We are interested in them, but not as amplifiers.
You've noted the three permutations of common terminal, so that leaves the two permutations (each) of input and output.
So your question reduces to: what happens when we swap input and output?
But I think you can begin to see why this isn't a very interesting question...
In RF circuit analysis, we express a simple amplifier as a general ("black box") network consisting of two ports. All the waves entering/exiting each port are measured, and the relative amounts of each (incident and reflected, ports 1 and 2) are compiled into a matrix. When this is normalized to a given system impedance (e.g. 50Ω), we call it the s-parameter matrix. There are other equivalent* expressions, but this one is probably the most common in RF work.
*Not quite equivalent, as -- as mentioned, s-params are normalized to a system impedance, but the rest are general and equivalent, expressing some relation of voltage and current, impedance and conductance, or input to output; or the inverses thereof.
The s-parameters can be described thus:
- s11: Ratio of received power from port 1, to power incident upon port 1 (input reflection)
- s21: Ratio of received power from port 2, to power incident upon port 1 (forward amplification)
- s12: Ratio of received power from port 1, to power incident upon port 2 (reverse amplification/transfer, feedback, or isolation)
- s22: Ratio of received power from port 2, to power incident upon port 2 (output reflection)
Swapping input and output of the transistor, and adjusting biasing networks accordingly, simply swaps s11 for s22, and s12 for s21. We have reverse amplification, and forward isolation. If we simply swap the ports around, we end up with the identity transformation -- we get the circuit we started with.
Note: this is an AC equivalent point. Things are different at DC, where the directions of current flow and polarities of voltage matter, independently of (AC) signal level and magnitude,
is this something that should be obvious to me a priori?
Probably? Maybe? I'm not sure how far you are in your curriculum (or how thorough the material has been -- or how effective the instructors), but it might also be an insight that you simply haven't put together yet.
The combination of factors, for me, are the following; and, approximately where in a normal (as of when I took it) EE curriculum the student might be exposed to it:
- AC steady-state analysis (first year). Basic biasing theory; DC vs. AC circuits, set capacitors to open and inductors to short for DC, vice versa for AC (high-frequency limit).
- Introductory transistors (2nd year I think?). Basic operation. Common building blocks (amplifiers, current sources, etc.). Apply biasing principles to transistors. → Choosing biasing appropriate for the pin(s) after swapping should be a fair move in the above analysis; we chose favorable conditions for every other configuration after all.
- Transmission line theory, E&M (3rd or 4th year?). Hardly any of it, but more just to be aware that we can reduce the voltages and currents in a circuit, to a pair of waves travelling in opposite directions, of given impedance and amplitude. This gives rise to the incident/reflected analysis used in...
- RF network theory (graduate level, or elective?). I choose this route, more just to formalize the expression -- we can measure these things in a less general way of course, and indeed the h-parameters that undergrad students use to model BJTs are in fact a general two-port matrix method, it's just not usually taught that way (or at least, I wasn't, that I recall). Presumably to avoid overloading students who might not've even taken linear algebra at that point yet, or to avoid pinning it as a prerequisite or concurrent course. But, in fact, h-params are one of several general cases of the two-port, which lead directly into general network analysis.
Didactic semi-aside:
Maybe I'm hitting a nail with a jackhammer here, or maybe I'm showing off my depth/breadth of knowledge for subconscious bragging rights more than giving the simple, well-grounded explanation I imagine it to be. (Take your pick, I suppose; it could be both or neither!) But if nothing else, this is the web of facts which link together in my mind, and when I pluck the strings of this question, I follow them onward into these topics, and find the reasoning quite sound. The question remains, whether you (readers, in general) find this as well motivating.
I could just as well make the point without invoking network theory, and just softball it with perhaps h-params alone -- first defining the h-matrix, showing what transistor parameters correspond (occasionally h-params are given directly, though hre can be a rare sight), and how it changes under the given permutations.
(Maybe it suffices just to make the permutation point, and not need to justify it with matrices at all!)
I think doing it with h-params would be less convincing, simply because -- sure, whatever, you're packing a bunch of numbers in a matrix, and you swap around some numbers, but so what, of course you did, you swapped numbers to swap numbers -- you know? Well, maybe I'm imagining it would be worse than it is; describing the parameters, what they do, how they relate to real device parameters and characteristics, does a similar thing to the above explanation.
But equally so, the abstractness of network theory likely loses a lot of readers. Perhaps more.
What appeals to me about this explanation, is that: by raising the problem to the absolute highest level of abstraction, we don't need to concern ourselves with resistors, capacitors, transistors, currents, voltages; it's the mathematical perfection of a triangle, and you can rotate and flex that triangle in your fingers and see exactly how it works, all its angles and symmetries. So too, the triviality of the point here, which, I think is just a tiny example of the many beautiful symmetries in EE theory. But just as well, it's hard to ask a student (or the more casual readers) to understand things at such depth, just to make a relatively trivial point, and it becomes more a case of -- take it for granted that this mumbo-jumbo actually makes sense. Which is, again, not a very satisfying proof.
I would at least propose it as a point of encouragement -- there is an abstract beauty to be found here, as well as practical working knowledge to make complex problems tractable; you might not understand it now, you might not understand it several years from now -- but perhaps with the mountain peak revealed occasionally from behind the clouds, you have something to look forward to, as you find your path up along this deep subject.