Do 45 RPM records need higher anti-skate setting?

Tracking angle error is negligible in the calculation of anti-skate, the magnitude of changing force being very small, tracking error only being +/- about 2 degrees even for a 9.5" tonearm. No arm's anti skate mechanism is within that range of accuracy, you can ignore that amount of change (that due to tracking error).

I have designed several arms, tested nearly any arm you can name, have dynamometers (force gauges) that can pick up the actual numbers. The theory coincides with actual measured results quite well.

We have some folks who are obviously not science people here (meaning not physicists, not engineers) "correcting" good information with misinformation. Overhang is not part of skating forces, RPM is not, 45's are not cut at a higher groove velocity (groove velocity that creates sound is vertical and horizontal movement), it is just the linear velocity past the stylus that is increased.

Dear Omsed, This is not a university class or a peer-reviewed forum. Anyone is free to contribute in any way he or she prefers. I can say for myself that when I try to explain something, I am in essence stating my own reasoning of the problem for the express purpose of receiving criticism or correction. I want to learn. Here, I take exception with two of your claims:
(1) Overhang DOES have something to do with the skating force. Because of stylus overhang, the stylus can never be tangent to the groove. That is the root cause of the skating force, because the force of friction is always tangent to the groove. Thus a force vector is created with a direction toward the inward path of the tonearm (the real force is not along the arc of the tonearm, but is inward) that in its net expression becomes the skating force. It also would appear that the offset angle plays a role in determining the direction of the force vector created by lack of tangency, the radial expression of which is the skating force. (Perhaps this is not clear, would need a diagram to demonstrate.)
(2) No one is arguing with your statement that vertical and horizontal movement of the stylus creates the electrical signal that is converted into sound. The point made by me and others was that those vertical and horizontal wiggles that the stylus tip has to trace whilst the linear velocity past the stylus remains constant might in effect alter the coefficient of friction between stylus and vinyl, transiently and variably, so as to contribute to variability in skating force. I am not at all sure that this is a real issue, but it is not nonsensical to contemplate it. And having posited these things, it then would seem possible that a 45, if anything, might induce less skating force than a 33, given that the exact same music is recorded on each. This could certainly be incorrect. Have you measured such phenomena?

By the way, are YOU a physicist? What is your background in what science? I am guessing you are an engineer.

Friction=skating, that's it. I remember back in the 70s some stereo shops had blank LPs for setting anti-skate. They would adjust the anti-skating on the tonearm until it would stay in the middle of the blank record.
45 rpm LPs can have a higher dynamic range, if the recording engineer chooses to apply it. The higher linear speed affords more velocity to be transmitted to the stylus. That means tracking ability of the stylus is further challenged and since the forces are or can be unbalanced a bit to the skating side of things, the first sign of mis-tracking is likely to be heard in the right channel. My 45 rpm direct to disc of the Apassionata can attest to that. My Benz can track it perfectly from beginning to end; but the stylus has to be squeaky clean.

Omsed: I am hoping that you do not become disenchanted with the students in the front of the room who are poking you during your teachings. I am the quiet student in the back who is soaking up as much as I can from you. Keep it up as long as you can bear it.

Hmm. So I used a pencil & fixed a plastic headed straight pin at each end. Let's call the "pivot" proximal, the other, the unconstrained end, "distal". Held the "pivot" pin and placed the other on a Boston Audio Mat2, the plastic pin heads depending from the beam. In a condition described as "overhang", the pencil "beam" was center seeking. As OH was diminished speed of travel also diminished. In a condition of "underhang", the end distal from the crude "pivot" came to rest further from the center of rotation, a state of "equilibrium" was observed. As "underhang" was increased, the distal end eventually ran entirely off the edge of the Mat2.

Running the "pivot" against a straight edge, it seemed to me that the beam remained parallel to its previous location and also seemed to maintain a 90* angle to the guiding straight edge. Movement at point "A" resulted in an equivalent movement at "B" in a most linear fashion.

It also appears these various movements occupied a smaller time-frame as speed of rotation was increased.

'Fraid I lack the background in Physics to prove these actions.

Peace,