Please do not interface with me going forward - nor read my posts.  I will do so likewise. I do not like your agenda (clearly you have one as you post nothing but FUD on both the PYR and HPQ boards) nor how you interface with others.

As for Telsa or any other battery players, HPQ solution would appear to apply as a drop in solution to any in the space that use graphite as an anode.  Telsa, but all accounts, probably uses silicon in a simlar fashion to what HPQ is doing (10%...and increasing percentages in the future).  They have alluded to such.  Further, HPQ has patents for improving their silicon which they have not yet used in their present battery makeup - with improvements to follow given that this is their first iteration.  Long and short, HPQ would have a cost advantage (with the QRR), and an onshoring advantage, to name two.  If you were Tesla, would you not take notice of this on any level?  or would you just ignore these - especially the green / onshoring aspects.  Otherwise, you would be locked out of certain government incentives going forward and possibly face penalties.  Good business practice would call for some level of review on their part of this and other factors.  I am not stating any of this is a certainty and it is conjecture on my part - it is all about execution and other factors that play out moving forward.  A cost advantage would also be front and center in addition to the onshoring / reshoring advantage.  Please explain how these would not be a consideration to any company operating in this space?