No. Perhaps I am missing something. I refer to your repeated references to Ashby as a 'guru.' Perhaps you don't mean it to be as disrespectful as it sounds?
I absolutely did not mean any disrespect for him. I was using the term in a pejorative manner but not intended to be directed at Ashby but with regard to my little disagreement with BobCo19-65. Sorry if you were offended, again it was not my intent. His work cleary demonstrates he is a tireless and dedicated individual who obviously loves archery.
As to the tuning fork, Ashby is exactly on target. But you are not. According to physical law, you cannot refer to KE as a vector quantity. That's momentum's realm. KE is, by definition, a scalar quantity. It says how much, momentum says in what direction that KE is going to be used and how much time it will take KE to spend itself in a medium.
I understand completely that KE is not correctly termed a vector quantity. You missed my point entirely. I thought I was specific about it. The point is however that when talking about an arrows KE energy, ALL the energy that is referenced has, without question direction. KE is correctly termed a scalar quantity because it does not have to have direction. So you are making a semantic issue here nothing more. I agree he is correct but it is also correct to think about KE in an arrow as vectored becuase in fact it is vectored. It has direction and quantity. Again, he is correct about the tuning fork. The fork vibrating can contain a lot of KE and of course that is technically correct but for practical reasons it is misleading and an extremely poor analogy to arrows. Like I said if you held the tuning fork over the chronograph it would read 0 ft/sec and regardless of its mass the KE and momentum caculated as we do arrows would both be 0. Still this is a minor point. Besides, we all know what the definitions are, I was talking about how we think of things. The practical approach rather than a purest.
Technically if we were all purests it is incorrect to say that an arrows kinetic energy can be calculated as KE = 1/2mv^2 because that calculates only the portion of the total KE that has direction toward the target. It's one of those things that we all know is wrong but we kind of ignore that it is technically wrong for practical reasons.
On the point about arrow KE "including" rotaional, vibrational etc. again he is technically correct with regard to a pure physics definition of total KE but he is absolutely incorrect to say that the KE values he reports in his paper included them because he calculates it the same way everybody else does. KE = 1/2mv^2. Not one term in this equation considers any energy other than forward movement of the arrow. Again, fine points.