Not many. But we're not after a plethora of them... we're after the one where it works.
[quote[
And the fact that it may not exist has to be examined far more carefully than "rockets are simpler than cannon, so let's talk about rockets instead".
Yes, but in this particular case I don't think 'no' is the correct answer. I think you yourself have even posted that it is possible, but unlikely - I'm not sure I'd have to search and I don't have the (easy) ability right now (on my phone).
I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think it's impossible that Pickett's Charge could have the Union army surrender in sheer shock either. No natural laws need to be violated for that to occur, no new scientific theories on the nature of the universe.
It's just not going to happen.
The question that has to be asked and analyzed is "Would this be just as bad?"
I am not overwhelmed by the arguments that it isn't, since they constantly treat it as if the development is easy, logical, and a natural progression from point A ("this stuff really stinks when it burns") to Point * (rockets, cannons, grenades, whatever).
Hmm, it's not binary. There isn't only one or another option. The other option is that what they had in mind wouldn't work, but maybe a modification of that idea would.
So, it doesn't actually matter if the idea is infeasible, because we can generate an infinite number of alternate ideas?
Sure, but it reminds me of Edison inventing the light bulb... he found many ways that DIDN'T work and kept working on it until he found one that did. The stone cannon wouldn't work... ok, let's scrap that idea and move onto another idea... etc etc
This is nothing like Edison inventing the light bulb. This would be like Edison trying to invent a light blub and settling for developing penicillin and claiming success because he found something he could make.