I've read conflicting definitions for voltage drop.
Some sources describe it as 'voltage lost'
while others 'voltage difference'. I tend to favor
the latter. My reasoning is as follows: If voltage
was lost, then adding say additional resistors
to a series circuit would mean that there would
be a lack of voltage to continue current.

Why I think voltage drop means 'voltage difference' is for this reason: resistors impede the flow of current, so resistance goes up, while current stays the same as opposed to current staying the same but resistance being very small. The former implies a smaller voltage while the latter does not. Given this smaller voltage, we have a reduction in pressure operating over an electric field. So the time that it takes to push a charge becomes longer. This would then be represented by a voltage drop, or the difference between two points in a circuit over some load. It represents a disparity in voltage over time. However, voltage is not lost. Because the voltage after the resistor, would be represented by the applied voltage.

Does that sound correct? If not, why not?

-- conrad

Why I think voltage drop means 'voltage difference' is for this reason: resistors impede the flow of current, so resistance goes up, while current stays the same as opposed to current staying the same but resistance being very small. The former implies a smaller voltage while the latter does not. Given this smaller voltage, we have a reduction in pressure operating over an electric field. So the time that it takes to push a charge becomes longer. This would then be represented by a voltage drop, or the difference between two points in a circuit over some load. It represents a disparity in voltage over time. However, voltage is not lost. Because the voltage after the resistor, would be represented by the applied voltage.

Does that sound correct? If not, why not?

-- conrad