For the longest time I chose to ignore the true definition of voltage because it did not make sense to me to think of voltage by its definition. Most of the time, it made more intuitive sense to think of voltage as pressure or as a force, but these substitutions only go so far, and I'm trying to wrestle with how voltage's true definition (from hyperphysics) - "the work which would have to be done, per unit charge, against the electric field to move the charge from A to B" - makes sense when trying to understand the behavior of circuits.
Also, from what I understand you can have voltage without current but not current without voltage.
So lets say:
- we have a voltage 'V' applied cross some point 'A' to some point 'B' then to some point 'C'
- no current flows from A -> B -> C.
- 'V' drops across A -> B, however the voltage at/"entering" 'B' is not 0, lets say its V - 1.
Now, say that 'B' has a input voltage tolerance of V - 2, so in this current state, 'B' is experiencing +1V more than it can accept.
My question is:
if voltage is the amount of work needed to move a charge from A -> B not the actual the amount of work being spent across A -> B but the work needed [if] we were to move a charge from A -> B
In this situation, if it takes V - 1 volts to move a charge from B -> C, but we are not moving any charge since there is no current, is the input 'B' still damaged?
If yes, why? voltage is not a force or pressure, from what it seems, its a hypothetical, its only if we are moving a charge and in this example we are not, so no physical, for lack of a better word, thing is being experienced at 'B'.