Should you use the word "transistor" when refering to non-BJT devices?

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

So, I realize this is something that one can have various opinions about.
I also realize that MOSFET, JFET, IGBT, HEMT, ... all are acronyms forSomething Something ... Transistor, and that BJT stands for bipolar junction transistor

However, I don't know if this is common, but I seem to remember that the electronics kits I grew up with would use "transistor" when refering to BJTs, and "MOSFET" when refering to MOSFETs (obviously). This distinction stuck with me, and thus in general, when people say "transistor" what I hear in my head is "BJT", especially if we are talking about individual devices in a circuit, for example: "Current I1 will turn on transistor M2 (...)". I've seen other books seem to use this "transistor is a synonym for BJT" style, although I can't come up with any specific titles right now.

Hence, I would like to ask a)

Is this actually a common thing, or have I just had a bad set of samples?
Is it a good habit to avoid using "transistor" to refer to JFET/MOSFET/... and instead call them by their more specific name? Should I do this for BJTs as well?

[danadak]

Seems like Wiki defines it for multiple types. For example
there were Tetrode transistors back in the day, 4 leads
vs 3, multiple base or collector or emitter leads. Point being
they were also considered to be transistors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrode_transistor



Regards, Dana.

[madires]

Same here, the term transistor usually refers to a BJT since it's the most common type.

[VEGETA]

well, as you said, MOSFETs are transistors by definition but generally people used to say "transistor" to a BJT and somehow it stuck with it.

[Zero999]

It's most likely because the BJT is usually the first type of transistor people learn about.

To answer the original question: yes, it's correct to use the term "transistor" to refer to other transistors than BJTs, such as JFETs, MOSFETs, UJTs etc.

Also note that most people will probably think of an NPN device, rather than PNP when someone talks about a transistor.

Personally, it depends on the context. If it's a CMOS circuit, then I know they're all MOSFETs, not BJTs.

[rfeecs]

Hence, I would like to ask a)

Is this actually a common thing, or have I just had a bad set of samples?
Is it a good habit to avoid using "transistor" to refer to JFET/MOSFET/... and instead call them by their more specific name? Should I do this for BJTs as well?

I seems to be only a thing with beginners and hobbyists?

Transistor is the general term.  BJT, MOSFET, HBT, HEMT are specific.  I would avoid saying "MOSFET transistor" or "BJT transistor".

Interesting that SCRs, TRIACs, etc. are not called transistors.  They would seem to qualify.  Perhaps because they function like switches instead of linear amplifiers?

[james_s]

I think it's acceptable to call a mosfet a "transistor" because it's a type of transistor, although normally if I just say "transistor" I'm referring to a BJT as they're the "ordinary" type of transistor.

SCRs and Triacs are a subset of Thyristor.

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

It seems like I might not have been clear enough in my original post.
I am aware that it is correct to refer to any of the listed devices (MOSFET and what not) as a "transistor", as this is what it is. However, what I was wondering is if it is a good idea to avoid using transistor when refering to anything other than BJTs, except when it's really obvious (like when discussing a CMOS circuit), in order to avoid confusion.
I ask this because when I read the title of a paper that goes say "A novel 6 transistor gain-boosted cascode topology" I will immediately assume the paper is dealing with BJTs. I can imagine that if many others do this as well, it could be a good idea to just directly specify what you are talking about. This way, you would avoid people getting confused about whats going on.

[rfeecs]

It seems like I might not have been clear enough in my original post.
I am aware that it is correct to refer to any of the listed devices (MOSFET and what not) as a "transistor", as this is what it is. However, what I was wondering is if it is a good idea to avoid using transistor when refering to anything other than BJTs, except when it's really obvious (like when discussing a CMOS circuit), in order to avoid confusion.
I ask this because when I read the title of a paper that goes say "A novel 6 transistor gain-boosted cascode topology" I will immediately assume the paper is dealing with BJTs. I can imagine that if many others do this as well, it could be a good idea to just directly specify what you are talking about. This way, you would avoid people getting confused about whats going on.

I think few people would interpret that title automatically as referring to BJT.  Cascode is very common in CMOS as well.

At least in industry and academia, people just do not assume transistor means BJT.

[T3sl4co1l]

I ask this because when I read the title of a paper that goes say "A novel 6 transistor gain-boosted cascode topology" I will immediately assume the paper is dealing with BJTs. I can imagine that if many others do this as well, it could be a good idea to just directly specify what you are talking about. This way, you would avoid people getting confused about whats going on.

Depends on context -- as language usually does.

For example, I will assume the paper is talking about MOSFETs, in a CMOS or III-V process, because I know almost no one uses BJTs anymore.  HBTs maybe, but those are unusual enough that they'll probably specify in the title or abstract.

OTOH, an historical paper (say 70s or earlier) may be talking about BJTs.

Tim

[Ratch]

So, I realize this is something that one can have various opinions about.
I also realize that MOSFET, JFET, IGBT, HEMT, ... all are acronyms forSomething Something ... Transistor, and that BJT stands for bipolar junction transistor

However, I don't know if this is common, but I seem to remember that the electronics kits I grew up with would use "transistor" when refering to BJTs, and "MOSFET" when refering to MOSFETs (obviously). This distinction stuck with me, and thus in general, when people say "transistor" what I hear in my head is "BJT", especially if we are talking about individual devices in a circuit, for example: "Current I1 will turn on transistor M2 (...)". I've seen other books seem to use this "transistor is a synonym for BJT" style, although I can't come up with any specific titles right now.

Hence, I would like to ask a)

Is this actually a common thing, or have I just had a bad set of samples?
Is it a good habit to avoid using "transistor" to refer to JFET/MOSFET/... and instead call them by their more specific name? Should I do this for BJTs as well?

Since the last letter of the acronyms you listed means "transistor", anytime you use "transistor", it could mean any of those acronyms.  The particular type of transistor is determined by context and commonality.  Just like "car" can mean Chevy, Ford, Honda, etc.

Ratch

[MagicSmoker]

....
Interesting that SCRs, TRIACs, etc. are not called transistors.  They would seem to qualify.  Perhaps because they function like switches instead of linear amplifiers?

A transistor is a 3-terminal device in which the control terminal can continuously affect the flow of current through the other two terminals.
Thyristors don't qualify as transistors because their control terminal loses the ability to control the flow of current once it has turned the device on. External circuit conditions must be set up to turn a thyristor off (called commutation).

And as others have mentioned already, transistor is a general term whereas BJT, IGBT, JFET, MOSFET, etc., describe specific types of transistors.

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

As I have stated before, twice, and will state again: I know that all of them are transistors, and that transistor is the general term. However, I've also seen transistor been used to discribe BJTs specificly. I wondered if others had seen the same, and what the thoughts were about this.

[rfeecs]

....
Interesting that SCRs, TRIACs, etc. are not called transistors.  They would seem to qualify.  Perhaps because they function like switches instead of linear amplifiers?

A transistor is a 3-terminal device in which the control terminal can continuously affect the flow of current through the other two terminals.
Thyristors don't qualify as transistors because their control terminal loses the ability to control the flow of current once it has turned the device on. External circuit conditions must be set up to turn a thyristor off (called commutation).

That's what I figured.  Wikipedia's Thyristor page says about the same thing:

A thyristor is not a proportional device like a transistor. In other words, a thyristor can only be fully on or off, while a transistor can lie in between on and off states.

It also mentions the origin of the name:

An earlier gas filled tube device called a thyratron provided a similar electronic switching capability, where a small control voltage could switch a large current. It is from a combination of "thyratron" and "transistor" that the term "thyristor" is derived.

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

A transistor is a 3-terminal device in which the control terminal can continuously affect the flow of current through the other two terminals.

The 3 terminal part is not required. A MOSFET, for example, is a 4-terminal device.

[rfeecs]

A transistor is a 3-terminal device in which the control terminal can continuously affect the flow of current through the other two terminals.

The 3 terminal part is not required. A MOSFET, for example, is a 4-terminal device.

We can argue about definitions forever.  That definition also would apply to a vacuum tube triode.  Unless you count the heater terminals.

[MagicSmoker]

As I have stated before, twice, and will state again: I know that all of them are transistors, and that transistor is the general term. However, I've also seen transistor been used to discribe BJTs specificly. I wondered if others had seen the same, and what the thoughts were about this.

Yes, I often use the word transistor to refer to a BJT, specifically. Its not something I worry overly much about. However, I rarely use FET to refer to MOSFETs specifically, as for some reason I feel compelled to always make a distinction between a JFET and a MOSFET.

[Zero999]

As I have stated before, twice, and will state again: I know that all of them are transistors, and that transistor is the general term. However, I've also seen transistor been used to discribe BJTs specificly. I wondered if others had seen the same, and what the thoughts were about this.

I don't believe I've seen such a thing personally, unless it was reading some posts here, in the beginners section.

Can you post any links to where you have encountered this?

[Bud]

Also note that most people will probably think of an NPN device, rather than PNP when someone talks about a transistor.

What??!   

[amspire]

Just choose your use of terms for the clearest communication. If you just say the word "transistor", many people will think of a bipolar junction transistor. If that is a problem in the idea you are trying to communicate, use terms like MOSFET, JFET, etc instead.

If you are communicating with non-electronics people, often just calling all the devices "transistor" is fine. That is a word that means more to them then HEMT or IGBT.

In a parts list, it is fine listing different types of transistors under the heading "Transistor".

If you are communicating with a semi-technical audience, it is always a good idea to define the abbreviations on the first use - "junction field effect transistor (JFET)". Don't force people to have to google terms just to work out what you are saying.

[jolshefsky]

The pedant in me cringes at "BJT transistor" and "FET transistor" since the expanded acronyms would make them "bipolar-junction transistor transistor" and "field-effect transistor transistor."

My own experience-based definition says a transistor is a simple (e.g. not an op-amp) semiconductor-based device (e.g. silicon) that performs an amplification function. And since BJTs and FETs are all transistors, saying "transistor" is ambiguous and could refer to any of them.

[T3sl4co1l]

Yeah, you don't need to redundantly say "transistor" if you've already specified that you're using (MOS)FETs or BJTs or whatever.

Just say one of those, if you're being specific.  The acronym can then be defined/specified, or left to the reader to figure out (by asking, or, preferably, by JFGI ).

Tim

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

Yeah, you don't need to redundantly say "transistor" if you've already specified that you're using (MOS)FETs or BJTs or whatever.

Just say one of those, if you're being specific.  The acronym can then be defined/specified, or left to the reader to figure out (by asking, or, preferably, by JFGI ).

Tim

Got to tell people that I'm using a BJT transistor to power the LCD display in my ATM machine tho!


Jokes aside:
Interesting that some people are very surprised about this being a thing, where as others confirm seeing the same. Perhaps it's something very common in hobby circles that trickles down into engineering people as the go the university?

[Zero999]

The pedant in me cringes at "BJT transistor" and "FET transistor" since the expanded acronyms would make them "bipolar-junction transistor transistor" and "field-effect transistor transistor."

That seems to be common in English speaking countries. PIN number, ATM machine, PAT testing, etc.