Options for ridding records of static electricity

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. 

Lewm, you certainly would not run subwoofers up to 300 hz. I do not know about your transformers but my Sowter is down 3 dB at 40 Hz and flat up to 20 kHz. I cross over at 125 hz. I cross that high for several reasons. First is any good Subwoofer driver can easily run that high. Breakup usually does not occur until well over 500 Hz. Next is removing as much of the bass load as possible from the stats. Low bass requires long excursions even for large panels. Those long excursions doppler distort all the higher frequencies. Removing those excursions cleans up the pannels in a noticable way. The Higher cross over makes it easier to integrate the subwoofers. This is just my experience. Subwoofers go down lower effectively. You only have to listen to my system for a minute to get the idea. But again there are consideration that require capabilty beyond what most systems offer such as digital bass management and Room control. Many audiophiles are digital phobes and trying to explain this to them is like running into a brick wall. It is not my problem. But you as a fellow ESL user, who understands these speakers and what they can do really should experience this. If I could blind fold you you would never guess there were subs in the room until a really low not can along.
You would know right away that you werer listening to tall ESLs. Nothing else sounds like that. 
Now back to static and some interesting results. dcarwin above has it right, conductive brushes attached to ground.
As you recal just spinning a record for hours with the dust cover up does not create a static charge at 54% relative humidity. Neither does playing the record at 55% relative humidity! So under what conditions does a record develop a static charge and what is the immediate cause? It appears I do not have a static problem because under the conditions I play records static charges are not formed. What are those conditions?
We would need everyone who has a static problem to tell use the spec of their record playing set up and the conditions under which it is used, relative humidity etc. Maybe we can find a common denominator. If humidity is the main problem I will not be able to test for that until well into the winter when I can drop the humidity to 20%. I took a record and slipped it out and into it's paper inner sleeve 10 times over two hours and it did not develop a static charge. But, if I rub the record aggressively with paper I can generate sparks. I'm sure Antinn is laughing. 

@mijostyn, 

Know for sure I am not laughing.  But, I have a lot of respect for you!  It takes a rationale and courageous person to face their own preconceived notions unbiased - its also show discipline,   My compliments!

Stay safe, 
Neil

Thanx Neil, but we are not done yet. The only thing we know for sure is that vinyl is at the bottom of the triboelectric series and loves to attract electrons. We can intentionally charge the vinyl by rubbing it with paper. The question is how does vinyl collect electrons under normal use. The answer to this question will tell us how to stop it. All I have shown is that at a humidity of 55% I can not charge the record under normal circumstances, on my turntable by either spinning it or by playing it. Obviously we are missing something here. I think we need to approach this from a different angle. We need to ask people with an obvious static problem a set of questions to see if we can find a common denominator. I think this calls for a new thread. Please encourage everyone to participate! The power is in numbers.  I will work on a set of questions and start the thread when they are ready. I will publish them right here for comments and modification before I do. 

I ask again, how are you measuring static charge? Because you cannot measure it with an ordinary voltmeter.

As to my speakers, the point I was trying to make is that a single full range transformer with a step-up ratio of 1:90 is insufficient to move the massive diaphragm in order to give a linear response on the low end. But the "low end" instead gradually decays below a certain frequency which must be close to 500Hz or 1kHz; it’s just lacking energy. (I made no measurements to determine the frequency at which response falls away, when I tried this. Just listening tests.) Subwoofers and even most good woofers are not going to make up for that problem, in a pleasing way. Sound Lab and before them, Acoustat, dealt with this problem of driving a very large panel by using two transformers, as you know very well, one for bass and one for treble with a passive crossover dividing frequencies. When I added back the SL bass transformer, which I have guessed is about 1:250 in voltage step-up, now you have thunderous ESL bass. The SL bass transformer by itself falls away at about 2kHz at its top end, according to my actual measurements. SL knew what it was doing when it marketed the speaker with two transformers. I like to think I just took it forward another step by getting rid of the crossover entirely, which results in much higher impedance, which is very favorable to my OTL tube amplifiers. (Impedance averages about 20 ohms from 100Hz to 5kHz. Goes up at the low end and down at the high end.) But also, the passive crossover used an RC network as a high pass filter; the R sucks up amplifier power in a big way, because it is in parallel with the amplifier output. So a side benefit of getting rid of the R is to make the speaker much more efficient for my particular amplifiers. I am sure it could be driven handily by a 50W OTL.