AlgoForce On VLF Type Gold

[Steve Herschbach]

A PI can be made to be as sensitive to tiny gold as a high frequency IB detector but it is self defeating to do so. It would act exactly like the VLF, sensitive to hot rocks and hot ground as well as small gold. So no, the AlgoForce is not going to see gold as tiny as what a Gold Bug 2 or a Gold Monster can hit. Why bother? We already have those machines and if that’s what you want use them. But you know when you do you are missing larger deeper gold, and so maybe then you’ll want a PI. Different devices with different strengths and weaknesses. It’s like having a screwdriver and a wrench. There is no point in wanting your wrench to be a screwdriver.

 

[Lead Detector]

7 hours ago, Taz said:

Sorry, im a bit lost about my attitude bit! Are you joking or reading something in my post that isn't there and placing your own wrong construct on it.

I assure everyone im just fairly asking. Im new here so am I out of place here!? Ill bow out if I am.

I didn't think I could have been more honest and fair.

Your not out of place at all. Sometimes I forget joking through keyboard, doesn't come across as what I think it does. Carry on my friend 👍

[Lead Detector]

There is a lot of hype over the algoforce right now. 1.. its new 2... it's price for a PI is affordable to more people..3 it seems to have a somewhat consistent "target ID" that for some reason we want, even though we dig everything?? 4.. it uses coils that give us plentiful options right from the start. The claim of vlf sensitivity, is in all reality a marketing tactic. I own an ace 250 that I guarantee won't pick up bits as small as an algoforce, but I bet my goldbug 2 would beat the algoforce every time on sub grain bits. One piece of Steve Herschbach's advice I remember well is "use a vlf until you can't anymore " . That's probably the best advice you can get, if you want to find any gold. As a hobbyist, that's what most of us want.   From what I understand,  highly mineralized ground can make a vlf fail to perform as needed,  and that is where the PI machines are more needed.

Now my disclaimer..I'm very new to this, and have never found gold, so this information maybe worth less than you paid for it. 

[Jeff McClendon]

6 minutes ago, Ndplumr said:

One piece of Steve Herschbach's advice I remember well is "use a vlf until you can't anymore

I used to be in the "use a PI until I can't lift it to swing it anymore" camp and then use a VLF.

These latest PIs like the GPX 6000, Garrett Axiom and now the E1500 are making the need for a VLF at least for me, less and less. The last few times I hunted, the VLF basically stayed in my backpack. These lightweight PIs are just too much fun.

[phrunt]

Well, as someone in low mineral ground often looking for tiny gold, I can lay down a few points that matter.  Without a doubt a higher frequency VLF like the Garrett 24k, Gold Bug 2, Equinox, Manticore, Legend, the list goes on and on will hit smaller gold, much smaller gold, and get more depth on these very tiny bits too, however once the bits creep up in size to the .1 of a gram bit and more (we will use it as a generic example cut off not a definite guaranteed cut off) then even with little minerals the PI takes over for depth, then as the gold gets bigger again say fox example 1 gram, the VLF with something like an 11" coil starts to gain some ground again but the PI's and ZVT will always be deeper.

I used to use a VLF all the time for prospecting, even though I had a GPX 4500 sitting there, why? It found more tiny bits often, I had more chance of getting gold.  I was convinced to put more effort into my PI and I found when I did, I lost the tiny bits entirely so found less in number of pieces and went home with nothing a lot more but the slightly bigger bits started to appear a bit deeper down so my gold weight increased.

Then the GPZ and small coils came along to my stable, it was a lot more sensitive to the small stuff than the 4500 and felt more like a combination of the VLF and PI, I was getting a lot more gold and never felt the need for the VLF anymore, the bits the VLF got the GPZ didn't were very small, the 0.02 of a gram and smaller, I then purchased a 6000, found it very similar to the GPZ on small gold performance mainly as I am fortunate to have small coils for my GPZ but I always felt the GPZ was going much deeper.  It's really hard to prove this sort of thing, it's not like I'm going to walk around with both detectors, it's more when using one you notice depth on targets more than using the other and some basic air testing in a way verifies it for me at least, if it's not seeing it sitting on the ground with the coil swinging above it it's sure not seeing it in the ground is my theory. 

The Algoforce now comes along, again it appears to hit similar size bits as the 6000 and 7000, I think it has a little less depth on them, but still hitting them well.  The VLF's I put all of these detectors in competition with on small gold are the 19kHz range, not the higher frequency machines.  Detectors like the Gold Bug Pro, think of the smallest bits it will hit, that's more in line with the best of the best in the PI and ZVT tiny target performance.  That's not talking about depth, it's talking about the smallest gold they will hit, depth varies but often the PI's and GPZ will exceed the VLF depth too, so many variables.   I think the cut off point for PI and GPZ on tiny gold is about 0.03 of a gram, anything below that you need a VLF.

Minelab did this chart for the 6000's release, indicating it was better on a 0.05g nugget than the GM 1000, and they ranked the GPZ so low, but that's their fault for not releasing coils for it.  I scoffed at this as no way in the world is the 6000 more sensitive to 0.05 than a GM, but in the right hot soil, maybe it is, certainly not my soil.

[Steve Herschbach]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:31 AM, Jeff McClendon said:

I used to be in the "use a PI until I can't lift it to swing it anymore" camp and then use a VLF.

These latest PIs like the GPX 6000, Garrett Axiom and now the E1500 are making the need for a VLF at least for me, less and less. The last few times I hunted, the VLF basically stayed in my backpack. These lightweight PIs are just too much fun.

Now you are singing my song Jeff. I almost never use a VLF. I just enjoy using a PI and doing old school hunt by ear detecting. I either dig it all, or if I am cherry picking I just dig what sounds good. And if you dig it all long enough, you do get a feel for what sounds good and what you can gamble in passing. If I nugget hunt I’m using a PI. If I beach hunt I use a PI. I even go to parks and coin hunt with a PI. I don’t relic hunt with a PI but that’s only because I don’t relic hunt. Yeah I dig junk but you VLF guys, are you trying to tell me you don’t? I know better. My main beef has been them being heavy expensive beasts but that’s changing. If I could only own one detector it would have to be a PI not a VLF.

AlgoForce is going to change PI forever by setting a bar for what can be had for $2000 just like Equinox changed VLF forever. It will take maybe ten more years but the day of the $4000 plus PI dinosaur is coming to an end. More and better $2000 PI detectors will come to market and mark my words, someday we will have GPZ class performance for $2000.

 

[Aureous]

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

The Algoforce now comes along, again it appears to hit similar size bits as the 6000 and 7000, I think it has a little less depth on them, but still hitting them well.  The VLF's I put all of these detectors in competition with on small gold are the 19kHz range, not the higher frequency machines. 

I think you're spot on, I was thinking exactly the same....

[Jeff McClendon]

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Now you are singing my song Jeff. I almost never use a VLF. I just enjoy using a PI and doing old school hunt by ear detecting. I either dig it all, or if I am cherry picking I just dig what sounds good. And if you dig it all long enough, you do get a feel for what sounds good and what you can gamble in passing. If I nugget hunt I’m using a PI. If I beach hunt I use a PI. I even go to parks and coin hunt with a PI. I don’t relic hunt with a PI but that’s only because I don’t relic hunt. Yeah I dig junk but you VLF guys, are you trying to tell me you don’t? I know better. My main beef has been them being heavy expensive beasts but that’s changing. If I could only own one detector it would have to be a PI not a VLF.

AlgoForce is going to change PI forever by setting a bar for what can be had for $2000 just like Equinox changed VLF forever. It will take maybe ten more years but the day of the $4000 plus PI dinosaur is coming to an end. More and better $2000 PI detectors will come to market and mark my words, someday we will have GPZ class performance for $2000.

For nugget hunting I am totally with you. The VLF comes out at the end or if I am looking for a new shallow patch on good ground. 

For coin/jewerly hunting on turf in dense aluminum (which is what I do most of the time) I am using a really good SMF VLF.

For coin/jewerly hunting fresh and saltwater beaches I will use either depending on if me and the detector will be getting wet or not.

For relic hunting in wide open sparse target areas a lightweight PI is just fine with me.

For relic hunting in dense iron....VLF currently.

[goldenoldie]

As the gold price continues to rise & rise that may justify the cost of next Minelab PI, in their thinking, if capable of outperforming all other manufactures at the time of its release.