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
antinn
408 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.

vortrex
273 posts
 
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. 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn OP
8,570 posts
 
@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:-)   
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn OP
8,570 posts
 
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. 
 
antinn
408 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.
More to discover