But I didn't say there was no interaction. I said that the energy flow back from the body to the strings is negligible, which it is because the body is vibrating at a much lower amplitude than the string and is connected to the string at only two points. Nor did I make any strong statement about tone, only about the relationship between body resonance and the loudness and sustain of the amplified signal. So we're basically in agreement as far as I can see. Although not about this, I'm afraid: And: Everything I've said upthread very much does stand up to 'scientific scrutiny' and if you disagree then I ask you - again - to explain in detail where the errors lie. Nor is any of it 'contrived' - it's basic energy flow physics. But I think what may have happened here is that you've taken me to be arguing more about tone than I ever was. So, here's what I didn't say about wood resonance and tone: Different species of wood and different timber from the same species and different mechanical constructions all resonate slightly differently. They will transmit energy at different frequencies more (less) efficiently than at others. In this way, the wood and construction of the guitar acts as a set of filters that robs energy differentially depending on frequency from the vibrating strings. This is why wood and construction have a modest but discernible effect on tone.