Literally, yes, but not in context. If you watch the whole video, he's talking about a variety of different cases which he demonstrates - AND - he runs his cases by Dr. Belcher, who writes up a nice writeup about a bunch of Mehdi's experiments, and then concludes that "KVL holds as argued by Mehdi."
So the CONTEXT was that of all the different example circuits that Mehdi gave to Belcher, Belcher said that KVL holds for all of them. Which is what Dr. Belcher said.
And Dr. Belcher even quoted Dr. Feynman.
Srendi has been through your misattributions of Belcher's words.
I realize that Srendi is very displeased with the fact that Dr. McDonald said "Lewin's circuit is within the range of applicability of Kirchhoff's voltage equations" and that Dr. Belcher gave "Too broad (as snedlie puts it)" of an approval.
The undeniable fact is that in his 16 pages of notes on the topic titled "Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) and Faraday's Law: ElectroBOOM's Experiments," Dr. Belcher starts out with warm gratitude to Mehdi and compliments his "Nice experiments," then goes over several different experiments that Mehdi did, then Dr. Belcher cites Dr. Feynman and concludes "Thus with Feynman's definition, KVL Holds," and "KVL holds, as argued by Mehdi...."
And Dr. Belcher makes not ONE mention of Lewin or his experiments.
I realize that Master Srendi has a crystalball and knows what Belcher meant even though it's not what he said, but I don't particularly trust Srendi's crystalball, even though he brags of it often.
I'm not going to rehash it with you because, again, you want people to chase you in infinite loops. He already said it.
Yes, context matters. Mehdi takes Feynman and Belcher out of context. Mehdi made his positions clear in the first and second videos he released about this. He thinks KVL holds in all cases - he's still saying that. He's wrong.
Neither Belcher nor Mehdi are saying that KVL holds for every possible circuit of every possible configuration, but rather that it holds for all the ones they've just examined.
By taking Mehdi's words out of context, you make him out to say something completely different than he was actually communicating.
Belcher wouldn't say that because he is an actual physicist who understands Maxwell's Equations. Mehdi on the other hand... this is what he actually is arguing. This is the whole reason he picked a fight with Lewin in the first place.
https://youtu.be/0TTEFF0D8SA?t=51
What Mehdi actually says at that point you link above is "Dr. Lewin teaches in one of his courses that KVL doesn't hold true in some cases and I disagree with him."
From the CONTEXT of watching the whole video, it is clear that Mehdi is not claiming that KVL holds in all possible electrical typologies and frequencies, but rather he is specifically talking about certain cases that Lewin and he experimented with.
But yeah, if you want to quote mine, find videos of people who aren't even speaking their native language, I bet you can find slight ambiguities in their out-of-context words which you can present out of context to mean something else.
So why the desperation to save it? Why is it so very important that KVL applies to the Lewin/Romer Ring? Well I don't know why. This is why Sredni is fascinated by the cognitive bias - why does everyone want to save KVL so badly?
Perhaps Team KVL is just as fascinated by Sredni's cognitive bias.
It's one thing if he wants to argue that Lewin's specific setup is difficult to probe and that as a result KVL may not appear to hold.
But Team Lewin literally says that KVL doesn't hold even when using the 2-terminal secondary winding on a toroidal transformer as an element, which obviously would work, and the textbooks say it would work with KVL.
So I ask you, why is Team Lewin so set on saying that KVL won't hold even for a loop which has as an element the two terminal output winding on a toroidal transformer?
Why is it so important?
I'm pretty amazed that just studying Faraday's Law and saying "KVL doesn't always hold" makes one a Lewin cultist. And I'm not even an anti-KVLer... just someone who recognizes the limitations of when you can use it, I guess?
As far as I know, everyone one Team KVL understands that there are circumstances where KVL doesn't hold - including, for example, frequencies which are smaller than the elements. That's just a straw man you're battering to bits with such glee.
What makes someone an anti-KVL cultist is when they argue that it doesn't hold even for cases where it does hold.
But if you simply understand Faraday's law and say that KVL doesn't always hold, then you should have no problem agreeing that KVL holds as measured by real volt meters in a real lab test, as depicted in the following diagram:
Why not admit that the volt meters would all sum to zero and KVL would at least appear to hold in the above diagram?
Oh that's right, you don't want to go around in circles. Except you are going around in circles about the topic, you just don't want to actually answer a real physics question.