News
Tesla’s liquid-cooled charging connector patent paves way for the Semi’s Megachargers
A recently published patent application from Tesla suggests that the electric car maker is continuing in its efforts to improve its already-stellar Supercharger Network. The design outlined in the document, which features a liquid-cooled charging connector, can potentially pave the way for a more ambitious charging infrastructure, perhaps one that can specifically cater to the all-electric Semi’s Megacharger Network.
During the all-electric truck’s unveiling, CEO Elon Musk mentioned that the Semi will be able to replenish as much as 400 miles of range in as little as 30 minutes thanks to a network of Megachargers. Neither Musk nor Tesla provided the specs of the Megacharger during the vehicle’s unveiling, though speculations were high that network might provide a power output that is several times more powerful than the company’s Supercharger V2 Network, which had an output of around 120 kW then (Supercharger V2 stations have since been improved to 150 kW).
Being a large vehicle, the Semi requires a lot of power for its charging needs, involving the rapid transfer of mass amounts of electricity in a very short period of time without encountering any heating issues. This is a key concept outlined by Tesla in its recently published patent, titled “Liquid-Cooled Charging Connector,” which involves the use of a liquid cooling system on a charging connector itself. Tesla describes its concept in the discussion below.
“To transfer energy faster and decrease charging times, the cable and charging connector must be capable of withstanding high current loads. Current charging connectors are limited in the current loads that they can support as their ability to dissipate heat is limited. Thus, there is a need for a new charging connector to solve the aforementioned problems.
“The present disclosure related to a new charging connector. The charging connector has a first electrical socket and a second electrical socket. A first sleeve is concentrically coupled to the first electrical socket and a second sleeve is concentrically coupled to the second electrical socket. A manifold assembly encloses the first and second electrical sockets and the first and second sleeves, such that the first and second sleeves and manifold assembly create a hollow interior space there between. The manifold assembly has an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit such that inlet conduit, interior space, and outlet conduit together create a fluid flow path.
“Cooling fluid flows through the fluid flow path and cools the charging connector. During operation, the cooling fluid bifurcates into a first fluid stream which flows around the first sleeve, and a second fluid stream which flows around the second sleeve. The first and second fluid streams combine upstream of the outlet conduit. The first sleeve encloses the first electrical socket, and the second sleeve encloses the second electrical socket. The cooling sleeves are made from a thermally conducting material such that heat generated by electrical sockets can be removed by the cooling fluid. In embodiments, this thermally conducting material is a thermally conductive plastic material.”
Tesla notes that its liquid-cooled supercharger connector does not only allow faster charging; it also makes the routing of wires in a charging connector much more efficient. This means that Tesla’s Supercharger connectors could eventually be smaller and more compact despite being capable of greater output. An example of this appears to be hinted at by Supercharger V3’s liquid-cooled cables, which are smaller and more compact than those used in Tesla’s V2 Network.
“Cooling fluid absorbs thermal energy from heat in the electrical sockets 404, 406. Sleeves 410, 412 are made of a thermally conducting, electrically insulating material. Heat from the electrical sockets 404, 406 is transferred to cooling fluid through sleeves 410, 412. After flowing around hollow interior space 416, the first fluid stream 804 and the second fluid stream 806 combine together upstream of outlet conduit 514 and flow outside of manifold assembly 414 through outlet conduit 514. Cooling fluid flowing out of manifold assembly 414 through outlet conduit 514 may be received by a reservoir (not shown) which may provide for heat exchanging arrangements. A heat exchanger may be provided to take away heat absorbed by cooling fluid. After rejecting absorbed heat, the cooling fluid may be recirculated back to inlet conduit 512 for further cooling of charging connector 210.
“FIG. 9 shows another component included by charging connector 210. A Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 902 is thermally coupled to charging connector 210. In embodiments, PCBA 902 is a two-part structure. A first part of PCBA 904 is coupled to charging connector 210 such that the first part of PCBA 904 sits on top of electrical sockets 404, 406. A second part of PCBA 908 is connected to the first part of PCBA 904 through a rigid-flex PCB construction, or other similar interconnects. The two-part structure of PCB A 902 allows for a more efficient routing of electrical wires of charging connector 210, and overall size of charging connector 210 may be conveniently reduced.”
Tesla’s Superchargers are among the fastest and most expansive electric vehicle charging infrastructures in the auto industry. In keeping with its spirit, the company has made it a point to never stop innovating, as exhibited by the company’s debut and ongoing ramp of its Supercharger V3 Network. This could ultimately pay off for Tesla, whose lead in the electric vehicle race might potentially increase even more.
Such innovations appear to be required of the company, especially with the rollout of ambitious EVs such as the Semi, a vehicle with a different charging infrastructure compared to Tesla’s existing lineup of electric cars. That being said, Tesla nevertheless deserves credit for pushing the envelope and staying on top of its innovations. In the electric vehicle race, after all, a liquid-cooled charging connector could end up making the difference between the fast-charging capabilities of the Tesla Semi and rivals from Daimler and Nikola.
A link to the full text of Tesla’s liquid-cooled charger connector patent could be accessed here.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
