Very interesting, if this article is accurate.
I look forward to seeing peer reviewed papers in Nature or Science before I believe it though.
Yeah, one can’t help being very skeptical on this particular subject. It’s promising, though, that the article says other scienticts have reviewed the results, and it’s also very good that it’s the Christian Science Monitor reporting it.
People have been making room temperature fusion reactions for decades. All of them have required a greater energy input than the reaction could output.
For example, Muon-Catalyzed fusion. The theoretical work behind this was done in 1950.
Mr Fusion, here we come? 
Another cold fusion breakthrough?
University of Los Angeles?
(head smacks keyboard) I went to UCLA for four and a half years and there might be an incredibly important discovery made at my alma mater and the media can’t get the fricking name right!! After last football season, this is too much!!!
Crap, and the garbage man came already today!
The strange thing is that there’s been almost an equal number of reputable groups saying that there’s something to cold fusion as there are that say it doesn’t work. I remember right after the DoE said that there was nothing to cold fusion Oak Ridge announced that they’d gotten it to work. Pons and Fleishmann have claimed that the reason the reaction is so variable has to do with microfractures on the platinum wires. If there’s microfractures, the reaction doesn’t work.
Room temperature fusion has been reliably demonstrated before. It HAS been shown to work in methods most scientists would accept. Pons and Fleichmann didn’t get all the press for creating room temperature fusion, they got it for claiming a net energy gain. In their case, they were claiming “excess heat” was generated and the only explanation was that fusion was occurring. Their process, however, yielded none of the subatomic particles (neutrons, et al.) expected in most fusion reactions. P & F went on to claim this was due to specific fusion reactions which produced none of these byproducts, never-mind that those reactions generally would require a good deal more energy than more common fusion reactions.
What it HASN’T done is produce more energy than it consumes at room temperature, whatever the method. The new method shows promise, for sure, but the situation remains that no method of room temperature fusion yet conceived has been reliably shown to produce more energy than it consumes.
Aside from the muon-catalysed process mentioned above, I believe other methods of achieving fusion have been demonstrated by allowing certain metals to “soak up” large quantities of deuterium.
In any case, none of these will be used for power generation until they are shown to produce (as I reacall) about ten times the power they consume. If clever scientists engineers are able to find other practical uses for a given fusion technology, as is suggested in the OP article, then that is exciting of itself. It may help secure more funding for fusion research everywhere if it can be shown that these processes are useful.
Cold Fusion: It’s the energy source of the future—and always will be.