Never did I see any reference to whether this could be a replacement for gasoline, or for diesel. Can this be burned in an ICE engine with no modifications? Or is this a component transported to a remote location to be converted into a biodiesel or gasohol? Also, how does this DMF compare to regular gasoline, energy density wise?

I assume if you want to use a cellulosic feedstock you'd have to break it down into glucose first.

Mark,

Dimethylfuran is 13 % oxygen by weight, as opposed to ethanol's 35 % (6 carbons in DMF vs 2 in ethanol, both with one oxygen atom). It should therefore have a much higher energy content than ethanol. It should also readily blend with gasoline and its octane number should be high, as it contains oxygen, is aromatic, and is branched. These all contribute to a high octane number. It's boiling point is only slightly higher than ethanol's, at 92 vs 80 C. In warmer climates it should be possible to run a gasoline engine on neat DMF, or perhaps with a small quantity (like E85) of gasoline to aid in starting. The only draw back, which is minor, is that this compound is likely a great solvent, and therefore some fuel system components would have to be upgraded such that they would not dissolve over time.

The big corn lobby will descend and destroy this in record time.

Chemical formula: C6H8O - furanes feature degenerate aromatic rings with five sides (4 Cs plus 1 O). In this case, positions 2 and 5 (symmetrical wrt the oxygen atom) are methylated.

molecular weight: 96
melting point: -62 degC (usable in arctic conditions)
boiling point: 92-94 degC
flash point: 29 degC
density @ 25degC: 0.9 (cp. gasoline ~0.75, diesel ~0.85)

Current applications: pharmaceuticals, flavors & fragrances

http://www.pschem.com/products/2.5Dimethylfuran.html

Fuel properties:
volumetric energy density *claimed by UWM*:
1.4 * 26.8MJ/kg * 0.9kg/l = 33.8 MJ/l
cp. 42MJ/kg * 0.75 kg/l = 31.5 MJ/l for gasoline
cp. 42MJ/kg * 0.85 kg/l = 35.7 MJ/l for diesel
research octane number: ?
motor octane number: ?
ring decomposes at 1050-1270K, producing CO
ergo, don't expect high octane numbers
cetane number could be high enough to be useful
other properties: ?

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5786297

Lit ref: Lifshitz, Tambura, Shashua; Thermal Decomposition of 2,5-dimethylfuran, Experimental results and computer modeling; J. Phys. Chem. A, vol102 (1998), pp10655

General hazard classification from
http://www.ehs.neu.edu/laboratory_safety/general_information/nfpa_hazard_rating/

2,5-Dimethylfuran
H=2 (warning: may be harmful if inhaled or absorbed)
F=3 (warning: flammable liquid flash point below 100F)
R=0 (stable: will not react with water)
SI (no special information applicable)

About what you'd expect for a volatile hydrocarbon candidate fuel.

The compound is, however, also used as a blood marker to identify smokers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8919847&dopt=Abstract

Many (not all) furanes are confirmed carcinogens.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jeceval/jec_612.htm

If it's not soluble in water, then presumably it addresses the biggest problem currently with ethanol, the high energy requirement for distillation. Presumably they can pick a solvent that separates easily. At that point, cornstarch (likely to be the first feedstock used for this) gets exonerated as an impractical fuel on an energy basis. Corn is still not as efficient or high-yield as some other plants in the pipeline, but is certainly a global warming advance (as well as, of course, an oil dependence moderator).

One wonders how clean this fuel would burn in the present day vehicle mix.

What is the octane number?

Higher energy density does not necessarily mean better fuel mileage. Take ethanol, it has lower energy density, but since it has higher octane number than gasoline, it gives more mileage when used in high compression engine specifically designed for burning ethanol.

If this octane number is lower than gasoline, it will be give worse mileage.

What's the big news? Doesn't everything have a 40% greater energy density than ethanol? Energy densities by themselves have no significance.

Key factors for its use as gasoline engine fue1 are:

1. Octane number of pure material and octane number in blends. Niether are predicable from structure; need extensive test engine data.

2. If proposed for diesels, the need similar cetane number data.

3. Need to do early engine and other performance tests on fuel characteristics compared to specifications and standards for existing fuels.

The solvent they use is butanol which has better fuel characteristics than ethanol or DMF and can be used in IC and diesel engines. Butanol also has 24% more energy than ethanol and can be fermented from the same feed stocks, http://www.butanol.com . New methods of butanol fermentation can also produce an additional 18% energy as Hydrogen gas. DMF could require less energy to produce than butanol, but that might not be true. We need to compare the cost and energy requirements for production of DMF to butanol not ethanol which is not a good replacement for gasoline. Butanol can replace gasoline gallon for gallon in todays vehicles using our current infrastructure.

H=3 on the site referenced below. I was concerned that t
2,5-DIMETHYLFURAN might be as hazardous to health as ANILINE, but apparently not. However, both butanol and ethanol are safer. I do not see this as a neat fuel, but rather as a blending component.

ETHANOL, Health Hazard:
VAPOR: Irritating to eyes, nose and throat. LIQUID: Not harmful. (USCG, 1999)

2,5-DIMETHYLFURAN, Health Hazard:
SYMPTOMS: Exposure to this compound may cause skin, eye and mucous membrane irritation. Other symptoms of exposure include conjunctivitis, corneal damage, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, dizziness, cyanosis, dermatitis, collapse, respiratory distress, convulsions, blistering and ulceration of skin, gangrene, erythema, vertigo, lowered body temperature, chronic lung disease, kidney and liver damage, and coma.

ACUTE/CHRONIC HAZARDS: This compound may be harmful by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption. When heated to decomposition it emits toxic fumes of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It may cause irritation to the skin, eyes and mucous membranes. (NTP, 1992)
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/20240

I fail to see the logic of converting food into fuel. Methanol which can be produced from straw and what may be considered to be waste and was the basis of many special fuels usually referred to as 'dope'. Most bikes ridden on dirt tracks had "Five-stud JAP" engines with a compression ratio of 13.5 to 1 used such fuel.

Keep up the good work, guys. Ethanol from corn is only going to raise the price of beef, and there go my shares in Macdonalds

this is really great thing. energie generation from biomass. this is survival of thw world