But that is precisely what your fellow physicists have said, and used every (non-scientific) means possible to stifle the necessary experimental work--ridicule, interference with funding, and all of the "academic tricks" to impede work "outside the theoretical pale".
"Chemistry is full of examples of two compounds that won't react, but in the presence of certain conditions and catalysts will react. Obviously the forces involved are fundamentally different, but I think the idea that there is some catalyst and conditions that could allow the energy barriers between protons to be overcome other than massive energy is not inconceivable."
But again--that's exactly what those who oppose CF research say---that it "is" impossible.
To quote from the article, quoting Max Planck, "Science advances one funeral at a time." The status quo orthodoxy is always strong...a lot of physicists would be eating a lot of crow if it turns out there is anything at all to cold fusion. And they are very prideful people, and do not care for the taste of crow. I think the physics community made a big, and immoral, mistake when they denounced the field of cold fusion, as opposed to denouncing specific claims or people. I see that as a betrayal of the scientific method and the principles of skepticism and investigation that have lead to all of our understanding that we have, and will lead to all of the additional understanding that we will have some day.
If anything ever comes from cold fusion, or even 'cooler' fusion (why only room temp? Is there a way to do it at some sort of reasonably achievable industrial temperatures and pressures?), then this episode will be looked back upon as the equivalent of burning Galileo at the stake...except they should have known better.