The dielectric breakdown of water is reached with field strengths of about 70 kV/mm, much less than what the dielectric layer in a capacitor can withstand. So, if you discharge a capacitor with a field strength in the order of just 200 kV/mm very fast, such that the molecules in the dielectric cannot keep up depolarizing, it is intirely possible to induce a field which exceeds the dielectic breakdown fieldstrength of water in the fluid, while still remaining well below the fieldstrength required to breakdown the dielectric layer.
I don't think there can be much discussion about this being possible, because this is what is actualy being observed with both aluminum based rectifiers and electolytic capacitors, as already referred to before:
I guess it's a good thing that we all see things quite differently given that no one has yet categorically proved the science behind what Meyer did... or dare I say, claimed to do.
However, I'm not sure comparing a Meyer-type WFC to a wet electrolytic capacitor is necessarily the way forward because, though there may be similarities, we require very different results from each, so I fail to see that what is being observed in electrolytic capacitors as having any real relevance.
The electrolyte in a wet electrolytic capacitor serves two purposes: to act as a liquid electrode so as to vastly increase the active surface area and to maintain the oxide dielectric layer. Maintaining the dielectric oxide layer requires some current flow, hence these caps always exhibit relatively high leakage current. Now, the one thing we don't want in a capacitor is gas evolving, and the one thing you don't want in a WFC (if you intend voltage to do the work), is current flowing.
Referring to this 70,000 volt dielectric breakdown figure, this is for pure water with a dielectric constant of 80, right? Now apart from the fact that we will always be using water that to some extent conducts electricity, you also have to consider that the dielectric constants for the oxides is far lower - not sure about the chromium oxide, but I think the aluminium oxide is only around the 10 mark.
In your scenario, if and when dielectric failure ensues, current will flow through the cell.
In our scenario when the dielectric of the EDLC fails, current does not flow through the cell between electrodes, instead charges interact across this very tiny layer directly at the electrodes.
The odd thing is, if you look at what we are both doing, the chances are that we may well ultimately get the same results, with the only thing then in dispute being the science.