Talk:Unijunction transistor

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Circuit Symbol

Added the circuit symbol of UJT Weltanschaunng 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instablity

"Negative resistance" suggests instability. So how is the charge injection process limited? A concise explanation would be nice. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"AC current"

"AC current" means "alternating current current"? :-) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That would be redundant. It just means alternating current. But then what's an AC voltage, I have to ask you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AC voltage" is a horrible jargon. The correct name is "alternating voltage". :-) (In fact, the English "voltage" is also a quite silly word by itself. ;-) ) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "alternating voltage", but AC voltage, or volts AC, is pretty common; you don't have to like it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dictionaries have "alternating voltage": 1, 2. The fact that (some) people use words without thinking does not mean that the encyclopedia should do the same. ;-) After all, "alternating current" is not any worse than "AC current". -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources about that at Alternating current. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references! -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the device

I don't have access to a semiconductor foundry and I'm not looking to fabricate a UJT from pieces of silicon in the basement. :) I'd suggest the first paragraph might be changed to indicate how the behaviour of these transistors differs from that of the more common types and to list some of the main applications of the device. A preferable (IMO) approach can be found at:- http://www.circuitstoday.com/ujt-uni-junction-transistors Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.202.69 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content of suspicious provenance

this edit (from an anonymous editor using an IP address that has never edited before) looks like it maybe came from published text. It has strange header lines and references figures that are not present. Should something be done about it? --Rob* (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the whole "Construction of a UJT" section looks to be lifted from the Circuits Today page mentioned in the unsigned comment in Talk:Unijunction_transistor#Description_of_the_device added by 27.33.202.69 on 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Any thoughts? Or should i do one of the things mentioned on Wikipedia:Copyright_violations? --Rob* (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Base 1 or base 2

One of the diagrams shows the emitter as being closer to base 1. The other has it closer to base 2. The can't both be correct. 81.136.202.93 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those strange artefacts of circuit symbology. The emitter is closer to base 2 than it is to base 1 in a real live unijunction transistor (which the current physical diagram does not show at all). However, in the circuit symbol as used in circuit diagrams, the emitter is indeed shown as closer to base 1 than base 2. Circuit symbols are seldom expected to resemble the actual construction of the device they represent. 86.130.98.251 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real UJT doesn't looks like that diagram, but emitter is closer to base 1 (original research) --- [Tycho] ^talk 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The right hand symbol is incorrect. Although the circuit symbol is not expected to depict the actual construction of the device it represents, it at least must make it possible to identify the terminals of the device. B1 and B2 need to be interchanged for the right hand symbol. Or better still the symbol inverted, but the labels stay where they are. 86.145.209.11 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has this question been resolved yet? I find it impossible to tell from the article which base is intended to be the more positive of the two. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time reading the data sheet, I agree that the diagram is incorrect and the description based on it is also erroneous (and, incidentally, lacking any citations). See the Disputed Section section, below. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed section

The Construction section contains a diagram which has base 1 and base 2 interchanged. The text is based on the diagram and is therefore also incorrect. I could edit the text but I can't change the diagram. From the datasheet for the 2N2646, base 1 is the one from which the emitter current flows. Base 2 is the more positive terminal and is usually connected to the metal case. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]