Spoil sport...
MM
And not even accurately spoiling.

Otherwise we would have seen a more accurate breakdown of the turbo machinery by function, including: turbojet, turbofan, geared turbofan, turboprop, ducted turboprop and turboshaft. No turboshaft engine/system extracts 100% thermodynamic power from the fuel to output at the shaft, there is always unextracted energy in the exhaust, sometimes on the order of 5-10%. In the case of a large turboshaft engine such as the Honeywell T55-L-714 on the CH-147F Chinook, this can actually approach a quarter ton of thrust (sounds more impressive than 500 lbs) per engine, not an insignificant amount of true jet thrust...exhaust being ejected at much greater speed at the exhaust plane than the air that entered the engine's inlet. Furthermore, those who were wondering why the Chinook's exhaust is shaped the way it is (a linearized expanding bell), is amongst a number of functions, a divergent nozzle downstream from the power turbine which effectively reduces the overall nozzle pressure ratio - NPR (see NASA's Glen Research Center's
information paper on Turbine Nozzle Performance for reference) thereby maximizing the speed increase of the exhaust flow, and associated (residual) thrust of the engine(s). Interestingly, that puts a CH-147F Chinook's T55 per/engine output at twice the maximum
jet thrust as the Microturbo SA (France) TRS-18 turbojet used in the BD-5J micro jet, albeit about 35 times less thrust than a CF-188's GE F404 engine. Jet thrust is jet thrust, after all.
Now, back to the thread's response theme...should we include additional jet thrust from the helicopter if the crew ate at Taco Bell before the flight?