There has been many kinds of conversation under general name of "cold
fusion". I would like to add my own point of view to it. Most common
for cold fusion presumption is that cold fusion would and should
happen at the room temperature. When the nature of the gas is that its
density raises when the temperature goes lower. Theoretically when a
gas is in the absolute zero temperature it collapses into one point. I
see this to be the key for cold fusion. If two gas atoms could be set
into absolute zero temperature, then the rejecting force between those
two atoms would not be enough to resist the gravitation between them.
This would cause them to collapse into one singularity, and the excess
energy would raise the temperature, if it could not be transfered
elsewhere.
Cold fusion of two atoms could be produced the easiest. When there
would be three or more atoms, their rejecting force would be much
stronger because of the structure. Fusion of more than two atoms at a
time is not efficient since fusion requires absolute zero temperature,
and after first fusion excess energy would transfer into closest
atoms.
To collect the energy from this kind of fusion would be totally
different from hot fusion. To collect excess energy from the cold
fusion, distances between the conductor and the atoms should be very
short. Therefore cold fusion should be produced inside nano cells.
These nano cells could be built in form of a chain, where the excess
energy of the first  cell would trigger the fusion in the next cell
and give the rest of the energy out of the system.

The questions are:

Is there any logical errors or incomplete definitions?
What is your opinion about this idea as an expert of the field?
Can it be taken seriously in science world? 
Other possible objections and comments?

Hi,

I'm not an expert but I don't think this approach will work.

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

Absolute zero does not mean zero energy.

In fact because of quantum mechanical effects, the speed at absolute
zero is not exactly zero, but depends, as does the energy, on the
volume within which the atom is confined. At absolute zero, the
molecules and atoms in a system are all in the ground state (i.e., the
lowest possible energy state) and the system has the least possible
amount of kinetic energy allowed by the laws of physics. This minimum
energy corresponds to the zero-point energy encountered in the quantum
mechanical particle in a box problem. As emphasised above, the lowest
possible energy is not necessarily zero energy, owing to the
ramifications of quantum theory.

Also from Wikipedia

[T]he equation for predicting quantized vibrational levels shows that
even when the vibrational quantum number is 0, the molecule still has
vibrational energy. This means that no matter how cold the temperature
gets, the molecule will always have vibration. This is in keeping with
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that both the
position and the momentum of a particle cannot be known precisely, at
a given time.

Again, absolute zero does not mean zero energy.

In addition to the above, the electromagnetic force is stronger than
gravity and it would cause the protons from two nuclei to repel each
other.

Thank you for your comment ansel001!

This cold fusion system would need triggering of the fusion with
electron flow when these atoms are in the ground state.

My presumption for vibrational energy being preserved, is that there
happens fusions that "heats" the atoms and transfers fusion energy to
surrounding atoms to preserve vibrational energy.

I'd like to add one quote that points to this kind of phonomenon.

"Sonoluminescence arises from acoustic cavitation -- the formation,
growth and implosion of small gas bubbles in a liquid blasted with
sound waves above 18,000 cycles per second. The collapse of these
bubbles generates intense local heating." (PhysOrg; Mar. 2, 2005)

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/Sonofusion/

I would say that these explosions in "bubbles" preserve the vibrational energy.

Even if you could get fusion to occur under these conditions, I don't
see how you could use it to generate useful energy.  As soon as any
atoms started to fuse, the temperature would go up, you would no
longer be at/near absolute zero, and fusion would stop.  Even if you
did manage to generate some energy by this process, you would need to
generate a lot just to compensate for the energy it took to cool the
hydrogen to near absolute zero (which is very difficult).

You might want to read about Bose-Einstein condensation.  In a BE
condensate, atoms are cooled near absolute zero and "collapse" into a
single wavefunction, similar to what you seem to be thinking of. 
However, I have never heard of BE condensates leading to fusion or any
other nuclear process.

The key point is the one at the bottom of ansel001's message. The
reason that fusion is difficult is the electrostatic repulsion of the
two nuclei. For fusion to occur, you need to get the two nuclei many
powers of ten closer together than the size of the electron cloud
surrounding the nucleus. At these close distances, you can essentially
ignore the electrons and you have two positively charged nuclei
repelling each other with a force something like 10 to the 40th power
stronger than their gravitational attraction.

The normal way to overcome the electrostatic potential barrier is to
heat the fuel to many 10's of millions of degrees, while also
compressing it to very high densities. Under these circumstances, the
thermal motion of the nuclei is occasionally enough to overcome the
potential barrier. The resulting fusion releases energy which further
heats the fuel, thus sustaining this so-called "thermonuclear fusion".

Pons and Fleischman claimed to have obtained "cold fusion" using heavy
water, palladium, and electrochemistry. Those claims have been
discredited.

Researchers at Oakridge claimed to have obtained "hot fusion" in a
tiny gas bubble in water using "single bubble sonoluminescence". This
has not been verified, but even if it were true is still an example of
thermonuclear fusion.

A form of cold fusion has been demonstrated using mu mesons (muons) to
catalyze the fusion of protons. The mass of a muon is 137 times that
of an electron, so in a molecule consisting of two protons and a muon,
the protons are 137 times closer together than in a conventional
molecule in which the muon is replaced by an electron. This is close
enough for the protons to tunnel through the barrier and fuse.
Unfortunately, the average time for a muon to catalyze a single fusion
event is not much shorter than the half-life of the muon itself, so
the yield of fusion events for a single muon is small, making this a
highly impractical way to generate power.

I have to admit that I have taken a presumption that the structure in
the cores of the atoms is equivalent to the structure of black holes.
When the singularities of the atoms would be aligned on the same axle,
repulsion would not be as strong.

When there are only two atoms that are being cooled inside a nano
cell, it would require different kind of cooling system where cooling
would be concentrated. I had to take one more presumption to make a
precise cooling possible. To cool only one selected atom at a time,
there should be known the vibrational frequency of the atom and
nullify it with contrary vibrational frequency.

Also as stated here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0861526.html
The third law of thermodynamics states absolute zero cannot be
reached, and I think the current closest is something like 300 pK
which I'm not sure the math behind rejecting force/gravity/brownian
motion momentum, however I do believe that even at these temperatures
fusion was still not happening.  Also for your theory to be considered
in the science world you would need to have those computations, forces
and whatnot, finally I agree your plan for cooling would need to be
presented, odds are if you were able to prove that it is possible to
have fusion at near absolute zero you would also have to show that
your plan for getting to temperatures that low would not exceed the
energe produced by the amount of substance you cooled.

I'd like to thank all of you for your comments and welcome all new
ones. These answers have given me much material for my synopsis of the
theory, and prepares me with what I need when I go more in-depth with
analysis, because I can limit the search of information to most
important details that are defined.