Ok so it seems like Tesla ‘only’ had 14 patents after 1903 (I chose 1903 because apparently the wireless ‘race’ is a big deal to popsci enthusiasts). According to a study published in 2017 in the journal Scientometrics, Nobel Prize winners in physics held an average of 2.9 patents each. Seems to be above average in that respect even after the arbitrary date that ‘Nobelitis’ is claimed.

As far as a race to get some sort of signal across the Atlantic, Marconi very much could have ‘won’. This signal was extremely crude and capable of nearly nothing in terms of data transfer or anything useful. The year before, Tesla was serving a deposition for a patent dispute regarding what we now know as the ‘AND’ gate.

Essentially, multiple coils were employed, each with their own characteristic resonant frequencies. Only when all resonant frequencies were sensed by the system, did the system respond. The and gate is currently described as “when both inputs are true, the output is true.” That is what is happening here. It is not commonly known that Tesla was the first to do this.

What Tesla was trying to do with wardenclyffe is often highly misconstrued. It consisted of an elevated terminal where voltage would be oscillating at very large values and a ground interface system (think like the ground rod that nearly every house has for their electrical system, but optimized) where the voltage was low but the current was massive. This system was much different than common radios at the time which Marconi was more alike. The difference was whether or not the system was optimized for radiation (common today for data and signals) vs conduction (through the earth itself, acting more as a compression wave than a transverse wave).

If you choose to research Tesla with an open mind, there is much more to be found than what is considered in this underselling article.

Patents have to essentially be proven to work in order for them to be accepted. From what I understand, “Nobelitis,” refers to the idea that some Nobel prize winners develop scientific ideas after that are “not scientifically sound.” Patents that aren’t “scientifically sound” would most likely not be granted because the principles they would be based on would not bear actual fruit.

So yeah I don’t think Nobelitis is relevant here.

The idea of Nobelitis in general seems like it could be interpreted subjectively in order to discredit alternative ways of thinking. That’s just an opinion though.

Seeing firsthand how difficult it is for things to get patented, I would not refer to Tesla’s later years as having Nobelitis.

The dude had 112 patents in the US alone. That does not seem like some minor feat achieved by someone who had some breakthrough successes.

As for the Marconi argument, tesla states in his own words that his later pursuits of “wireless” transmission had more to do with conduction (through the earth) than radiation (omnidirectional, from an antenna).

One of my favorite reads so far on Nikola Tesla has been this. This poorly named book contains transcripts from Tesla’s patent dispute on what is today known as the ‘and’ gate. If you have technical background it is very much worth a read.

I am pretty sure what Tesla’s technology focused on (which is not a mainstream focus of Electrical Engineers today) is the fact that some of the terms in maxwell’s equations were written off by early scientists (Heaviside?) due to the fact that they did not resemble anything “physical.” Tesla (I believe) sought out the meaning in these terms and applied it to his technology.

Tesla is quoted as saying, "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” I believe he was referencing the fact that the non-physical terms were omitted.

We should probe in directions that make the most sense, that is all. We probably are in many areas.

The only reason we go on these charades is to try to prove a theory (Einstein) correct. These attempts are often very costly and could perhaps the money could be spent on researchers who present alternate theories that actually bear fruitful and unusual results.

Science will forever be a battle of theories and models, the current ones will eventually be replaced and then those replacements will also eventually be phased out.