Back To Static!

We had a long discussion on the possible causes of static electrical charges on records in another thread. We just had a real good cold snap in New England dropping the humidity to under 20% so I was able to run a set of qualitative experiments documenting some surprising results that I hope will clear up a lot of the mystery and help people contro static charge and the accumulation of dust on their record. 
Static field meters are expensive.  The cheapest one I could find cost $260. I had to find a more sensitive way to measure static as it became apparent that using your own hair is very insensitive. Studying the Triboelectric series I noted that polypropylene is at the opposite end to PVS.  I have polypropylene in the form of suture material, the blue thread that many of you have seen. I tied a length of 6-0 Prolene  to a wood dowel and it worked beautifully. The PVC attracts it like a magnet and the Label repels it. It will pick up very small charges that otherwise go undetected. I can now define four conditions; No charge, Light charge, Charged and Heavily charged. It turns out that completely discharging a record is not easy. The label will actually donate electrons to the vinyl over time reaching an equilibrium point. Totally discharging a record required using a Pro-Ject conductive record brush wired to ground. If I suspend a discharged record (no thread activity) by it's hole within 30 minutes it will develop a slight charge (vinyl attracts the thread, label repels it). This will appear to us as an uncharged record. 
Does playing a record increase the static charge?  Yes absolutely, and the charge is additive. Playing the record over and over again progressively increases the charge from slightly to heavily charged. 
Does how you store the record effect charge? Yes absolutely. Records stored in MoFi antistatic sleeves come out with the baseline small charge. Records stored in paper come out with a noticeably higher charge. These are records that have been totally discharged prior to storage. A record that is charged when you put it away will come out at least as charged even if you are using anti static sleeves. Do conductive sweep arms work? Sort of. If the sweep arm leads the stylus charge will still accumulate. The brush has to track with the stylus. 
Unfortunately, I could not get hold of a Zerostat to test it's effectiveness. Regardless, a charge will accumulate with play.
The single best way to totally discharge a record is a conductive brush wired to ground. Just holding it will not work as well. The impedance of your tissue is in the megaohms. You want a dead short. Even so, a small charge will accumulate over a short period of time. The safest assumption is that there is always a charge on the record attracting dust. So, don't leave records out for any period of time. In regards to the hot topic of dust covers, a properly designed Dust cover does not affect sound quality. If your dust cover does effect sound quality in a negative way then you have a choice between sound quality and dirtier records. Your records, your choice. 
I would love to be able to stage voltages. If in the future I manage to come up with a static field meter I will repeat all of this in a quantitative way. Humidity is a huge factor. Those living in more humid environments have less trouble with static accumulation. I suspect everything occurs in like fashion just the voltages are lower. Lower to the point that they do not need any device to lower the charge?  I don't know. 

What about the debate on dust covers as it applies to static charge accumulation.  Did you compare the charge on an LP played with dust cover removed vs charge on an LP played with dust cover in place?
If only we can figure out how to play records without removing them from the album cover.
@lewm  I did not measure that but I certainly can. 
I'm not sure but I think Rauliruegas can do that!
FWIW - my DIY record mat cut from a 3-layer ESD mat with the platter/bearing grounded is still keeping static at-bay with humidity into the 20's%; details here -  Note that for the platter/ground I use  DIY ground cable from 1/4" tin-coated copper braid (in a expandable cover) back to the house outlet ground.

Otherwise, @mijostyn your testing adds to the knowledge of static.  
I recently upgraded my VPI Classic 3 SE with  SOTA Eclipse package. Part of installing it was to run a ground wire directly from the motor to phono preamplifier. Static disappeared. BTW, I use two MyMats.
@antinn, I have said repeatedly that I did not have a static problem the way I was caring for my records. I was wrong. I did not have a noticeable static problem would have been the more accurate way to describe it. Is that just as good? For all intents and purposes, yes. This is the situation you have. Your records are charged, just not at very high voltages. You are managing to drain enough off to keep things from getting out of hand.
The mat design you are using seems very intelligent. There is one interesting hook in it. Static electricity is a surface phenomenon. The record has two surfaces, PVC and paper. The paper donates electrons to the PVC. Even if you thoroughly discharge the record within minutes a charge differential will develop between the two. At equilibrium the voltage in not high enough to be easily noticed. Your system pulls electrons from the PVC but hands them back to the paper. Will this change the equilibrium voltage? We would need a static field meter to determine that. But if the records seem static free that is enough. If my turntable did not have a vacuum system I would certainly try your mat and method. I bookmarked your link as it is an excellent suggestion for those with a static problem.
And antinn, thank you for the compliment:-)
@slaw , you should try antinn's mat material and let us know what you thinK.

The MyMat was developed for SQ. It is offered in one of it's configurations to allow for the record label’ thickness, which the ESD mat doesn’t. Sounds best without a weight or clamp. With all do respect, I’m very happy.
Thanks, I will start using the anti-static sleeves I bought.

wand demagnitiser?

just curious, I have wand demagnitizer for my R2R deck. 

Any advantage relating to static to use on nearby TT, or LP's just placed on the platter?

Avoid anything?
It would be good practice to keep any tape head demagnetizer well away from your phono cartridge, especially a moving magnet design.

No arguments that there may always be some static charge under some conditions.  Someone over at the Steve Hoffman site has been doing some cleaning agent comparisons (with some input) and has a static field device, and after full wet cleaning the record surface measures <0.200 kV but his background humidity is in the 30's. Once the background humidity gets above 45F dewpoint (same as 40% at 72F) the moisture layer that naturally forms on the record should be enough to dissipate most static charge; noting that what condenses out of the air is slightly ionic.  So, in you current situation with humidity <20%, the static that is forming is likely just the consequence of the record spinning in the very dry ambient air.  

Not sure how the label that is bonded to the polyvinyl-chloride-acetate (PVCa) transfers electrons the record.  Either way for my application, with the paper in contact with the metal spindle, any charge should be  dissipated.  I also have a reflex clamp that is plastic in contact with the label w/metal top/threads that could help to dissipate the charge from the label.  One thing you have to consider is that when controlling static, the term anti-static includes materials that are conductive and dissipative.  Very often in ESD control, ESD ground straps will have a 1 meg-ohm resistor built-in to control how fast the static charge is dissipated; and the time duration is just a few seconds.  For work surfaces they do not want fast discharge - it can damage a microchip when placed on the mat, so they slow down the discharge to be dissipative. 

So, although by convention the record material is considered an insulator, and static develops on the surface, that does not mean it cannot dissipate charge through the material - but very slowly.  The ESD mat top surface is vinyl - but it is dissipative across its surface and through its surface to the center conductive layer.  But, the heavier ergo thicker record, dissipation through the record will much slower.  Also, the high static charge that forms is not uniform, the articles measured it as islands.  

My reason for posting was to show that proper grounding is a big factor to getting static under control, as @antinn  wrote in the link he provided. My mentioning of my use of MyMats was to show that with proper grounding, I'm having no issue using them.

@mijostyn, asked me to try the ESD mat. Why would I want to when I'm getting excellent results?
Magnetization and static charge are two different things, even though both result in an attractive force between two objects. But don’t expect a demag to have any effect on an existing static charge, except where the charge might jump from the object to the demag-er, just by chance and proximity. (In response to Elliot's post.)

Mijostyn, Besides the fact that paper and vinyl may be at opposite ends of a tribo-electric chart, what is the basis for your hypothesis that the charge is ping-ponging between them? Have you experimented with an LP from which the paper label was carefully removed? That might be useful.

In the white paper on static charge vis LPs, published in the 80s, Shure Corporation scientists pointed out that if you remove the charge from the surface of an LP sitting on a platter, the reverse side, which sits against the platter, will retain whatever charge it had a priori. As soon as you remove the LP from the platter, any residual charge on the non-playing surface will re-distribute itself evenly over both surfaces. I think that rapid process of charge re-distribution is what sometimes one hears when removing an LP from a platter, as a faint tinkly sound.
@lewm The hypothesis is based on the fact the every single record that you neutralize both sides, label and PVC will develop a small charge within 30 minutes, PVC going negative and the label positive. This is with the record hanging on a wooden dowel touching nothing else I did is not coming home and no well but air. The only sure fire donator of electrons is the label. So I think it is a safe assumption that electrons are moving from the label to the PVC. It is however not proof. Removing the label on a record and stabbing what it does after neutralization is an interesting experiment to try. I will see if I can do it by cleaning off the label with the bench plane. Shure's remark about charges redistributing is very compatible with the above finding and I think you are right in assuming that charge redistribution is causing the snapping you hear.  Electrons move!

@slaw , Grounding the platter may be useful but only if there is a path to ground.  This would work better with a conductive mat. I cannot run that experiment because I do not have a conductive mat at this time and with my new turn table the mat is a vital part of the vacuum mechanism.

@Elliotebnewcombjr, Others are giving you good advice! Keep that demagnetizer away from everything but your R2R's heads. The mythology surrounding de-magnetization is dangerous and possibly destructive to certain items like cartridges. 

I will report back about the label removing experiment. I will try to remove the label from both sides of an old record and then I will thoroughly discharge it, hang it from the wound dowel and see if it develops a charge. If no charge develops I think we have safely proven that the electrons are being donated by the label.

To be clear, I said I grounded the motor, although I did connect the ground to the cover plate on the bottom which is the only area that VPI connected their ground to. If that is run to the platter, I don’t know.
What may be important to add hear is my belief that connecting back to the mechanical bearing is a no no. This is done by using a spindle clamp. I designed the MyMat in part to avoid this. The MyMat system is designed to decouple from the platter and bearing.

I think @antinn should try my MyMat system.

I’ve been out of selling mode partly because it’s not my favorite thing to do and I’m almost out of final stock.

Just sold two last week, the complete MyMat system. Price increase time?
What @antinn is doing is relying on the bearing and his clamp (in one system) to give the greatest SQ. That’s the wrong approach

What I’m doing with the MyMat system is decoupling the record from the platter/ bearing. So running a ground from the motor to the phono preamplifier is sufficient.

I hope I’m explaining this sufficiently ?
Definitely time for price increase as stock is to a minimum.

$69.99 each.

Remember the mat I am using is 3-layers.  The center layer (the thickest part) is not solid - its porous, and overall the mat stiffness is 85 durometer so the mat acts to damp/isolate the record from the platter.  I use the reflex clamp to make sure the record is in full contact with the mat to get the damping from the stylus as it beats the dickens out of that record with applied pressures >10,000 psi and accelerations >1000-g's.  

Also, I modified my TNT to add a cast AL 1/4" thick constraining layer with viscoelastic layer that is bolted to the plinth with a clamping force of 2000 lbf at four points (5/16"-18 torqued to 10 ft-lbs) symmetrical about the platter (same one you have).   The plate was machined and installed in a manner (on bottom) that it is not in the load-bearing path.  I also use the plate as a ground-plane, the platter bearing is grounded to the plate that measures in sq-ft (covers the entire bottom except the platter bearing nut and the corner posts) and the plate is then grounded to earth.  Before the mod if I tapped the plinth I got a response from the speakers - after -nada.

Is this the wrong approach?   I beg to differ; and am I going to try your mat - no.  What I have is working - just as what you have is working.  There is no "The" way - only a multitude of "A" ways; and as the old saying goes - if its not broke - not reason to fix.  
Thanks for your post @antinn,

I feel strongly the exact same way in my system.

BTW, my sales with no negative feedback is a statement from those who have tried the MyMat.

Probably 30 happy customers, some who came to me with just a resolution to their static issues.

Thanks @mijostyn


Steve, when discussing your MyMat you should reference the review -   An Experiment with Platter Mats- the MyMat - The Vinyl Press - its a good review of your product by someone who is credible.

Take care,

Neil, when you engage others, you should act like they are on a similar plane as yourself.

Is this your way of saying I'm sorry?



I was only trying to compliment you and to let others who read this forum that your mat has had a 'formal' review; and a favorable one at that.  If my choice of words/presentation presented it as condescending my apologies that was not my intent.  Otherwise, there are many roads to success in this arena, and I try not to declare one better than the other.  

Take care,
I hate to be a PITA but this is heading off topic. Mats will never entirely discharge a record as the side that was played last will always have a charge unless you purposely discharge it. Electrons do not like turning sharp corners. I do believe that the charge will equilibrate over both sides eventually. I should try and test for that but it will probably require a more sensitive measuring device.
It is important I think to avoid the worse case scenario which is records stored in paper sleeves and played repeatedly on an improperly grounded turntable in low humidity conditions. The single best way to discharge a record which should be done before and after play is with a conductive brush wired to ground. For this project I used a Pro-Ject brush
drilled a small hole in the metal casing and attached a 24 gauge wire with a sheet metal screw. This is a very simple project (again) and requires only a drill and bit. Another approach is to use a conductive sweep arm wired to ground which is just a miniature version of the above.
Thanks for you compliment @antinn ,

I’d hope members would look through all my posts to see I’ve been a (try for myself before posting) person.

Your mat postings weren’t reviewed, however, because of your history, you are taken more seriously than I am. I understand this, yet in the end, it all comes down to the end users’ sound. This is where we all meet, and this is ultimately the most important thing.

Look forward to another member here posting thoughts on the MyMat system very soon.


@lewm , I have not had the chance to deal with it. I am in the process of building  a bar and built in cabinet and am up to my eyeballs in sawdust not to mention I have no turntable at the moment. I will get around to it.

In my travels I can across this paper - Microsoft Word - SEALEZE_WHITE_PAPER_Final dam.doc.  My takeaway is that even under ideal application & use (i.e proper grounding) brushes are not that effective in removing static.  

Recalling the article - Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 ( Audio-1978-05.pdf ( that goes into some detail on static; what causes it and what does not (the needle in the groove was not a source of static). The article indicates that static is not uniform, but exists as islands on a record. Additionally, once the static gets high enough to discharge to the cartridge it only reduces to about 4200 volts. A static charge on the record of 4200 volts will not create noise by itself, but it can by electrostatic attractive forces cause a transient increase in cartridge VTF as much as 0.375 grams leading to distortion and premature wear.

The implication is that a grounded brush can reduce static from a record to below audible (static discharge noise) but not low enough to eliminate the secondary effect of increasing VTF.
That was mentioned and measured in the context of the Shure Corporation white paper, too, the increase in VTF by as much as 0.375g. Maybe one paper is quoting data from the other.  I was very surprised it could be that much.
@antinn , Much appreciated. Even if you could even totally neutralize a record, it will develop a charge almost immediately especially if the humidity is less than 40 %. At 20% RH just playing the record will develop a small charge. I wish I could calibrate my wool thread with a meter to be able to estimate the voltage. Rough guess would be 1 kV which is barely enough to notice. At higher humidity I can not measure any additional charge by the crude method I am using.
The brush in this experiment was not touching the nonconductive film.
I would have loved to see the voltage drop with the brush touching the film. Not touching it dropped the voltage from 10 kV to 500 V. Touching one would have to assume it would be at least a little better. My take away is grounded brushes do work but Ionization and brushes together work best. Will devices like Zerostats and electronic candle lighters work well enough to neutralized a heavily charged record? I have a candle lighter to play with and will get back with my impression. 
I think the most important take away is nothing will entirely neutralize static electricity on records. They will always be charge if only slightly. Any charge is enough to attract dust and other contaminates. Records should never be left out and except for transfers should always be under cover. Using well grounded conductive brushes to minimize the charge and collect incidental dust are useful. Ionizers can also be useful for static control but do not remove any dust. Control of the environment with humidification in the Winter, use of high efficiency filters in air handlers year round and powerful exhaust fans in cooking areas will assist in keeping records clean. 
Antinn's paper is the most comprehensive review of record cleaning I have ever seen and should be on the reading list of every record collector. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html? 

I think you have typo, the report says the brush alone reduced voltage to at best 3380V.  

Regarding particles this is quite a statement from the report pageb16, "A Sealeze™ brush making minimal contact with a suitable substrate would be capable of physically dislodging particulates after the ionization neutralization process. Physical contact with the use of a brush or close proximity to the ionizer alone may not dislodge a charge particle. For instance, charging a 4” silicon wafer to 1000 volts attracts a one (1) micron size particle. Thus, the bonding force of charged microns is approximately 830,000 pounds per square inch."

And we wonder why its difficult to remove particles from a record.  For those with big static problems there is the  DS Audio ION-001 Ionizer | Products | Musical Surroundings but at $1800 is not cheap.  I am staying with my wet cleaning process, standard antistatic sleeves and DIY $50 ESD platter mat and grounded platter/spindle.

I recently got the CSPort IME1, which is similar to the DS Audio. This completely removes all voltage charge from the vinyl. Nothing comes close to this and I’ve tried everything over the years. There is a noticeable difference in sound quality with an LP that has no voltage charge and I’m not talking about the static pops. 
@antinn, for certain your cleaning process is the most comprehensive I have ever read about and for heavily contaminated records probably the only decent approach to the problem.

You are right about the voltage drops I miss-read the next table. It is ionization and the brush together. However, the article specifically says the brush "was placed in close proximity" to the substrate and 1/16th of an inch is mentioned twice. That voltage drop is not with the brush touching the substrate but a 16th off. There must have been a reason they did not want it touching the film. Perhaps there was a coating they did not want removed or maybe the brush would have damaged the film. A metal bar may have worked just as well in this application. If a brush touching the substrate drops the voltage enough it will remove particles.
I have been using a conductive sweep arm for decades and these are my observations limited as they are. The brush definitely drops the voltage to  low levels which are barely measurable by wool thread.  The brush definitely picks up visible dust because I always have to clean it off. I have no easy way of knowing what happens with smaller particulates.
Will ionization make a noticeable difference? I'm hoping to find out.  The candle lighter was only $12.00 and operates with considerably more gusto than the Zerostat or at least it looks like it does. It lights candles great. Try that with a Zerostat:-)   
I just took a look at DS Audio's Ionizer. The marketing is suspect.
It assumes the static is coming from the stylus rubbing the groove which as we know is not entirely correct. It generates both positive and negative ions? First of all, it only needs to generate positive ions to neutralize the negative electrons collected by the record. If it makes both charges they will simply neutralize each other and diminish any effect on the record. 

Industrial ionizers produce both positive + negative ions. If you reread the brush report you will see in Figure 4 were they address that both + and - ions can exist and page 11 - "When an ionizer is poorly maintained, the unit does not produce an efficient flow of positive and negative ions (Figure 18)". As far as DS Audio knowing what causes static - its inconsequential, they are just selling an ionizer.

If you read this document you Technical Guide - STATIC REMOVERS (IONIZERS) ( you will see were an AC powered ionizer can produce both + and - ions, while DC powered produce + or - based on the charge of the anode - can produce either negative or positive ions.

For the RONXS™ and similar electronic lighters, likely produce positive ions that neutralize the negative ions (static) on the record. For use, some have stated to circle the record for a few seconds, while others apply as the record is turning - move across the record for a few seconds both of which will bath the entire record surface in positive ions; keeping the device about 1” above the record surface.

As far as why they positioned the brushes 1/16" above is industry practice Carbon Fiber Brushes ( for a few reasons, the brush will dissipate the static charge (as much as it can for the time allowed) and prevent wear to the brush and contamination of the film from which the static is being removed/reduced.

For a record if the conductive brush was moved across the record very slowly (less than 33 rpm) would that be more effective in reducing the static charge?. My own experience with a carbon brush and a Thunderon brush - neither were very effective which is why I use neither. I do have RONXS™, too cheap not to have one. But I do not have static problems so I have yet to use it with any frequency.

Regarding the cleaning procedure(s) I present, fundamentally they are nothing more than pre-clean with Alconox Liquinox, final clean with Tergitol 15-S-9 and final-rinse DIW. I adjust the type of rinse water and cleaner concentrations based on the cleaning method - is it pure manual, is it vacuum RCM, is it UCM or is it combinations thereof? But I am only using cleaning agents that I know the constituents (and concentrations) so I have total control and knowledge of and over the process.
Yes, it was only $12.00. I have not had a static problem in at least 40 years. 10 years of that was in Florida and Alabama, not exactly dry environments. But, I have been back in New England for over thirty years and in the Winter houses can easily drop to 20 %. My house is humidified and I can maintain 35% without flooding the windows. Last Winter I turned the humidifiers off to let it drop so I could experiment with static.
It is an interesting problem with too many solutions. 
In short, records that are routinely discharged will not build a problematic
static charge as long as they are kept in the appropriate sleeves and you don't rub them with toilet paper. How you do the discharging is a matter of taste and convenience. Platters should always be grounded. You can use an ionizer or a conductive brush or sweep arm, they all work to one degree or another. If nothing is done the collection of charge is cumulative and in a dry environment you might get into trouble. 
I will soon know if the candle lighter does anything. 
According to Analog Relax simply removing a record from the jacket can generate 3-20000v of static electricity. Dust in the air is attracted to the static and will land on your record.

They say there are 2 types of static cause 
Peeling Electrification as above.
Frictional Electrification caused by either the Stylus OR a record sweep or brush.

They claim the correct way to use an antistatic brush is to -
1 - Gentally sweep for dust
2 - Clean dust off brush
3 - Then hold the brush for a few seconds just touching the record, WITHOUT MOVING the brush, so that static is discharged but not regenerated. They suggest doing this step 4 times at 3/6/9/12 oclock to achieve maximum removal of static from the record.

The fibre used in their brush is ultra fine ( smaller than record groove ) nuetralising acrylic and importantly and has low conductivity.

They claim 80% reduction as tested in their labs.

I use the Analog Relax brush but I've never had static issues. My turntable platter/mat system is fully grounded, 

Cheap synthetic carpets and mats are also a major source of bad static problems. Putting an antistatic mat in front of the TT can help.

This is probably the best article for record static - Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 Audio-1978-05.pdf ( goes into some detail on static; what causes it and what does not – the needle in the groove was not a source of static.

Otherwise the Analog Reflex brush uses - COREBRID™ B®: A hollow acrylic fiber that is filled with a conductive material manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical™. This fiber is 0.03 mm (0.0012”/~30 μm) diameter and its electrical resistance measures between 10 - 10²Ω cm.  The bristle diameter of 30 um will only partly penetrate the groove (not much more than 1/3)
Thanks - I thought Analog Relax most interesting point was to not move the antistatic brush when discharging the record. I dont think I've ever seen anyone not move the antistatic brush, which defeats the purpose. I do see that that their fibre is smaller than the Thunderon/Sealeze.

I have just downloaded your cleaning dissertation - looks great.

Do you have a recommended anti-static sleeve. I see there has been some issues with the Mobil Fidelity sleeves outgassing. These have been suggested -

I was under the impression their is a part used in producing a Home Smoke Detector that when removed and set up near the TT has an remarkable affect on elimination of Static Energy on a LP. 

I use the Yukimu ASB-1 Brush with COREBRID B fibres. I have no complaints in general, it is with a extremely soft 0.3mm wide Bristle.
I will use it on the Platter, Platter Mat/Spindle, Tonearm, Stylus and CD and CD Tray.
In general a Static can become more evident when using a Gun Metal  Platter Mat at certain times of year.
I am on the verge of having a AT 677 Platter Mat to compare to the Gun Metal.
My AT 600 and Forex Foam Mats are all comparable in their performances to the Gun Metal and the Three Platter Mats are used for various situations.
The AT 600 and Forex Foam do not need much put in place when it comes to Static, they seem to be free from the effects of it.


The normal use of anti-static brushes in industry as was addressed in the paper when I renewed this thread is stationary over a moving item. But industry uses conductive brushes that are grounded. But ’dissipating" static charge can take a few seconds. In ESD world, the anti-static mats and the straps to ground that people wear often have a large resistor installed so as not to discharge the static too quickly which can damage components. The COREBRID fiber is different from most since the conductive path is inside the hollow acrylic fiber, Conductive, Light-absorbing, Heat Generating Acrylic Fiber "Corebrid™ B" | Products | Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation ( whereas Thunderon & CF are conductive on the surface. So, with that in-mind, maybe that is why they recommend holding the brush stationary.

WRT to sleeves, I have been using the MB sleeves w/o any issue, but I know many people recommend the Sleevecity you listed and also recommend the Audiophile inner record sleeve available in packs of 50 ( which is on backorder until Oct.
@dover , I use these
I believe these are the same sleeves antinn refers to above. They are suspiciously like the MF sleeves. I have had no problems with them. They are sturdy and slip into the cover nicely without crimping or folding. Anti static sleeves is a misnomer. They do not remove static, they just will not donate electrons to PVC. If you put a charged record into any of these sleeves you will get the same charge when you pull the record back out. The record has to be discharged by some method. Even a very slight charge on the record will collect dust and all you have to do is look at a record funny and it will collect a charge. The reason that paper is so bad is that it loves to donate electrons to PVC. Shows you how cheap the record companies could be! Classical records like Decca, London, DGG, Erato and many others always used appropriate plastic sleeves. But, popular music, paper. It seems in the eyes of the record companies popular and jazz music lovers are second class citizens.

You can make a very sensitive qualitative static measuring device by tying some wool thread to the end of a wooden skewer leaving about 2 inches hanging. Negative charging will pull the thread towards the charge. Positive charging will repulse the thread. Wool is at the opposite end of the triboelectric series. It is very good at donating electrons and will maintain a positive charge. You can get a feel for how strong the charge is. The thread will pick up very low charges, charges that you would otherwise not know existed. 

Just playing a record in low humidity conditions will create a small charge on the record. Whether or not this is the stylus doing this is open for debate. The charge is so small you would not notice it. But, the effect is cumulative. Playing the record several times will add enough charge that it will become noticeable. This effect essentially does not happen in humidity's over 30%.  
@mijostyn  I've used a carbon fiber dust brush that is tied to my grounded steel equipment stand via a wire riveted to the brush. I can't say how effective it really is but I don't get pops and noise from static.

But it occurs to me that if I can get the charge down lower on the LP when its spinning, I might free more dust when using the brush. Sounds like if a grounded metal bar were simply suspended over the playing surface maybe 1/4" or so above it that it might be able to remove a significant amount of charge?

Very interesting idea. antinn and I were reviewing a paper he found comparing the effectiveness of a grounded brush vs ionization vs both together in neutralizing static on plastic film. The brush was not touching the film but 1/16th of an inch off. It did lower the charge but it was not as effective as ionization. However they worked best together. So, a grounded metal bar or rod suspended over the record will work but it would have to be very close, so close that the slightest warp would stop the entire show. 

What you are doing with your grounded brush is fine. I recommend wiring these brushes to ground all the time as just holding them does not do much good. The thing is you do not want to use it on a spinning record. Move the record under the brush by hand slowly. None of these brushes will get deep down into the groove. They will only remove surface dust. If the record starts out clean and your record hygiene and environment are good this should be all you need to do.
I believe these are the same sleeves antinn refers to above. They are suspiciously like the MF sleeves. I have had no problems with them. They are sturdy and slip into the cover nicely without crimping or folding. Anti static sleeves is a misnomer. They do not remove static, they just will not donate electrons to PVC. If you put a charged record into any of these sleeves you will get the same charge when you pull the record back out. The record has to be discharged by some method. Even a very slight charge on the record will collect dust and all you have to do is look at a record funny and it will collect a charge. 
Yes, Analog Relax rscommend using their brush after playing and before you put the record back in its sleeve to discharge the record before storing.


 None of these brushes will get deep down into the groove.

Here is the approximate diameter of the three conductive bristle materials used for records:  For reference the V-shaped groove has ‘nominal’ dimensions of 56 microns (0.0022") wide at the top, a radius of 6 microns (0.00025") at the bottom, and a ‘nominal’ depth of 28 microns (0.0011").

Carbon Fiber:  0.00028" (~7 microns).  This can penetrate deeply into the groove almost to the very bottom.

COREBRID™ B (Analog Reflex):  0.0012” (~30 microns).  This can penetrate only partially into the groove. 

THUNDERON: 0.0028" (~70 microns).  This will not penetrate the groove.
Thanks antinn, you mentioned that you were worried about the carbon fibers breaking leaving debris in the groove. The carbon fiber brushes I have had over the years have only broken the fibers at the attachment point leaving a long solitary fiber that sits on the surface of the record. But I think there is more to it than just fiber diameter. With the record spinning the fibers are going to surf on the surface of the record and it is unlikely that any of the fibers will even get 1/2 way down. The groove will just kick them out. It would be an interesting thing to film close in and watch. The brushes would probably be more effective slowly turning the record with your left hand while holding the brush in your right.  Brushes are for removal of surface dust and discharging the record. If the record is so dirty you are worried about stuff deep in the groove (because your needle comes away with gunk on it after just one side) I think a popper washing would be in order. Check out antinn's method. It is anal-retentive to the max but it also probably cleans records better than anything else. I shudder to think what cleaning 3000 records that way would be like. Trust me, you want to get paid by the hour.

Are you sure the tips of the CF brush have not fractured?  Pieces 5 microns in length and 7 microns wide would not be visible but could be audible.  

Come-come now, my manual cleaning procedure is not that bad, I can clean/dry/re-sleeve six records/hour. BUT, the manual labor involved to some will be sheer agony. For me I find the deliberate repetition somewhat relaxing (the low cost notwithstanding) - as others I suspect find knitting that would drive me crazy.  Each to our own, but as I wrote in the book:

It’s important to consider that machines are generally developed for two primary reasons – reduce labor and improve process efficiency. Process efficiency can mean faster (higher throughput) and/or higher probability of achieving quality or achieving a quality that manual labor cannot produce. Manual cleaning in the appropriate environment with appropriate controls can achieve impressive levels of cleanliness, but the labor, skill, time and probability of success generally make it impractical for manufacturing environments. But for the home audio enthusiast; depending on your attention to details, adopting machine assisted cleaning may or may not yield a cleaner record. However, the ease of use and convenience provided by machines can be very enticing and cannot be denied.
I use the Neil Antin Aqueous Cleaning Guidance.
The Idea of Cleaning a vast collection is daunting using any cleaning method.
The Bulk of my Vinyl has been cleaned on previous occasions and I am without any doubts that the New Manual Cleaning Method in use from Aqueous Cleaning has shown how inadequate the Vinyl LP's were cleaned.
I can't prove this but I am sure the residuals that were left from the old methods have been thoroughly deep clean removed from the vinyl along with whatever contaminants were captured in the residuals.
The LP's sound clean now, which is  very difficult to explain unless heard.
30 - 40 Years owned Vinyl when cleaned is spookily too good, but not perfect. 

I use a Bread Loaf cutting Guide as a Rack, the crumb collection with a tissue layer collects drips from the pre-clean, and the Rack also is used for the drying.

I can now organise my self to treat approx' 10 - 15 Lp's in an Hour.
By the time the session is over the earlier cleaned LP's are ready to be given a placed into a new sheath and put onto the 'to be played pile'.
That is plenty of listening to be had before other Albums are selected to be listened to, with a prior to use cleaning undertaken.

This method does not cause to much impact on ones time and is not different to any type of experience undertaken with vinyl. The offset is that the Source is extremely well prepared to receive the Stylus, and where the little extra attention is offering very valuable reward.    
@antinn, For the occasional record  your method is fine from all angles. But, If I bought an estate collection which had been managed in the standard fashion, cleaning that many perhaps thousands of records would be daunting at best. I would definitely buy a machine probably a Degritter. 
As for Carbon brushes. There was one particular sweep arm I used for 20 years. I would lose an occasional bristle but I assume nothing else. If fibers were breaking leaving very small fragments in the grooves I would expect that over 20 years the bristles would have gotten noticeably shorter. That did not happen. I went to a different arm because I liked the design better.   

If you bought a collection with 1000;s of records, the Degritter which takes ~10 min/record and could take as much as 15min/record if its using the heavy cycle that needs to  periodically cool-down, would prove quite cumbersome.  For that type of collection you need UT record cleaning system using 'industrial' equipment that can clean 6 records at a time continuously with very fine filtration (0.2 um absolute) such as what is done here

WRT to CF brush, consider that 5 um = 0.0002".  I doubt you would notice 0.05" loss of length since it would be distributed among the 1,000,000 (1M) individual fibers -  Anti-Static Record Brush · AudioQuest.