Storage efficiency does NOT equal to stored energy / draw weight.
Storage efficiency = Stored energy / Input energy. This is not the same, because input energy is loss due to minute structural failure in the bow and heat hysteresis. Let's put it this way; bows have historically been measured in draw weight, and that's a flawed system. The potential of a bow should be measured instead in the level of energy input to push the bow into its designed draw, or alternately, the level of energy a bow can store at its design draw.
As to powerstroke = dynamic efficiency; um, if you've been following the entire Chinese crossbows are superior thread both here and on Historum, the key argument is that the longer powerstroke results in higher dynamic efficiency than short-heavies. Hborgg has been kind enough, with his data on Turkish bows, to show that dynamic efficiency is not a strict function of powerstroke, and if it is, there is somewhat of a loss in efficiency as the powerstroke increases, likely because increased powerstroke results in increased energy, without a compensating increase in the weight of the ammunition.
Regarding posting the same crap over and over again, well, you're more or less recycling content from Historum et al. I could swear that you've posted the crossbow energy comparisons at least twice on this board.