A new way of adjusting anti skate!

@lewm , call it whatever you like Lew but the "pull" on the stylus increases with groove velocity (modulation). It is usually referred to as friction but I understand your distinction. According to the equation the kinetic coefficient of friction changes with groove velocity which results in the variation in skating force. Groove velocity does not change over the surface of the record which is why the skating force does not change much over the surface either.  

@lewm, you are right that the linear speed of the record by the stylus which decreases as the arm gets towards the center of the record does not change friction. Thus if you had a blank record the friction would be the same anywhere on it.

Although it is termed as friction, as groove velocity increases more energy is required to keep the stylus moving. The stylus has to be accelerated harder which would increase the force the groove places on the stylus which would increase friction. This happens momentarily as the stylus is forced to change direction but the additive effect is to increase friction.

Overhang has almost nothing to do with skating unless you play the label area. It is almost purely the result of a pivoted arm having an offset angle. Decrease the offset angle and the skating force decreases. A straight arm has no skating. There is a relationship between tonearm length, offset angle and overhang but an offset arm will skate even if the overhang is zero. Try it millercarbon. Set your tonearm so there is no overhang and play a blank disc with your anti skating defeated and watch what happens. 

@dover , The skating force you see on a blank disc is due to raw friction, as Lew understands it and the offset angle. The pull on the stylus is the result of friction plus the energy required to change directions which increases with groove velocity. That "pull" is the kinetic coefficient of friction in the equation above.

Mijostyn, I would take issue with a few of your points, but I will settle for this one as being the most egregious: "According to the equation the kinetic coefficient of friction changes with groove velocity"

Please show me that equation from a reputable source. As you are probably tired of reading, I have been saying over and over again that the friction force is independent of velocity, once the stylus is "moving". I only base this statement on every single physics reference I can find. So I need to see a reference to refute the notion. For all objects at rest, there is a quantity some call "stiction" or static friction, which is a way of saying that you need to put in a bit more energy than just enough to overcome friction, in order to get a body moving from rest. But otherwise, all is "kinetic". So there is no need to stipulate "kinetic".

On a separate note, I agree with MC that overhang does have a lot to do with the skating force, as it, combined with headshell offset angle, results in a constantly changing net Tracking Angle Error across the surface of the LP. Without the constant variation tracking angle error contributed by overhang, total TAE would be a constant, because the headshell offset angle is constant. Therefore, the skating force would be a constant, excepting the effect of groove tortuosity. Even at the putative two null points that can be achieved with an overhung tonearm with headshell offset, there is still some skating force. THAT skating force IS due only to the headshell offset angle, for those two instances in time. Underhung tonearms (which never are built with headshell offset angle, in my experience) do give zero skating force at the single null point available with such a tonearm, thanks to the absence of headshell offset angle. At the null point, underhung tonearms behave just like a SL tracker.

My experience is that anti-skate depends from the cart used. Those

with low compliance will need anti-skate those with high compliance

will not. I don't use anti skate with carts which can reach 60 microns

tracking ability test.