The NASA research isn't mentioned there. Differences from cold fusion: they're hitting the lattice with gamma rays, and seeing 2.45MeV neutrons come out.
Doesn't mean they'll achieve net power this way, or that the lattice will survive the neutrons at practical fusion rates, but they seem to be seeing D-D fusion reactions.
Fusing hydrogen is easy, ionize it and accelerate the plasma with a voltage of on the order of 10 to 100 kV, hobbyists do this somewhat regularly. Doesn't sound too surprising that hitting hydrogen with gamma rays produces some fusion. But that's the crucial point, some fusion is not useful as an energy source, and not all fusion methods can be scaled up.
Sure, I'm not denying that at all. It looks like real fusion happening, but might not be no more useful than fusors. They mentioned their current methods are too lossy, but they did have some interesting arguments for it being a practical energy source someday.
If you're producing gamma rays, then you have a neutron source. This is exactly how the cold fusion people mislead themselves into thinking they had succeeded.
Doesn't mean they'll achieve net power this way, or that the lattice will survive the neutrons at practical fusion rates, but they seem to be seeing D-D fusion reactions.