Dude, the government was trying to get his investors to sue Stan in a class-action lawsuit for this being "normal" electrolysis before he died...I never said Stan's process wasn't Faradic electrolysis...in fact I'm alluding to it being just that. The only thing that makes it viable is the power amplification provided by the phenomenon I'm describing. It's my contention (implied), that his special terms were allegorical, to evade patent invalidation for thermodynamic violations.
Furthermore, DC neon electrode illumination is a known and fixed fact, it can most certainly be used to prove polarity changes experimentally. Empirical observations are also quite persuading in my opinion. The fact that the electrode polarity changes, and the discharge is obviously and undeniably amplified...coupled with the fact that a capacitor cannot supply anything above its rated capacitance is in fact "proof"....the dpdt switch/relay acts as undeniable isolation from source, and mandates nothing extra is added. Sorry that's not enough to prove it to you, and if you don't care enough to look at it yourself (cheap and easy to look at), then, once again, neither do I.
Mathematical proof is often crafted and in-fact invented after the fact to explain experimental observations. Mathematically crafting/modeling the experiment first, then running the experiment to prove the math is cool and all...but I'm a mathematical fallibist...and I'm after the truth first, then mathematical proof after.
