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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
