Do 45 RPM records need higher anti-skate setting?

Ralph, I have spent a lifetime stamping out "centrifugal force", ever since my freshman physics professor hammered it into me about the First Law. I can't stop now. Centripetal force needs my help and support.

An object once set in motion...

So far John's argument about variable friction does not seem to be addressed, or did I miss something?

I've had conversations with several tone arm manufacturers; they seem to agree that there is no standard for anti-skate forces to be applied to an arm. Put another way they all seem to have different ideas about it.

From a simply pragmatic point of view, the phenomena of the OP is that increasing the force fixed a problem that did not seem to exist at 33 rpm. Was that simply because he had not played anything with that complexity prior? Or was it because the forces on the arm were different?

Skating force is generated by the friction between the stylus and the vinyl. That's it. I researched it a few years back and learned that the coefficient of friction, which will determine the friction force generated, varied widely like from 0.1 to 0.5 among different records up until the 50s. Since the late 50s the coefficient of friction has been pretty consistent- about 0.20-0.25. That would result is some milligram differences in skating force from record to record. That being said, I have a couple of records and perhaps it is more about their dynamic range, that I have to turn the anti-skating setting up a tad because I will here a little bit of distortion in the right channel. That does the trick. By the way, one of those records in my mind is recorded at 45 rpm incidentally. It is the Apassionata and it is very dynamic. It is an RCA direct to disc. Very high on the goosebumpometer.

Atmasphere, Tonywinsc,
I used to think, as a previous poster, Omsed, posted, that antiskate should be the same irrespective of speed because dynamic friction would apply.
But over the years I have continued to be open to new information I previously wasn't aware of, and willing to modify my ideas if the facts didn't fit them. (Wish that were the case with many scientists).

The OP said all was well with his deck until he played this particular record, and that the problem was solved with an increase in anti skate. If that was the case, then the problem was not with the record, but too little antiskate.

This might fly in the face of conventional engineering opinion, but only if the facts are ignored. The logical answer is that there was more friction, therefore more skating force. And the reason for that would be, as you noted in your example, Tonywinsc, increased modulation, as per studies by George Alexandrovitch, (JAES, 1961). His study showed that on an unmodulated groove, friction remained constant with groove speed, increasing only with downforce. On a modulated groove, friction increased for the same downforce, and also with decreasing radius.

There has been a lot of good, reliable, proven, information on skating forces available for many, many years, which is why virtually every arm was, and is, supplied with antiskate.

John
.