What went wrong inside recalled Anker PowerCore 10000 power banks?

Recall scope and confusion

• Links to CPSC and Anker show ~1M+ power banks recalled with 19 reported fires/explosions, minor burns, and tens of thousands in property damage.
• Multiple additional models have since been added; some recall pages are region‑specific and redirect users unhelpfully, causing confusion.
• Several people received Amazon recall notices but couldn’t find matching model numbers, didn’t remember who received a gifted unit, or had serial numbers rubbed off or illegible, making claims hard.
• Some units bought in Europe or the UK share model numbers but are not listed on local recall pages, raising questions about region‑specific batches.

What might have gone wrong technically

• The Lumafield CT analysis finds design changes between an early, apparently safe unit and later, recalled ones: different regulation circuitry, busbars vs insulated leads, and a temperature sensor present on the unaffected design.
• Commenters note the article itself concedes it cannot pinpoint the exact trigger; some think the recall is more consistent with cell‑level overheating and thermal runaway under high load or insulation.
• Separate Chinese reporting blames a cell vendor that allegedly changed materials/design without notifying customers, leading to loss of a domestic certification; others point out that the named US‑listed company is distancing itself from its former Chinese subsidiary.
• There is disagreement over responsibility: some argue a supplier silently changed specs; others insist the brand owner is still accountable for incoming QA and functional safety.

Manufacturing, China, and QA

• Long subthreads describe Chinese manufacturing as “zero‑trust”: vendors frequently swap materials or tweak processes to save small amounts, so serious buyers build labs and aggressive incoming inspection (including x‑ray/CT in some industries).
• Others push back that such behavior exists everywhere, but is harder to police across borders and legal systems.
• Commenters tie this to broader dependence on Chinese battery and electronics supply chains and the difficulty of rebuilding equivalent capability in the West.

Trust in Anker vs. no‑name brands

• Some say Anker’s transparent recall and willingness to compensate make them more trustworthy than nameless brands that would never recall anything.
• Others feel betrayed after paying a premium specifically to avoid “exploding battery” risk and now see little reason to stay loyal if quality converges with generic brands.
• Several share mixed experiences: good customer service and easy replacements, but a pattern of cables, hubs, power banks, and headphones failing or swelling.

Battery disposal and safety

• Many worry owners will keep using recalled packs or simply throw them in household trash, contributing to dumpster and recycling‑plant fires already seen in multiple countries.
• People report difficulty finding anyone willing to accept a recalled pack: local hazardous‑waste events often ban electronics, and the recall page is criticized for effectively saying “you’re on your own.”
• There’s debate about mitigation: discharging reduces but doesn’t eliminate fire risk; guidance ranges from class‑D extinguishers and sand to immersion in water as a heat sink, though others stress that typical households aren’t realistically equipped for a serious lithium fire.

CT scans and marketing

• Many readers admire Lumafield’s CT visualizations and see the article as excellent “content marketing”: genuinely informative while showcasing their scanners.
• Some argue a simple teardown could have shown at least the busbar vs wire change; others point out CT was used precisely to avoid destructively opening suspect lithium packs.
• A few note the piece ultimately concludes “we don’t know exactly” what failed, which limits its engineering value but still surfaces design and manufacturing lessons.