It's pine bark, but it's hard to say by the picture if the size of the bark is appropriate. It looks like it's quite large. If you read the link Jodi left for you upthread, you probably realize that particle size and distribution is very important to how a container soil performs. Here is something I wrote to illustrate the importance of particle size/distribution: Obviously, I think the grower's soil choice when establishing a planting for the long term is the most important decision he/she will make. There is no question that the roots are the heart of the plant, and plant vitality is inextricably linked in a hard lock-up with root vitality. In order to get the best from your plants, you absolutely must have happy roots. If you start with a water-retentive medium, you cannot improve it's aeration or drainage characteristics by adding larger particulates. Sand, perlite, Turface, calcined DE ...... none of them will work. To visualize why sand and perlite can't change drainage/aeration, think of how well a pot full of BBs would drain (perlite), then think of how poorly a pot full of pudding would drain (bagged soil). Even mixing the pudding and perlite/BBs together 1:1 in a third pot yields a mix that retains the drainage characteristics and PWT height of the pudding. It's only after the perlite become the largest fraction of the mix (60-75%) that drainage & PWT height begins to improve. At that point, you're growing in perlite amended with a little potting soil. You cannot add coarse material to fine material and improve drainage or the ht of the PWT. Use the same example as above & replace the pudding with play sand or peat moss - same results. The benefit in adding perlite to heavy soils doesn't come from the fact that they drain better. The fine peat or pudding particles simply 'fill in' around the perlite, so drainage & the ht of the PWT remains the same. All perlite does in heavy soils is occupy space that would otherwise be full of water. Perlite simply reduces the amount of water a soil is capable of holding because it is not internally porous. IOW - all it does is take up space. If you want to profit from a soil that offers superior drainage and aeration, you need to build it into the soil from the start, by ensuring that the soil is primarily comprised of particles much larger than those in peat/compost/coir, which is why the recipes I suggest as starting points all direct readers to START with the foremost fraction of the soil being large particles, to ensure excellent aeration. From there, if you choose, you can add an appropriate volume of finer particles to increase water retention. You do not have that option with a soil that is already extremely water-retentive right out of the bag. I fully understand that many are happy with the results they get when using commercially prepared soils, and I'm not trying to get anyone to change anything. My intent is to make sure that those who are having trouble with issues related to soil, understand why the issues occur, that there are options, and what they are. Many use their current potting soils (like MG or used soils as a smaller fraction of a new media they put together specifically to improve drainage & aeration, so yes - you CAN use some of the soil you have as a fraction of a new soil, but keep in mind that you aren't going to rid yourself of the drainage/aeration and high PWT issues problems unless your soil is weighted heavily toward larger particles than your current soil is currently comprised of. When you add a little extra perlite and/or pine bark to a peat-based soil, you don't change the drainage characteristics, the height of the PWT, or aeration. You DO decrease the total volume of water the soil CAN hold, and that IS a plus, but that's about all you really accomplish. Add a LOT of (appropriate size) bark and perlite = job done. The physics of how water behaves in container soils doesn't change because someone might assure you it does. As surely as the cow is barred from jumping over the moon by the law of gravity, soils are bound by physical laws to exhibit rather specific and predictable characteristics based on their particle size and distribution (enter the pudding analogy into evidence). If you choose not to go with a soil that has a considerable fraction of larger particles, there are ways to help you deal with excess water retention when it occurs. There is a lot of good information about dealing with water retention if you follow the embedded link. When you get to where you're deciding about how you want to proceed with your soil, we can talk more specifically about tailoring a plan that best supports your methodology. Take care. Al

Agreed, but I used the same kettle on the gas and induction, which is like to like, and the bowl vs. mug in the microwave weren't wildly divergent, even if they accounted for the entirety of the time different (rather than the door opening, etc.) Comparing a thin skillet to a thick kettle doesn't make any sense. Just for grins I tried something like it. The only pots I have that are that big are my cast iron braiser and my stockpot. Just for you, I made three trials: The same one cup of water measure level in the same measuring cup: HEAT SOURCE VESSEL TIME TO ROLLING BOIL Induction De Buyer 35 seconds Gaggenau, 21 cm carbon steel 2.2kW, level 9 -- very thin boosted to 3.3kW 8" diameter bottom Induction Demeyere 35 seconds Gaggenau, 21 cm 7-ply 2.2kW, level 9 -- thick and heavy boosted to 3.3kW 7"-ish diameter bottom Induction Le Creuset 20 qt. 40 seconds Gaggenau, 28 cm enamelled steel Made a lot of 3.6kW, level 9 -- very thin noise. Obviously boosted to 4.4kW 11" diameter bottom didn't like it. From the bubble pattern, I don't think the outer ring was engaged, which makes sense that it would be the same time as the others. The number of seconds is approximate as it's hard to judge exactly when the field goes on, and how rolling the boil is when one stops. As far as I could tell they were all pretty much the same. The boil in the stock pot started earliest but took a bit longer to really get going.

As much as the power of the element, the construction of the pan has a lot to do with the speed. I always carry a small magnet in my coin purse to check the base of pans in stores. Many pans labeled for induction have a very strong attraction to the magnet but others, less so. The ones with the stronger magnetic attraction will heat faster. I would compare the magnetic attraction of the base of this pan with the base of other pans. I fill large pots with hot water for tasks like boiling pasta and especially on the 3000 watt element, pans made by All-Clad, Schulte-Ufer, Silit & WMF are very fast.

On my induction, a couple of cups of water in a one quart cast iron pot takes about a minute, maybe a little longer if it's Winter cold. I never use that much water for pasta--it's necessary if you're not minding it, but if you stir it a little every few minutes, you only need enough water so the pasta moves freely. Two quarts of water in cast iron takes me a few minutes to boiling--the (ordinary) gas that came with the house took half an hour in the same pot. I had a few near boil overs on the induction before I learned not to turn my back on it. The pasta also cooks a lot faster because the return to heat is so much better. Eight quarts in an enamelled steel stock pot with some cold veg and bones in it takes about 15 minutes to a hard boil on boost. That's on 4.4KW. The smaller pots don't get near that amount of power. I agree that you did fine with your choice.