EMF is the correct term but voltage is independent of Ohm's law.

True, upon further investigation there appears to be more to this than I realized, though it has never effected my ability as an EE:

https://www.vedantu.com/physics/difference-between-emf-and-voltage

 

Interesting, being that Voltage is Joules per C, Current is C per second and resistance is J*s/C^2 that is:

J/C=C/s * (J*s/C^2) =
J/C = J/C

unit analysis seems to indicate it does, unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to state?

The unit for ohm came from the following link:

https://www.rapidtables.com/electric/ohm.html

Be careful about reading too much into dimensional analysis. After all, energy and torque also have the same units (force·distance) and yet they mean very different things.

Voltage is defined as the work done on a charge to move it between two points in an electric field. It has nothing to do with Ohm's Law.

Ohm's Law is merely a statement that in some materials, the voltage required to produce a current is proportional to the current and that the coefficient proportionality is a constant.

 

Be careful about reading too much into dimensional analysis. After all, energy and torque also have the same units (force·distance) and yet they mean very different things.

Voltage is defined as the work done on a charge to move it between two points in an electric field. It has nothing to do with Ohm's Law.

Ohm's Law is merely a statement that in some materials, the voltage required to produce a current is proportional to the current and that the coefficient proportionality is a constant.

In other words you can leave resistance out of it? That is to move 1C 'uphill' in an electric field requires 1 J of energy for a 1V difference?

 

In other words you can leave resistance out of it? That is to move 1C 'uphill' in an electric field requires 1 J of energy for a 1V difference?

Yep. There is some fine print -- mainly that the kinetic energy of the charge has to be the same before and after so that all of the energy involved is going into (or out of) the potential energy of the charge as a function of position. Also, if the electric field is non-conservative, things get more interesting.

 

Yep. There is some fine print -- mainly that the kinetic energy of the charge has to be the same before and after so that all of the energy involved is going into (or out of) the potential energy of the charge as a function of position. Also, if the electric field is non-conservative, things get more interesting.

"if the electric field is non-conservative, things get more interesting."
Yea, did a search on that, it kind of makes sense in an intuitive way: a static electric field cannot perform work on a charged particle that completes a closed loop and returns to the starting point only an electric field generated by a changing magnetic field. I will have to read up some more on that. In other words it is path independent. It seems rather involved.

 

"if the electric field is non-conservative, things get more interesting."
Yea, did a search on that, it kind of makes sense in an intuitive way: a static electric field cannot perform work on a charged particle that completes a closed loop and returns to the starting point only an electric field generated by a changing magnetic field. I will have to read up some more on that. In other words it is path independent. It seems rather involved.

I think you meant "path dependent".

 

I think you meant "path dependent".

Yep, my mistake.

 

Some of the exceptions to ohms law can be very interesting, take incandescent bulbs that use a filament they actually have negative resistance as the voltage goes up the filament heats up and increases its ohms accordingly thereby requiring less current then when the filament was cold.

 

Some of the exceptions to ohms law can be very interesting, take incandescent bulbs that use a filament they actually have negative resistance as the voltage goes up the filament heats up and increases its ohms accordingly thereby requiring less current then when the filament was cold.

Ohms law at the micro-level is about charge carrier collisions (losses == resistance and that resistance can more of less be, temperature, etc... dependent) when EM KE moves into the component as a physical current instead of surrounding the wire/component as fields carrying the usable electrical energy of the circuit. Ohms law one way to explain that energy loss relationship in X conductor. Sometimes that loss relationship is useful to transform energy (heat) or to provide needed voltage drops in a circuit but most times we design circuits to minimize KE inside the wire while moving electrical energy to the desired 'resistance' (that might be a conversion to mechanical energy like a motor shaft) rotation to do work.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...rking-with-electromagnets.175304/post-1590534

 

I have an ancient copy of the book "Cassel's Popular Science" which has a chapter on "The Wizard Electricity". It draws an analogy between electric "potential" (more commonly called voltage these days after Alessandro Volta who invented the battery) and the potential energy of water flowing from one tank via a pipe (conductor/resistor) to a lower level. The flow of water represents the current, the declining level in the upper tank represents the fall in voltage/potential as the level in the top tank goes down etc. It's much easier when you think of voltage at potential! No pipe means no flow (water/current). The multimeter does have a very high resistance so very little current will flow so the measured voltage will only drop very slightly from it's open circuit value. I've always seen this as the best way to explain electricity, hope it helps