In the late 1950's and after, lower voltage vacuum tubes and transistors took over for much of the radio receiver part of the market. They often used a mechanical 'vibrator' (see here for a simpler example of one of these devices), together with a transformer, in order to generate the higher plate voltages required by vacuum tube circuits at the time. In the 1950's HAM radio operators using their cars as a base station and both car and farm radio receivers had to operate off of 'DC car batteries' for power. (And yes, it's push-pull arrangement just as Neil and Rohat have already mentioned.) I'll add one additional comment which is more directly related to the circuit you show and it's more common function within a larger system. But when the usage is debased, they get misused and confusing, and we have to revert to longer ways to describe what we mean. Well chosen and consistently used names are a useful shorthand. It describes the picture it makes very well, rather than describing the behaviour, and brooks no confusion with a totem pole, which was named after the picture it made.ĭon't get hung up on names, it's the behaviour of the circuit that matters. A better name for a push-pull output stage would be a 'see-saw' configuration. However it grates to those who use the 'old terms' 'correctly'. It's how language develops, it might even catch on. I'm sympathetic to the mistake, I might even have used words like that when explaining the how and why of a totem pole output to somebody. It's likely the person has heard the term push-pull, and their first exposure to a circuit that had a 'drive in both directions' sort of behaviour was a totem pole. They are totally different circuit used in totally different situations.

I can understand why somebody might describe a totem pole output stage as a push-pull, but most people call it a totem pole. The configuration you've shown is the prototypical 'push-pull' arrangement.

Totem pole output what is