Looking to buy marshydro LEDs ?help

[superbak3d]

That is not dense node spacing. Those are stretched out bad from lack of light. You kinda are proving the point mars suck.

You're an idiot. That's very dense node spacing for a plant that just started to flower.

You don't even know the difference between a stretch and just a largely grown plant. On top of the fact, I said LOWEST, the branches that will do the most stretching to reach the canopy. My branches aren't long with 1-2 or nodes at the top. That would indicate stretching due to lack of light. My branches are filled with nodes, 8-10 per branch.

The whole point of this grow was to try out mars for myself. There's far too many opinions out there from both sides saying they work just fine to people like you that for some reason have an obsessive hate for mars.

The way my plant has been growing with the light has been nothing but positive. Are there better LEDs and setups out there? Yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I believe many people are being overly harsh against mars.

You guys make it sound like mars are completely useless products that destroy crops.

What I've seen and experienced with my own 2 eyes with mars, is they're not even remotely as terrible as people make them out to be. Simple as that.

 

[whitebb2727]

You're an idiot. That's very dense node spacing for a plant that just started to flower.

You don't even know the difference between a stretch and just a largely grown plant. On top of the fact, I said LOWEST, the branches that will do the most stretching to reach the canopy. My branches aren't long with 1-2 or nodes at the top. That would indicate stretching due to lack of light. My branches are filled with nodes, 8-10 per branch.

The whole point of this grow was to try out mars for myself. There's far too many opinions out there from both sides saying they work just fine to people like you that for some reason have an obsessive hate for mars.

The way my plant has been growing with the light has been nothing but positive. Are there better LEDs and setups out there? Yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I believe many people are being overly harsh against mars.

You guys make it sound like mars are completely useless products that destroy crops.

What I've seen and experienced with my own 2 eyes with mars, is they're not even remotely as terrible as people make them out to be. Simple as that.

Yes I'm an idiot. I know nothing.

I know what stretch is.


Do you see how close the buds are? When that fills in they will be one solid bud.

Yours are so stretched that it will be just little buds everywhere.

You are the one that is an idiot. You know nothing about growing.

How much you going to pull off that plant? I'll pull a pound off two.

 

[DocCox]

You're an idiot. That's very dense node spacing for a plant that just started to flower.

You don't even know the difference between a stretch and just a largely grown plant. On top of the fact, I said LOWEST, the branches that will do the most stretching to reach the canopy. My branches aren't long with 1-2 or nodes at the top. That would indicate stretching due to lack of light. My branches are filled with nodes, 8-10 per branch.

The whole point of this grow was to try out mars for myself. There's far too many opinions out there from both sides saying they work just fine to people like you that for some reason have an obsessive hate for mars.

The way my plant has been growing with the light has been nothing but positive. Are there better LEDs and setups out there? Yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I believe many people are being overly harsh against mars.

You guys make it sound like mars are completely useless products that destroy crops.

What I've seen and experienced with my own 2 eyes with mars, is they're not even remotely as terrible as people make them out to be. Simple as that.

I think he is correct, your plantsite are showing substantial stretch.

There's far too many opinions

100% of the facts state Mars lights are far inferior to MH, T8, T5, HPS, etc. A magnetic ballast MH far outperforms the Mars II units, doesn't that render an opinion invalid? Your arguing with somebody who has science on their side and doesn't have the psychological desire to justify a terrible purchase.... honestly I would think all of this clues the crowd into you being an idiot.

Are you so interested in trying things out for yourself a candle and an incandescent light are on your to do list? Probably not, I suspect you were just scammed and your brain is working overtime to justify a poor decision (science behind that as well)

 

[whitebb2727]

You're an idiot. That's very dense node spacing for a plant that just started to flower.

You don't even know the difference between a stretch and just a largely grown plant. On top of the fact, I said LOWEST, the branches that will do the most stretching to reach the canopy. My branches aren't long with 1-2 or nodes at the top. That would indicate stretching due to lack of light. My branches are filled with nodes, 8-10 per branch.

The whole point of this grow was to try out mars for myself. There's far too many opinions out there from both sides saying they work just fine to people like you that for some reason have an obsessive hate for mars.

The way my plant has been growing with the light has been nothing but positive. Are there better LEDs and setups out there? Yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I believe many people are being overly harsh against mars.

You guys make it sound like mars are completely useless products that destroy crops.

What I've seen and experienced with my own 2 eyes with mars, is they're not even remotely as terrible as people make them out to be. Simple as that.

Mine are starting stretch. My nodes and buds are stacked. Half inch apart.

Look, its all good. People knock my t5ho. People will knock you mars. Everyone has an opinion. As long as your happy and enjoy it that is all that matters.

That doesn't change the fact the are stretched. Look at the actual wall draw and shoot for 50+ actual watts per square foot.

 

[az2000]

The way my plant has been growing with the light has been nothing but positive.

You're two weeks into flower. Veg doesn't require much. It will be interesting to see what your final results are like. That's where 37w/sq ft won't perform, from what I've seen.

They're great veg lights for sure. Flowering should need more, especially if it's a tall plant in a 7' tall space. That's when you need 55-60.

It will be interesting to see how your plant finishes. But, I suggest adding some Cree lightbulbs as sidelight to get up to 45-50.

 

[HockeyBeard]

Watts are watts.

Yes and no. Yes, watts are watts, but the difference between 400W of HPS with a bulb, you're shooting light upwards, into a reflector, and back down. You're losing a bit of light to photon scatter and such. And then, if you have glass, even more. So, that 400W isn't a true 400W to the canopy. Now, when you consider an LED or LES, you're focusing way more of that light at the canopy, all of the energy that's being expended is going at the canopy. So that's where a lower wattage of LED will produce comparable light saturation to a higher wattage HPS/CMH bulb.

 

[Positivity]

just to play devils advocate

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mars-Hydro-300-Full-Spectrum-LED-Grow-Light-140w-true-Watt-For-Indoor-Veg-Flower-/371291844831?hash=item5672b7f0df:g:b28AAOSwwbdWPFQs

12 sold in the last 24 hrs...

theres obviously still a place for them. $63 dollars for 140w draw....If you got a small budget or just want to play around then do what you like

Probably the worst performance out of everything...lifespan sucks...

but dirt cheap for leds. And I have seen more than a few growers happy with their meager .5g/w grows and partially burnt out led panels.

Just don't say it'll grow better than a good led driven and cooled well. Enough evidence of that

If you were in the neighborhood I'd try and convince you to build a vero on a cpu cooler instead. Or even a shiny aluminum box..

 

[HockeyBeard]

No, that's not what I was asking. Using an EPI led was the worst possible choice period. I don't care what flavor of worst. Mars vs Generic vs some other China Junk. Epi LED's are worse than T8, T5, CMH, HPS, worse than a real LED, AND MORE EXPENSIVE short term AND long term. The absolute worst and only unjustifiably expensive with zero benefits vs ANYTHING else. Why did you chose that?
That's proof of zero due diligence. There is not a single possible good reason to purchase the Mars unit. I was asking, what was your terrible reason to purchase it and why do you want to recommend a horrible option to somebody else? I want to know the psychology behind it, i'm fascinated why people chose to do the absolute worst possible things for themselves and their plants.

Is it really surprising? I have to imagine it's the price tag. Not big enough to make people dig and dig through research. Oh, hundred bucks? no problem.

My problem is when those people then turn around and recommend them

 

[az2000]

$63 dollars for 140w draw....If you got a small budget or just want to play around then do what you like

They're all over the place on their recommended coverage. That one says 1.5x1.5' in flower. That's 2.25 sq ft. That's 62w/sq ft.

I've said a number of times that's what people need to consider with Mars (or any epi-whatever light). I'm sure 62w/sq ft will flower well. But, at that point... what's the point of running LED? You can get an Enviro-Grow 2' 4-tube T5HO with 96w draw, covers 2.4sq/ft at 40w/sq ft. and have virtually the same result with a fixture that isn't a throwaway.

But, the T5HO is $27 more.

My concern is that people buying the epi-whatever lights are seeing videos at 60-70w/sq ft, then they buy a fixture based upon the web-site's 37w/sq ft spec, then getting defensive about their purchase, not realizing how other products compared. IMO, all it does is give LED a bad name.

People see 62w/sq ft and they think, "just do HPS." The qualities of LED (epi-whatever versus good LED) aren't considered. 35w/sq ft with CMH gets lost in the cracks.

It's not so much that $63 is a lot to lose on a temporary fixture. Or, that you can't get decent results at 62w/sq ft. It's more a problem of confusion and disinformation that results. It's like the Advanced Nutrients of lighting. You buy one bottle and before long you're defending the Make Money Fast guy on late night infomercials (without even realizing you're doing it.).

I'm still impressed with how the Pro version requires *more* watts per sq ft. You pay more to get the watts you actually need. The discount you get with the non-Pro is for being sold less watts than you need?

 

[whitebb2727]

Yes and no. Yes, watts are watts, but the difference between 400W of HPS with a bulb, you're shooting light upwards, into a reflector, and back down. You're losing a bit of light to photon scatter and such. And then, if you have glass, even more. So, that 400W isn't a true 400W to the canopy. Now, when you consider an LED or LES, you're focusing way more of that light at the canopy, all of the energy that's being expended is going at the canopy. So that's where a lower wattage of LED will produce comparable light saturation to a higher wattage HPS/CMH bulb.

I wasn't referring to that. I meant that 400 watts is the same on the electric bill no matter the source. Of course with hid you have the ballast and having to cool it.

If you are pulling 400 from the socket, no matter the source, it will cost the same.

 

[whitebb2727]

They're all over the place on their recommended coverage. That one says 1.5x1.5' in flower. That's 2.25 sq ft. That's 62w/sq ft.

I've said a number of times that's what people need to consider with Mars (or any epi-whatever light). I'm sure 62w/sq ft will flower well. But, at that point... what's the point of running LED? You can get an Enviro-Grow 2' 4-tube T5HO with 96w draw, covers 2.4sq/ft at 40w/sq ft. and have virtually the same result with a fixture that isn't a throwaway.

But, the T5HO is $27 more.

My concern is that people buying the epi-whatever lights are seeing videos at 60-70w/sq ft, then they buy a fixture based upon the web-site's 37w/sq ft spec, then getting defensive about their purchase, not realizing how other products compared. IMO, all it does is give LED a bad name.

People see 62w/sq ft and they think, "just do HPS." The qualities of LED (epi-whatever versus good LED) aren't considered. 35w/sq ft with CMH gets lost in the cracks.

It's not so much that $63 is a lot to lose on a temporary fixture. Or, that you can't get decent results at 62w/sq ft. It's more a problem of confusion and disinformation that results. It's like the Advanced Nutrients of lighting. You buy one bottle and before long you're defending the Make Money Fast guy on late night infomercials (without even realizing you're doing it.).

I'm still impressed with how the Pro version requires *more* watts per sq ft. You pay more to get the watts you actually need. The discount you get with the non-Pro is for being sold less watts than you need?

I'm running a 4 ft 8 bulb t5ho that I got for $100, bulbs included. That's 432 watts in a 2x4 area. 54 watts per sq foot.

 

[Resinhound]

I'm running a 4 ft 8 bulb t5ho that I got for $100, bulbs included. That's 432 watts in a 2x4 area. 54 watts per sq foot.

I really liked my 432watt t5 system,really pretty easy to play with your spectrum and the quality seemed very good to me,the chinese leds I gave a fair shot but struggled with excessive heat and stretch..I was constantly fighting with light height trying to correct that.The harvest was successful,but I much prefered my old t5 setup.Just my 2 cents.

 

[az2000]

there's obviously still a place for them. $63 dollars for 140w draw....If you got a small budget or just want to play around then do what you like

I was thinking: I wonder if those eBay lights are a closeout of the prior model. I wonder if we're comparing apples/oranges.

There was news late-2014 that the Chinese government recognized the reputation China's LED industry had earned, and mandated improvements in 2015. I wonder if something did improve, and that explains the discrepancy in the specs (and the back-door unloading of last year's lights)?

It still illustrates how Mars (or any epi-whatever light) suffers from lack of reliable information. As far as I can tell, they don't mention that the new model's diodes are more efficient. It's still a mystery what diodes they use, their performance, etc. I'm not trying to defend epi-whatever.

 

[Positivity]

I'm more concerned about honest users and customers who get rained on for what they grow with

Shills straight up lying.. That's another story..

Haven't read this thread well enough to make a opinion on that. Busy at work so I'm just reading bits and pieces

I enjoy all grow journals regardless of their efficiency level when it comes from a honest user.

 

[house34]

Two marshydro 300w 60x5 280(real watt) $120 free shipping ijs.

Not real watts. 140 real watts.

 

[house34]

Another perfectly good thread ruined by all the Mars haters. When did it become wrong to have fun doing a hobby and trying new things?

 

[Rahz]

The original poster was asking about Mars because he's trying to save electricity. Mars doesn't seem to be any more efficient than a T5 so what do you want us to say?

 

[HockeyBeard]

Another perfectly good thread ruined by all the Mars haters. When did it become wrong to have fun doing a hobby and trying new things?

Yeah, all these people who actually have research and data to back up their claims, fuck those guys, right? I know that when I'm doing research on something, I will only listen to some twat who bought a hundred dollar LED and says he's growing great nugs with it, but can't explain anything about how it works. And I'm also going to take that same twat's word that his definition of great nugs matches up anywhere remotely to mine. Nah, seriously, fuck those guys who actually research the parts and data and figure out what's actually happening on an electrical draw standpoint, a heat dissipation and a light density and spread standpoint. No, I will not listen to anyone who has actually done the research on these lights, and would recommend me spend my money on a product that is better in every way, shape and/or form.

Fuck those guys, right?

 

[testiclees]

Another perfectly good thread ruined by all the Mars haters. When did it become wrong to have fun doing a hobby and trying new things?

Your logic is straight assholery. "Wrong" has never entered into it nor has "fun" or "trying new things". Getting informed feedback that stings is part of learning.

I have a perfect condition 900w mars it draws 510w it grows flowers and it is for sale. Ive used it in a 2x4 and it works. Any offers?

 

[HockeyBeard]

Your logic is straight assholery. "Wrong" has never entered into it nor has "fun" or "trying new things". Getting informed feedback that stings is part of learning.

I have a perfect condition 900w mars it draws 510w it grows flowers and it is for sale. Ive used it in a 2x4 and it works. Any offers?