depending on many variables may at best only be dissipative.  The bodies resistance can change between dry and humid conditions.  If your body is charged and you touch the record,  you will charge the record - rule of thumb - always first ground yourself before touching records.

Gruv-Glide ingredients appear to have changed - see  https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=68877.  The original formula with Quaternary ammonium compounds (a cationic surfactant) would have left a very thin film on the record.  Cationic surfactants reduce static by absorbing water from the air to form a thin coating of water on the record to make the record dissipative (as defined by ESD terms).  Over time, the cationic surfactant will break-down and the anti-static effect lost (any grunge developed notwithstanding).  If you have used the older version - be aware that follow-on cleaning with an anionic surfactant can form a sticky paste - anionic surfactants (in every dish detergent) are not soluble with cationic surfactants.  The new formula with only water and IPA should not leave any coating-film.  Simple water-IPA solutions are commonly used in Cleanrooms to "remove" static charge.  Any wet cleaning procedure will remove the static charge - it changes the record to dissipative.  But once dry - depending on the application, static charge can again build-up.  New records often have a static charge.

Felt is a type of fabric manufacture - but what is the material? Traditionally it has been wool and yes if dry that will cause static charge with a pvc recrod, but Felt can be also be manufactured from synthetic materials.

Use of conductive brushes with grounds is what the industry uses to control static charge in fabric/plastic sheeting manufacture.  But, the brush does not actually touch the fabric/plastic - it is positioned just a very small distance above because carbon while immensely strong axially (along the shaft) is brittle cross-wise.

Grounding the platter bearing as has been  addressed works, but for synthetic platters - maybe not as much.   

Dr. Van-den-Hul recommends placing a sponge wetted by DI water near the turntable to increase the humidity is the vicinity.  Once the ambient humidity drops below ~35%, static charge build-up can be a real challenge.

As some have addressed, there are  direct ionizing devices such as the Milty Zerostat™ 3 Antistatic Gun, and the DS Audio ION-001 Vinyl Ionizer.  But be advised that any ionizing device can develop ozone and that Buna-N (nitrile) rubber is very sensitive to ozone cracking; EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber is not ozone sensitive.

Most of the above has been extracted from the paper Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Record Chapter VI; available here - (no cost) https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records/

 

Thanx Antin, very helpful. I would just like to make several comments in addition. The charge is developed during play. Devices that neutralize the static before play are not useful. The charge develops rapidly and spreads over the surface of the record. The record collects dust during play especially if you are not using a dust cover. You can charge the record by rubbing your hand back and forth across the record, a behavior most of us would cringe to think about. Grounding the platter does not work. Even if you discharged the bottom of the record you are not discharging the top of the record. Static does not make a U turn around a sharp edge.  Also very few mats are conductive. Many platters now are not conductive
You mention conductive brushes and why  handheld brushes do not work. Good conductive sweep arms use the same bristles used in the hand held brushes just a bit longer. The arm I currently use, this one 
https://www.sleevecityusa.com/Antistatic-Record-Cleaning-Arm-p/tac-01.htm  is quite durable. Mine must be 6 years old at least and shows no sign of giving up. It is admittedly a little flimsy is some ways but with slight modification it stays permanently in adjustment and is a breeze to use.
The arm is set up so that the bristles just barely touch the record. This gives the best tracking and clears any incidental dust away from the stylus. I have a felt pad stuck to the left front corner of the turntable which I wipe the brush on before play. I clean the pad every so often with alcohol. I clean the arm maybe twice yearly with alcohol. The arm works perfectly. You can not hear it tracking the record. You can not hear it through the system even if you drop it on the record during a silent groove. If you use the right sleeves the records never hold any static charge, not even a whisper and the records remain perfectly clean. If you do not use a dust cover during play the records won't remain quite as clean but the sweep arm will clear any incidental dust away from the stylus. You will however contaminate the record sleeves with the small amount of dust that falls on the record during play which is way less than what you would have with a charged record which pulls dust in like a magnet. Take an old record and rub it with your hands to create a good charge. Now hold the record up to the light in such a way that you can see dust. Dust from over a foot away will swing toward the record and fly right into it. Now think about 10,000 PSI running over it (20,000 total, 10,000 per contact patch) It is no wonder records get noisy, scratchy and dirty with recurrent play. My oldest records, the ones I had when I was 6 years old are painful to listen to even after cleaning and with a modern stylus. My father's records are not much better. He used an old ESL tonearm with an Empire Cartridge and no anti skate. Who knew? 
Anyway, with a large collection none of us play the same record over and over so our records can last forever if taken care of. 
The conductive sweep arm mentioned above is a whopping 20 bucks.
If you get one and want to know a few tricks in set up just message me.

Daveyf, many preferences are a result of mythology which is admittedly hard to combat. If you don't mind dust on your records, don't use a dust cover. I got rid of all my Linns a long time ago because they are irreparably defective. 
Lewm, in order to transfer electrons from your hand to the record there has to be intimate contact. You have to rub your hand firmly back and forth across the record, a maneuver I can see you doing on a regular basis. Remember rubbing your feet on the carpet so you could shock your brother? Don't use the sweep arm. Destroy your records. Why should I care. 

I wish I’d had a brother.
But I do have a nice dust free sister.
if your body is charged all you have to do is touch the LP. The LP is like your unsuspecting brother. You don’t even pay attention to your own analogies.

By the way, you're not the only one who does this, Mijo, but this concept of taking the contact patch area of a stylus tip and typical VTF and from that extrapolating to the pressure in PSI is a specious way to think about the stress on the vinyl, in my opinion.  Why not extrapolate to the surface area of the LP, instead of to a square-inch?  In which case, there is about a million pounds of pressure per LP surface area (estimating that the surface area of a 12-inch LP is about 100 square inches and assuming your own estimate of 10,000 PSI is correct).  Wonder what that would do to record wear.

@mijostyn  "I got rid of all of my Linns a long time ago because they are irreparably defective"

Your post is timely, because I was talking to my Linn dealer yesterday and he related an interesting story. On one of the other forums, there was a chap who was telling everyone that the Linn LP12 was way past its prime, it was always falling out of tune, and was impossible to not only work on but was easily bested in SQ by any new turntable today. My dealer was curious about this guy and so after some back and forth PM’s with him, it was discovered that the poster had last owned a Linn LP12 in 1979, had always set up the table himself and had on occasion swapped out arms, to include a SME 309 and also a arm which he couldn’t remember, but it was heavy and worked well on his later tables. Lastly, the fellow told my dealer that he had heard the Linn recently, which to him was back in 2000! Nonetheless, this chap was 100% sure that his new Technics direct drive from 1980 was easily better than his 1979 Linn. After all, the darned screws were loctighted on the Linn and he couldn’t ever get them loose when he was taking his table apart…

I have NEVER heard of a Linn that was "irreparably defective" only an owner who had no clue how to set it up and refused to allow a qualified Linn dealer to work on it....were you one of those folks??--:0)

Well he was certainly right about the Linn sounding better than the direct drive. Daveyf, I did not say that the Linn could not sound good, it can. I said that it is irreparably defective which it is. The plinth is poorly constructed, you can twist it in your hands. The suspension is poorly damped and unstable because of it's geometry. The sub chassis sits on its springs like an old AR instead of being hung from them like an SME or SOTA. The ONLY advantage it had (over the AR) was at least you could mount the tonearm of your choice. Now they are trying to take that away as well.
The Linn has long outlived it's usefulness there are too many well designed tables for the money. Plus you said it sounds bad with it's dust cover down. That is certainly a problem I could not live with.
And Daveyf, you'll have to trust me on this one. I can set up a turntable way better than your dealer can. I have much better tools.

@mijostyn  The fact that you believe you can set up a Linn LP 12 better than the Linn trained professional says a lot about your post and experience. 

Furutech Destat 2 is the best and the only one that is 100% effective.

Lewm, just touching a neutral record will not transfer electrons without rubbing. If the record is already charged then sure. You can even see the sparks jump with the lights out.Just picking up a neutral record will in no way, shape or form put a charge on the record so if you want a charge you are going to have to put some elbow grease into it. Take an old record and give it a try. It will help if the air is dry. I'm sure you have record cleaning stuff to touch it up afterwards. 
Now a record press closes with about 150 tons of pressure. The surface area of a record is Pi R squared = 36 X 3.14= 113 square inches. This would come out to 2665 PSI. The contact area of a fine line stylus is about 47 um squared. Lets use 2 grams VTF. 2 gm = 0.00440925 lb.
47 um squared = 0.000000071285 square inches. Divide pounds by square inches and you get 60,525.0515 psi or over 30,000 psi per contact patch. So I was a tiny bit off. Sorry about that folks. 

Daveyf, if you think the guy at any Hi Fi store is an expert at setting up a turntable you are more gullible than I thought. I have NEVER seen a turntable come from a store set up perfectly. I was not kidding you when I said I have much better tools. Message me and I will happily send you some pictures.  

ebm, the Furutech Destat is just as worthless as the Zerostat. You would have to hold the thing over the record while it was playing and that will certainly interfere with your enjoyment of the music. Conductive sweep arm 20 bucks, Furutech Destat 325 bucks. What a racket.  

@mijostyn,

I have had good experience with controlling static buildup during play by grounding the platter bearing of my VPI 2" aluminum platter. This will minimize charging the record bottom during play. My records are all first wet-cleaned and stored in anti-static sleeves. Are far as conductive brushes the much softer Thunderon is is an option https://www.gordonbrush.com/search/Thunderon. Note that this brush material comes in two versions - 100% Thunderon, and the more common blend with goat hair.  FYI - a similar brush to what you use (albeit much more $$)  https://elusivedisc.com/integrity-hifi-tru-sweep-anti-static-dust-cleaner-sweeper-large/.

Mijostyn, maybe stop putting words in my mouth, did I say anywhere where the guy at any Hi Fi store is an expert...or did I say, and I quote' " Linn trained professional". Please read my posts closer and not jump to conclusions. 
You stated that you can set up the table way better than my Linn LP12 dealer, and since you believe this, there is nothing more to discuss...I am done with this. Have a nice day.

I'm keeping up my end just because I am bored (like most of us a prisoner in my own house), and it's fun.  Plus one of my two audio systems is down and that depresses me.  If you arrive at the turntable all charged up with negative electrons (or ions, as some would say), then as soon as you touch the LP, the charge on you will flow to it, owing I guess to the fact that skin wants to give off negative charge, and vinyl loves it.  No rubbing needed.  There is also the issue of removing the LP from its sleeve which also could charge it up.  And the LP rotating in air on the platter is another possible source based on the relative positions of air and vinyl in the triboelectric series. In the actual situation, the interactions are complex enough that one can almost never say the LP is neutral just using empiric reasoning.  Shure found that when they neutralized charge on the playing surface, that did nothing to the charge that might have existed between the LP and the platter mat, on the other side of the neutralized surface.  As soon as the LP was lifted off the mat, the charge on the reverse side redistributed itself to cover both sides.  By the way, I don't think conductivity has much to do with it, since this is, after all, "static" electricity, and we see that the materials on the extreme ends of the Triboelectric table, those with the most vs the least tendency to shed electrons or negative ions, are in general not very conductive or not at all conductive of electric current.
You are entitled to your opinions about the Linn LP12 and about use of the dust cover and the horrors of dust, but you are not entitled to facts.  I am not sure of the facts, but I am interested to learn more without reverting to long held "beliefs" based on nothing discernible. Or you could quote your sources.

A good old fashioned carbon fiber brush does the job for me.

This post spurred me to do some further research and I came upon this paper that shows that a water:IPA solution up to 80% H20/20%IPA is capable of removing static charge from an insulator (teflon was tested).   https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c23f/122eb9436b52a28fc5455674d5a699116578.pdf .  

What single stereo item have I owned The longest and will never part with? My 35 year old zerostat. 
By the way- zapping a record before play 95% of the time results in no lifting of my felt mat

Just a quick follow-up to my post about 80% H20/20%IPA being capable of removing static charge from an insulator.  The reason this works and plain water does not has to do with 'wetting' - the difference between the fluid surface tension and the critical surface tension of the insulator.  The critical surface tension for Teflon is ~19 dynes/cm (~one half of PVC) and  80% H20/20%IPA surface tension is 30 dynes/cm - low enough to 'wet' the Teflon.  Given these results, a 90% H20/10%IPA with surface tension of 40 dynes/cm would be more than adequate to remove static from a PVC record that is ~38 dynes/cm.  Just remember that for water-IPA solutions with >2% IPA - the vapors are flammable.

Antinn, I prefer 100% IPA for cleaning records. That way the job never gets done.
The elusive disc arm is nicely made but has one fault and that is the brush is camel hair and not near as conductive as carbon bristles. I bought one and checked it with a meter. Carbon registers continuity camel hair does not. I sent it back.
Yes, you will short out one side of the record on a grounded bare metal platter but it does nothing for the side generating the charge and sucking in the dust. I also personally prefer a mat of the proper durometer. It does sound better to me as does either vacuum hold down or a reflex clamping system.
Give the darn $20.00 arm a spin. I'll buy it off ya if you don't like it:)

Most mysteriously to me, UV light at the right wave length and intensity will also dissipate static electric charge. There's an expensive tweak product idea for someone.

I will dump my Furutech Desat 2 because its worthless are you joking DUDE!!

Hi @masi61
I have a Milty Zerostat. I can thoroughly recommend. Whenever I buy a new record I remove from the sleeve, hold the milty in one hand and the record in the other (don’t lay on turntable), point the milty at the record holding around 10-12 inches away and squeeze the trigger. I then slowly release and wait until you stop hearing the slight sound the milty makes. To be honest, and I suspect there’s no need, I fire it a couple of times on each side. I also replace the inner sleeve (if necessary) with a mofi sleeve. I don’t have any issues with static. I hope this helps.

ebm not at all. The Desat 2 and Zerostat do not solve the problem they just delude you into thinking they do. The static is generated by the stylus rubbing the groove. It is regenerated after only a minute of play time. The static attracts dust and pollution and pulls it deep into the groove where you stylus runs over it at 30,000 PSI per contact patch (we just did the math above) grinding it into the vinyl. All this is worsened by not using a dust cover during play. Unless you want to stand over the record and use these devices during play they are worthless. I'm sorry you guys wasted your money on them. I can't do anything about that. But I can keep others from making the same mistake. Don't feel bad. I bought a Zerostat when they first came out. I stopped using it after a week. Live and learn.
You have to discharge the record during play and the only way I know to do that is with a conductive sweep arm providing a path to ground.
Lewm you are right but it has to be done in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere. X ray irradiation will work in air I believe. I'm pretty sure the conductive sweep arm would be more cost effective and less carcinogenic. 

Aaaarrrgghhhh, Mijostyn.  Now you not only persist in your unsupported claim that the stylus causes electrostatic charge, you have also added a time frame, one minute!  What is your evidence for THAT?  If you observe that charge develops in one minute or less, that could be due to any one of the other three causes we've discussed: friction with ambient air as the LP spins, contact with the body part of a person who is charged up, or friction with the record sleeve as one removes the LP from it.  For me, at the moment, the diamond stylus tip is 4th on my list of possible causes and least likely.  But I am waiting for you to support your claim.
jro1903, What you do is likely to be futile, because it seems at least to me that static charge builds up during the acts of removing the LP from the sleeve, spinning the LP in room air, and/or touching the LP when you yourself are charged up, as occurs after you walk across a wool carpet to the equipment stand, etc.  Also, and I get this from the internet, so take it with a grain of salt at least, the Zerostat trigger is supposed to be squeezed very gently so as not to produce that clicking sound, in both directions, but with the trigger depressed at the end of the process, you move the gun slowly away from the LP surface as you release the pressure on the trigger.  Most also say this is best done when the LP is already on the platter.  Some say it can be spinning, some say not.  But, as Mijo says, that ritual may even be in vain because static charge can come back after you have performed it properly.  Shure Corporation demonstrated that if you discharge an LP while it sits on the platter, there is still charge on the other side, between the LP and the platter surface.  When you then lift the LP to turn it over or return it to storage, the charge on the untreated side redistributes itself evenly onto both the untreated and the treated side. 


I own a Zerostat and used it for decades, but in recent months I use only the new Audioquest carbon fiber brush that has its fibers grounded via the handle of the brush, supposedly allowing charge to drain off to ground via your body.  I can't say that deleting the Zerostat from my ritual has had any effect one way or the other on any problem with static charge.

Mijo, I think I saw this video on Youtube or on a science site, where UV light is shown to deplete static charge, and it was definitely done in open air, not in an inert gas environment.  If I can find the video, I will post the URL.

Lewm, it is very easy to measure with a high voltage probe. Building ESLs I just happen to have one. You are not arguing with me Lewm you are arguing with scientific facts of life. All you have to do is get up off your back side and do a little research instead of trying to convince me I am wrong.
The bristles on your brush are conductive and they will lead static away from the record if there is a path to ground. Even if you were holding your house's ground cable in your left had it will not work well because the electrical resistance of you is very high. With me from one index finger to the other is 23.765 mega ohms. (I just measured it) You would have to hold the brush on the record for an hour. Besides, as soon as you put that stylus down the charge is back and the dust is flying into your grooves. If you want to shock someone just rub your feet on a carpet for just 5 seconds. As you go to touch your unsuspecting target you can actually see the spark jump. Just 5 seconds. 
Do post that video. I just read that it required a special atmosphere, UV that is. X rays do not require anything. (except everybody hiding.)

Dear Mijo, You wrote above, "Lewm, it is very easy to measure with a high voltage probe. Building ESLs I just happen to have one. You are not arguing with me Lewm you are arguing with scientific facts of life. All you have to do is get up off your back side and do a little research instead of trying to convince me I am wrong."

Do you mean to say that you are measuring static electric charge with a typical multimeter using a high voltage probe?  Can't be done, but maybe you have a probe of a type I don't know about.  If so, I'd like to buy such a probe. I use a 6kV probe on my Fluke meter when I am working on my Beveridge amplifiers, which drive the panel directly and develop +/-3200VDC.  That probe is not suitable to measure a static charge.


I have owned nothing but ESLs since about 1971, including KLH9s, Quad 57s, Quad 63s, and various Martin-Logans. I currently own a pair of Sound Lab 845PXs.  I wouldn't think of "building" an ESL panel, but I have done some repair and upgrades to my 845s.  I also own a pair of Beveridge 2SWs, which incorporate a novel type of ESL panel.  So, I know about ESLs.

Finally, as to your central statement, "You are not arguing with me Lewm you are arguing with scientific facts of life.", what are you talking about?  I'd like to know what science I am denying, in your mind.  I didn't know we had a conflict of that sort.  All I know is that I have asked you to cite some evidence that a diamond stylus moving on vinyl is the base cause of static charge on LPs.  I am open to the idea if you show me evidence, but I like the other 3 mechanisms I've described, and which others have described, better.


Here is the video that shows clearly that one does not need an inert gas atmosphere in order to observe that UV light of the proper intensity and wave length can discharge a static charge.  It works quite well in room air.  It's the photo-electric effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubkNGwu_66s

@mijostyn,

Audio Magazine 1978-May, starting ~page 44 of 124 has a discussion with measured data for static charge on records.  The article does say -  "Incidentally, measurements with these instruments have shown that electrification from the direct friction between the diamond and vinyl is, oddly enough, negligible."  You can download a copy of this magazine here:   https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-05.pdf.  However, this does not diminish the success of using a conductive (as defined by ESD practices) brush to remove static charge from a record that can develop during play - this is a very common method used for ESD control as is continuous ionizing devices (harm to Buna-N rubber notwithstanding).

Also, for info, the pressure the stylus develops on a record is actually pretty complicated - RCA  Engineer magazine 1966 Aug-Sept has an article DISC PHONOGRAPH RECORDS written by Dr. Max that shows the calculation.  You can download a copy of this magazine here:   https://worldradiohistory.com/ARCHIVE-RCA/RCA-Engineer/1966-08-09.pdf.  

Thanks, Antinn.  I have been unable to find anything on the internet, up or down, that would incriminate or absolve the stylus, until this.

I use a felt mat.....and have practically zero issues with static.  But I'm always barefoot around the house.  So I'm always grounded......seems to work for me.

1) Get rid of the felt mat, replace it with rubber or cork, there are many options.

2) Rinse your records under the tap, such that the record, the water stream running on to the record and the metal spout of the faucet makes ONE UNBROKEN electrical contact.

3) After 2 above, air dry your record with no cloth friction whatsoever.

Same massive and annoying static issues with my Rega P10 using their felt mat. I called them about other options and their technician advised me strongly to avoid using after market brands. He said the mat was specifically constructed for that TT to achieve optimal SQ and any other option could negatively impact sound quality.

I didn’t ask about solutions while using the existing mat and he didn’t offer up any so I called back today but the guy who answered said everyone is on holiday and to call back next Tuesday so I will do that and ask about double-sided tape like the Linn.

Meanwhile and regardless, Sokogear’s Rega dealer recommended the Washi Japanese paper by Teac. $30 on amazon and very cool looking. So Im currently using that - it’s 1mm thick vs. 3mm I think on the rega pad. Zero zilch nada static. Problem fixed 100 percent and i don’t notice any sonic differences, good or bad.

Here you go Lewm  https://thelastfactory.com/last-record-preservative/how-do-i-get-rid-of-static-on-vinyl-records-i-e-static-cling/ and Antinin. Lewm you may be right about the probe. I have a very fast meter with a very high impedance. Tonight I will connect the negative lead to house ground and see if I can measure it. 
Lewm I have to say you have excellent taste in loudspeakers. Have you tried subwoofers yet? What are you using to drive them?
The other theory as to how static forms on records is that the spinning record creates "friction" with air generating the charge. This is unlikely as the formation of a static electric charge requires "intimate" contact between two objects at opposite ends of the triboelectric series. Intimate contact such as the belt in a Van De Graaff generator or the stylus in the groove. You can not generate a static charge by waving your feet in the air but you can rubbing your feet on carpet with all your weight on them. Tonight I will put a neutral record on the turntable and let it spin while I check out the news and see if it develops a charge. 
In surfing the internet on this subject I have noted that there are a plethora of theories and opinions on the generation and management of static electricity on records. They can not all be right. Once you understand how the static electricity is formed all you need is logic to form a management plan. It is not rocket science and I am not a rocket scientist. Static is formed by the stylus rubbing the groove stealing the electrons from air. Here is a decent general article.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/static-science-how-well-do-different-materials-make-static-electricity/#:~:text=Static%20electricity%20can%20be%20created,to%20produce%20a%20static%20charge.
Antinin, great article with some aspects I disagree with. He  "oddly" dismisses the sorce of static as the rubbing stylus. As measured by who and under what circumstances.The Last Factory also disagrees with this analysis. There are a number of ways you can detect static. Take a neutral record and play it. You will notice a static charge develops. Something about playing a record developes static electricity. Are there circumstances that a charge won't develop? Perhaps high humidity, An arm or turntable grounded in a certain way, a conductive cartridge body that runs very close to the record. Obviously I do not know for sure. Tonight I am going to let a record just spin and see what happens. Put a neutral record in a paper sleeve and nothing will happen. But, if you put a charged record into a paper sleeve the paper will cling to the record and you will even get snapping and maybe even shocked as you pull it out. This is why people think that paper sleeves cause static under normal circumstances. If you take a paper sleeve and rub it briskly over the record you can develop a nice charge and ruin the record in the process.
This is an experiment I have done. My records come off the turntable discharged and the ones still in paper sleeves never develop a static charge.
He talks about dust and confirms most of what I have said. He "oddly" thinks you need a longer stylus shank to prevent clogging the stylus. Today we use very tiny short styli without any trouble what so ever. This improves tracking and frequency response by lowering the effective mass of the assembly.  Lint (large fiber) is easy to remove from a record It is the smaller particles and pollution that are the real problem in terms of record wear. Most people deal with this with various record cleaning devises and methods. I deal with it my not letting my records get dirty in the first place. I never put anything on my records. All I do is the conductive sweep arm and a dust cover.
 

Antinn, another great old article. I can only calculate the PSI the vinyl is subjected to under static conditions which I probably should have mentioned. Playing a record is not a static process (no pun intended) it is a dynamic one with the stylus wiggling all over the place subjecting the vinyl to variations in pressure I certainly have no way of determining. I was Just trying to give everyone the basic picture that the pressure is considerable, in the order of tens of thousands of pounds per square inch. The article mention 10 X 10 to the forth power. That would be 100,000 PSI. But their contact patches were much smaller.
This article was written when we were still using only spherical styli. He mentions 10 gram VTF! Obviously we have advanced consideraby since then. Our styli are tiny in comparison and undoubtedly have a much higher polish. The contact patch with our special shapes is much higher lowering the PSI the vinyl is subjected to and increasing the frequency response to as high as 100 kHz. 30,000 PSI is certainly in the ballpark.
Anyway, thanx for pulling up these articles. They are fun to read given their age and most of these concepts remain true to this day.

Mijostyn, Antinn, and anyone else anal enough to be interested, here is the Shure Corporation website where they post pdf files on many questions that arise with respect to playing LPs:https://service.shure.com/Service/s/article/high-fidelity-phonograph-cartridge-technical-seminar?lan...I call your attention to the paper on static charge.  They describe many interesting experiments in some detail and also mention that they found no evidence that friction between the diamond stylus tip and the groove is an important cause of static charge build-up.  I agree it would be more forceful if they had mentioned how they came to that conclusion.
Mijo, you wrote above, "The other theory as to how static forms on records is that the spinning record creates "friction" with air generating the charge."  That is exactly one hypothesis that I already put forward. (See any of 3 posts above.) I don't know if it's valid any more than you do.  One recent search led me to a statement that air per se is probably not such a good electron donor, but that dust particles and/or moisture in air may confer a charge to a good electron acceptor, like vinyl.  If so, we are back to your obsession with dust, and you have one more reason to obsess.
I drive the Sound Labs with a pair of Atma-sphere OTL amplifiers that started life as "MA-240s", a model that was discontinued in the late 90s.  It originally used six 6C33C triodes as output tubes, but I have modified mine to use four 7241 triodes, which collectively produce the same amount of power (~100W into 16 ohms, maybe).  I have also built my amps from parts supplied by Atma-sphere such that each tube has its own driver tube.  This enables me to set bias separately on each tube, so there is no single tube hogging current and doing most of the work.  Many other tweaks in the circuit as well.  The Sound Lab speakers are tweaked in that I removed all the passive crossover parts and drive the audio step-up transformers (two of them in the SLs, one for bass and one for treble) in parallel directly from the OTLs.  This dramatically increased both the speaker impedance (measured at several frequencies from 20Hz to 10kHz) and the efficiency of the speaker. No subwoofer used so far.

The Beveridge speakers are direct-driven by the Beveridge direct-drive amplifiers I described earlier.  The 2SWs require a woofer as they are designed to go down to ~100Hz.  For woofers, I use a pair of transmission lines I built myself when I was an intern, nearly 50 years ago.  I modeled them after the TL woofer section of the IMF Monitor speakers. They incorporate KEF B139 woofers that are extremely low in distortion but do give up a bit of the very extreme low bass as a trade-off.  The woofers are driven separately from a Threshold amplifier that gets signal from a Dahlquist electronic crossover.  The 2SW has its own built-in electronic hi-pass filter, and I drive that directly.

That experiment you mention, if you intend to measure bias V on an ESL while grounding your meter to house ground and touching your HV probe to a stator (?), sounds possibly dangerous.  I myself would not do it.  For under $100 you can get a decent electrostatic charge meter that should allow measurement of the charge without anything touching anything, with ground to the speaker.

No Lewm, I was talking about measuring the record. I built my own adjustible bias supplies. I maintain a pretty dry environment and can push the panels a bit harder than the stock bias supplies. The only parts I kept are the two power transformers. I have the probe to make sure the bias supplies are putting out exactly the same voltage. I measure between power supply ground and the bias supply output with the panels connected. They are old Acoustat 2+2s which I have had from new. They spend a few years in another friends system while I played around with Apogee Divas. I got them back after I sold the Divas. I also removed the stock interface and replaced it with a 100 to 1 Sowter Transformer. They are driven with JC 1's. I cross to 4 subwoofers which I built at 125 Hz.
I have a better subwoofer design in my head which I will probably make next Winter. They will use a total of 8 Morel 12" drivers in a balanced force configuration. I also plan on getting a pair of 845's in the hopefully not too distant future. The 2+2s are wonderful but selfish. The treble rolls off quickly off axis. 
An old trash record is on the turntable spinning now with the dust cover up. We shall see if it developes a charge. Afterwards I am going to play the record without the sweep arm to see what happens. As you probably have noticed there are opinions all over the place as to what does and doen't create static on records. I have read that Shure paper many times. Overall I prefer Antin's article. I would like to get this settled once and for all:)

Acoustats are excellent.  Just about the only brand of good ESL that I have not owned, but my dear friend here in Northern VA had them for many years, so I am quite familiar with them.  Acoustat actually originated the idea of using two audio step-up transformers, one for bass and one for treble.  I think they called that the "Medallion" option.  Sound Labs basically borrowed the idea from Acoustat in the late 90s, I think. At first, SL drove one fraction of the panel with a bass transformer and a smaller fraction with the treble transformer, but in recent years, they drive all panels full range with both transformers.  I think Acoustat went down that road, too.  I just have no room in my upstairs listening space, where the gigantic 845PXs dominate, to add anything like the size of the subwoofers you use.  But I have often considered some smaller alternatives.
Seems you've been nudged off the ledge of absolute certainty that the stylus causes static charge on the LP, at least.  That's a good sign.

Ok guys...I had a static problem for years and literally tried every device, carbon fiber brushes, even grounded to the wall outlet, Zerostat etc etc. This past winter I decided to re-clean my 600 + album record collection and decided to do it with a ultrasonic cleaner. Did my research and got a ultrasonic cleaner, a device to rotate 4-albums at a time and made my own cleaning solution utilizing distilled water, 91% isopropyl alcohol, Triton X-100 and  Hepastat 256. The Hepastat is the defining difference static wise. Everything else gave me squeaky clean (LOL...quiet clean) albums , but the Hepastat is a quat and thus an anti static. 
I have been playing my albums (some over and over) on my VIP Aries 3 with a Benz LPS MR for the past 7 months and have not had to brush, Zerostat or anything else to remove static. 
Clean quiet and static pop free...

If any of you are interested in a anti-static brush, I have several for sale.

@suneone,

If you read the MSDS for Hepastat 256 - its an alkaline cleaner with non-ionic surfactant and cationic surfactant - the quat, and ethanol (alcohol) and other ingredients.  Why add Triton X100 non-ionic detergent?  Why add alcohol - what are they doing?  Otherwise, the likely reason you are experiencing continued anti-static performance its because the quat - the cationic surfactant left a thin film  These quats ( Quaternary ammonium cations) aside from killing viruses, have as a film absorb moisture from the air and form a thin water film on the record that changes the record to dissipative - ergo anti-static.  They will wear away eventually.  However, be careful, once you have cleaned with a cationic surfactant - if there is a film and you apply an anionic surfactant - any dish detergent - the anionic surfactant and the cationic surfactant are not soluble and a sticky paste can form.  Being in the groove you are unlikely to see it - but you will see a buildup of gunk on the stylus.  Personally, as I have written in the paper Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Record (you can download a free copy here -  https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records/), I am not a fan of any cleaning process that leaves a residue.  But, as my paper says - its A way, not THE way - just make an informed decision, and know and accept any associated risk.

Neil

@mijostyn,

"I would like to get this settled once and for all"  My only response is good luck.  There are so many variables.  The ambient humidity; the various ground potentials, the record material (which is a complete wildcard), the record mat, the record liner, you - what is your hydration level; just to name a few.  If there was an answer, I would like to think the RCA engineers from years past would have figured it out - they spent quite a bit of effort developing anti-static records with carefully bended formulas.  But, one always has to admire those that try.  But, there appears to be a significant risk with just removing the record from the sleeve and lifting it from the platter mat.  So, there 'could' be an accumulation effect from the end of play platter lift-off to sleeving; and this will be influenced by the ambient humidity and the hydration status of the human.  Personally, I do not have any major static issues - but dust/lint that is only visible with black-light is often in the air.  Use of room HEPA filter can help.  Otherwise, all my records have been deep-wet cleaned and anit-static sleeves are used, and I have good luck with the  Kinetronics Anti-Static Microfiber Cloth, Tiger Cloth wetted with about one drop of atomized DI water (from a nasal spray device).  

Neil

The original zerostat gun (red) by discwasher is an effective tool, as well as a leather mat. Also the audioquest carbon fiber brush with the brass colored metal in the handle (newest version) seems to be effective. Also the use of anti static record sleeves is a good start. 

Lewm, they called it the Magnetic-Kinetic interface. The Medallion was the last version. Both transformers always drove all the panels. With the 2+2s they used one interface but with the 3+3s and 4+4s they used two.
The 4+4's were about the same size as your 845s.
The two transformer idea originated because it was imposible to get the entire frequency range out of one transformer without saturation. I intensonally had a large transformer built that sacrificed bass for high end because I have always used subwoofers. Boy did that work. Now depending on the length of the wall you have the 845s on, you will need multiple subs. A 16 foot wall requires 4 subs. If you do not like playing over 95 dB and do not care about the bottom octave 10" drivers will do. Otherwise you have to stick with 12" drivers. In sealed cabinets they are not that big and because they are right against the wall and in corners they sort of disappear. But there are other serious considerations when matching subs to ESLs we can talk about another time as we are hijacking this thread.
Antinn, I really do not think they thought of it as an important issue compared with all the others. You are right there are a number of variables that can alter the results. I have some control of humidity as we use AC. It was 54% this morning. My records have no static at all to start. That part is easy. Spinning a record all night with the dust cover open resulted in no noticable static charge. So I think we can say that just spinning a record at 54% humidity will not cause static build up. My mat is not conductive. Tonight I am going to play a record without the sweep arm to see if a charge developes. If it does we can safely say that something about playing a record creates a static charge and since creating a charge requires "intimate contact" we can safely assume it is the stylus rubbing. If no charge developes it gets a bit more complicated. Most likely the stylus rubbing does not create a charge but there could be something about my turntable or environment that is keeping the charge from developing. I have been using a conductive sweep arm since the early 70's and have not had an static build up records. So, I have not thought much about it. The only records I have ever had to clean are the ones I had before sweep arm use. Again, I do not buy used records but they certainly should be cleaned before play.
Triton X100 is a surfactant. Water all by itself is "anti-static" Triton X100, distilled water with a touch of alcohol make a woderful record cleaning solution. Out of the bath the records will be totally discharged and all the solution will evaporate.  Any substance that stays on the record is bad news antistatic or not. 

This is way off topic for the OP, and for that I apologize.  When I removed the passive crossover components from the 845s, I replaced the OEM treble transformer, because that unit could not have handled full range input, and replaced it with a massive full range EI type transformer, with a 1:90 step-up ratio.  So now the bass transformers, which work up to about 2kHz before pooping out, are in parallel with that full range one.  I experimented with using the full range tranny alone to drive the 845s, but it doesn't have the cojones.  The bass tranny is needed for good LF response.

Here we go again.  I have used distilled deionized water + triton X100 + isopropyl alcohol forever in my RCM.  Although it does a good job, I was eventually motivated to try rinsing the LP surface after a good cleaning with the above mix, because there was word on this forum and others that especially triton X100 could leave a residue.  (This is using a VPI HW17 RCM.)  I found that a rinse with distilled water, using a clean wand on the HW17, made a noticeable improvement in my results.  Ergo, this suggests there IS a residue left behind after evaporation or in this case vacuum suction. I would guess that passive evaporation would leave even more of a residue than suction.  I was a laboratory chief at NIH or FDA in those days, and I had access to lab grade chemicals for making the solution.  (Retired now, so no such luck, but I still have some high quality ingredients left.)
What instrument did you use to measure electrostatic charge on your LP, before vs after the experiment with room air?

With subwoofers you won't need the bass transformer. I plan on bypassing those controls also. I use full range digital "room control" which is really speaker control. I can make the speakers do whatever I want in the digital domain where there is much less distortion. Use subs and you will increase your headroom by 10dB and noticably lower distortion in your 845's. 
This is not very scientific but hey neither was the Kite. I can only tell if there is a charge there or not. I can't measure it. It is a qualitative test and the most sencitive I have available to me. Everybody is going to laugh at me now. When charging the record to see if I could measure anything with my meter I noticed that the charged record had a strong attraction to the hair on the back of my fingers so strong that I could feel it. Testing with multiple levels of charge it became obvious that the attraction to my hair was more sencitive than the attraction to the paper sleeve. All I have to do is move the back of my hand close to the record and I can see the hair flexing towards the record. With no charge the hair does not move at all. With a highly charged record the hairs stand at full attention. 
Anybody with hair fingers can try it at home. You could also borrow a gorilla from the zoo. 
The baseline was set by running the grounded brush over both sides of the record shorting it out. Hair does not move. At the end I held a finger over the record, no attraction at all. I took the record off the turntable and checked it again. Still no attraction. I rubbed the record with the paper sleeve and hairs stood straight up. Tonight I will short out the record again, play a side without the brush and and see if the record developes any charge. By the way and interestingly, holding the record does not dissipate the charge. Pulling a record out of a paper sleeve does not create a measurable charge at 54% humidity. Rubbing the record firmly with the paper sleeve 10 times back and forth creates a sizable charge pulling the hair straight. I don't have an anti static brush to test but my guess is just holding it over the record will not work well. They should make these brushes with a connection to ground. Then they would work great.

Antinn, I also have absolutely no static issues But I am going to have to stop telling people that the stylus rubbing the groove is the cause of statuc build up if it is not true. Something is causing static build up and there does not seem to any unity as to the cause but there certainly is one. We are certainly in agreement as to rice paper sleeves and filters. Both my air handlers have high efficiency filters and it helps. I have to wipe off my dust cover once every other month instead of every other week or so. It would be really nice to put your turntable in a clean room.
You could make one in your house. God knows what it would cost. 
Almost all of my records are in rice paper sleeves now. Paper sleeve are certainly the worst. But I do not think they cause static in normal use. 
Records can hold on to a static charge indefinitely and paper sleeves will stick to a charged record making the problem rather obvious. Rice paper sleeves will not. 
Anyway, I know what I do works and is very efficient. We shall see if I can define the problem better. 

Mijo, You wrote, "With subwoofers you won't need the bass transformer."  Since you did not hear my speakers without the bass transformer, how can you possibly know that?  First of all, with the single full range transformer, the deficiency was at frequencies well above those of a subwoofer supplement.  More like in the 50 to 300Hz range and very noticeable.  I am not going to mate an ESL with a dynamic woofer (not subwoofer) that has to do significant work up to ~300Hz.  With the added bass transformer in parallel, now I get full range ESL bass that goes down to about 30Hz and gradually tails off below that, due to the huge physical size of an 845PX panel.  I'd rather have very low distortion ESL bass than bass that needs augmentation with a dynamic woofer (not a subwoofer when used above 80Hz or so, IMO), but that's me.

I was inspired by this posting I read here about a DIY anti-static solution. I’ve been running my version for just over a month now. I can confirm that LPs are lifting off the platter without static crackles now, and that they are sliding back into their sleeves much easier than they come out. I am not going so far as to say that every single trace of static is completely gone after a single play, but I will say that after playing each side of an LP there is less static in the disc than before playing it. We’ve got two turntables running in the house, and the static solution is only set up on one of them. Static builds on the turntable with out the solution, and dissipates on the one where I have the brush running. It is a very nice feeling to lift a disc off the platter and have it feel like inert plastic versus some kind of active static monster.

The solution isn’t novel or particularly innovative, it’s a DIY scaled down version of solutions that are working daily in factories everywhere. You need a conductive carbon brush with an anchor point for a grounding wire, and you need to make sure that grounding wire makes it to an earth point. I’m using the panel screw on the wall plate (after I verified that the screw was indeed grounded using a multi-meter).

Link to image: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bYY2Gjrmj_P-l2kgWdtM-h3eozBEELUwmKtKsp9e8cOsZzgoPFhyZZSp0z1eUlTDJq...

The toughest part for me was sourcing a good quality conductive carbon fiber brush at a reasonable price. If you are blessed to have old computer printers laying about you might be able to disassemble one and cannibalize the brush that most printers have built in. I ended up ordering my brush from Amstat Industries. Four inches was the smallest size I could order and cost was twenty four dollars for the brush and twelve for shipping for a total of thirty-six dollars for the brush to my door. I know that in the UK there are similar manufacturers of anti-static brushes one could source.

This DIY version has a good number of conductive carbon bristles in play across a large surface area, and I can have it making direct contact with both sides of the LP at the edge - or I can back it off to keep it silent at a 1-2 mm gap distance.

Thanks for reading. Hope this helps someone.

dcarwin, As mentioned somewhere up the thread, Audioquest now make their well known carbon fiber record brush with a metal handle that is electrically continuous with the brush fibers.  (Earlier versions did not establish contact between fibers and handle.) When you hold it whilst brushing the LP, your body provides the electrical pathway to ground via your feet or you can just touch your metal equipment stand, in case your feet are insulated from ground by rubber shoes or nonconductive carpet.  I also own, but have never used, a Mapleshade brush that has a ground wire with a clip at the end, also to fasten to a grounded object.  Problem is its fibers are of natural origin and they both encourage static charge and also lose bristles which can foul up a stylus.  This latter is why I don't use it.

lewm:  The solution I describe and link to is passive, in that it works while you play the record, and one does not brush the surface of the record manually.  I hope that's clear, in that your response infers I was re-posting some info about handheld conductive brushes. 

If one wet-cleans the record, then this solution works to prevent any buildup of new static.  For new (unwashed) static-y records, the solution dissipates the pre-existing static after a couple plays.