Yes, you are correct in your tracing of my thought process (or lack of it - I suppose it was more of a gut reaction).It has been my experience that when a design engineer uses the term "multivibrator" without a qualifier he is invariably referring to the astable form. The Jim Williams application note is good example of this. The original statement made by Ron is another.
In the trade, a monostable multivibrator is usually called a one-shot and a bistable multivibrator is usually called a flip-flop. Maybe that's the reason people say simply "multivibrator" when referring to the oscillating one.
The inventors of the oscillating multivibrator didn't call it an "astable multivibrator"... they called it a multivibrator. And they were the ones who coined the term. The monostable and bistable forms were later derived from that original multivibrator. This may be another reason people say "multivibrator" when referring to the oscillating one.
(Source: http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/electron/elect36.htm )
Given that this is the popular and widely accepted usage of the term "multivibrator" (outside of academia), Ron was right in stating, "An RC multivibrator is an oscillator." (Even if he now thinks he was wrong.)
An oscillator is something that oscillates. Oscillation is a cyclic repetitive movement, ie; something that goes backward and forward and continually repeats....
We seem to be able to say that something is or is not an an oscillator for instance but what is it that actually makes it an oscillator an oscillator? Some aspect or aspects of its physical behaviour?
...
That makes sense to me. And I think the consensus is that an astable multivibrator qualifies as an oscillator.Any circuit that produces a frequency has an output that is oscillating.
.....
Re multivibrators; an "astable multivibrator" is an oscillator but a "monostable multivibrator" is not.
by Aaron Carman
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz
by Duane Benson