https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine_engine_thrust
"Water, or other coolant,[16] injection into the compressor or combustion chamber and fuel injection into the jetpipe (afterburning/reheat) became standard ways to increase thrust, known as 'wet' thrust to differentiate with the no-augmentation 'dry' thrust.
Coolant injection (pre-compressor cooling) has been used, together with afterburning, to increase thrust at supersonic speeds.[17] The 'Skyburner' McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II set a world speed record using water injection in front of the engine.[18]
At high Mach numbers afterburners supply progressively more of the engine thrust as the thrust from the turbomachine drops off towards zero at which speed the engine pressure ratio (epr) has fallen to 1.0 and all the engine thrust comes from the afterburner. The afterburner also has to make up for the pressure loss across the turbomachine which is a drag item at higher speeds where the epr will be less than 1.0.[19][20]
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/96674/how-much-does-water-injection-improve-thrust-of-a-jet-engine
Snip.... "Note that water injection increases thrust by accelerating the water mass (and also increases engine performance by cooling); similarly, the mass of added fuel in afterburning also accounts for part of the added wet thrust. In this sense, given that afterburning engines get around two thirds more thrust, effectively by quadrupling fuel consumption, when a significant portion of that thrust is from accelerating the fuel mass, not just from combustion, it is understandable that we might start to wonder if we should swap a few hundred gallons of fuel for water.
I think the numbers on SFC (specific fuel consumption) for afterburing engines are worth commenting on here because the inefficiency is insane, whereas water is rather cheap. For afterburning turbofan engines, fuel flow usually quadruples in reheat. The SFC in the F-16's FW100 increases from 0.76 dry to 1.94 wet - dry thrust being 17,800 lbs and 29,160 lbs wet. When calculating with FW100 thrust figures, dry fuel burn at sea level is 225 lb/minute, but in reheat/wet it's 943 lb/min. So by more than quadrupling the fuel burn, the result is just 64% more or 11360 lbs additional thrust. Considering the F-16 has 7000 lbs internal fuel, this is a heavy price to pay for 64% more (sea level) thrust and it certainly makes an additional 30% thrust from water injection sound appealing at first glance.
As far as actually commercially "budgeting" for wet thrust, the Concorde was the only afterburning commercial aircraft, so it would be interesting to know how close they were to adopting water injection. It would appear the weight savings with afterburners was more important than the cost savings of a heavier water injection system.
For the purpose of civil experimental aircraft it would be extremely interesting to see how water injection could be employed and if a similar 30% boost is achievable. Given that the small TJ-150 engine produces 337 lbs max thrust and probably burns 50 GPH at sea level, the prospect of getting an additional 100 lbs thrust for minimal cost or weight, even for a few minutes, would be very appealing.
Edit: I should also add that the Honeywell TPE331 turboprop engine gains an additional 10% power - Augmented 5 min Rating - from water methanol injection.
And:
Path 1: The video is real and the sudden stopping of the contrail is not normal, defies physics and needs an explanation.
Path 2: The video is a fake designed to raise suspicion about "chemtrails". If so then no further explanation is needed.
All I want is someone to point me down the right path, I am not getting that.