2. analog
  3. 163955-129831

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. 

128x128mijostyn

Showing 14 responses by antinn

antinn
369 posts
 
@slaw,

Steve,

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,
Neil
antinn
369 posts
 
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 - http://www.vpiforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17186#p65882.  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.  
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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.  


antinn
369 posts
 
@slaw,

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.  
antinn
369 posts
 
@slaw,

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
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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 (worldradiohistory.com) 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.
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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.

antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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) (panasonic.biz) 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 (amstat.com) 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.
antinn
369 posts
 
@dover,

This is probably the best article for record static - Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 Audio-1978-05.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) 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)
antinn
369 posts
 
@dover,

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 (m-chemical.co.jp). 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 (sleevecityusa.com) which is on backorder until Oct.
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

 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.
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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.
antinn
369 posts
 
@mijostyn,

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  https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/post-733751.

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.
antinn
369 posts
 
@dover,

Good info, thanks 
More to discover