Maybe it’s just my eyes but the one on the left looks more orange???

nope, its hard to see in a direct photo but the 55w is brighter you can see this on the kitchen ceiling. also they are both running on hf sox gear hence the clear photos, no flicker etc. exc36 and exc55

Why is that unusual?, even on their own optimal hybrid gear the 36s only put out 5800 lumens to the 55s 7800, and oddly enough, the 36watt performed better on autoleak giving 6000 lumens.

as both are running on hf gear the output appears constant to the camera, if they were running on mag gear the picture would be different

I wonder if they both can adjust themselves to the HF gear better than they would do on mag?

It’s a shame those Philips electronic ballasts were that reliable

Why ?

Weren’t sorry

Every Philips HF SOX ballast I've ever got in a fitting was dead

i have had no problems with the ones i have, not yet anyway. but i did have one supplied to me new that was doa. upon inspection the inside was blown up. i suspect this may have been a return under warranty possibly due to running a 135w on it - was an exc91. i recall seeing somewhere a exc91 being used to run a 135w lamp. also i have not used them for any great length of time, but fife used them for years and the ones i salvaged were ok

50hz flicker is always difficult to photograph, the camera catches a certain point in the sine wave, this is why the lamp will appear dull. whilst not to visible to the naked eye the lamp is constantly cycling between various voltages. this is less evident at hf due to there being virtually no dead time ie lamp off at 0v part of the cycle

I remember lampy once telling me he used to come across these in mainly 35/55 rather a lot that were dead. I did have a few dead ones that had dry joints I was able to fix. Others bugs had gone on to the pcb causing explosion!