Proper/Accepted Notation?

As far as I can determine, the accepted form in text is ²³⁸₉₂U (as super- and subscripts can't appear above one another in most editors/text encoding schemes). For use on-line or where super- and subscripts aren't available, nuclides seem to be described using the notation 238/92 U or (238/92)U.

Having said that, it's more common to find ²³⁸U (printed) and "U-2-3-8" (spoken) in "normal" discussions.

So the answer's a bit of a lemon; there doesn't seem to be much of a standard.

There's no "standard" issued by a organisation like ANSI, etc. but usually IUPAC is internationally accepted.

Here is a link to a IUPAC book on chemistry nomenclature which is quite complete:

http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/principles/principles_of_nomenclature.pdf

Regards

The conventional nomenclature in the US is U₂₃₈, but in the rest of the world 238U is more common, I think this may have to do with the normal noun/adjective construction of may roman languages which is reversed from english, but I could be wrong. Or it could simply be the normal rebellion of the rest of the world against US norms. More often than not, europe will develop their own competing standards, not because of any real need, but simply because they don't like the fact that the US alone is a bigger market than all of europe and the fact that the US is the 600 lb gorilla and we sleep any damned place we want to as the joke goes. 99.99% of the EN and DIN standards are functionally identical (or close enough not to really matter) to ASTM or ANSI standards but they went and issued their own standard that is just different enough that people have to work a little harder to meet both. It is protectionism plain and simple. One of these days the US is going to get tired of the European chihuaua nipping at our ankles and we'll just invade and take over and be done with it. Then the Germans will have to stop drinking their liter of beer at lunch every day and actually have to work. And the french and greeks will have to get up off their arse and actually work for a living instead of standing around with their hand out. But on the plus side, you'll finally be able to buy a pint of beer again!

Sorry my friend, but I think you're a bit confused about what happens outside the US.

"99.99% of the EN and DIN standards are functionally identical (or close enough not to really matter) to ASTM or ANSI standards but they went and issued their own standard that is just different enough that people have to work a little harder to meet both": FALSE. Just have a look or ask any informed people.

Furthermore, recently ASME Code Section VIII has been adopted as EN standard what invalidates completely your affirmation of "protectionism".

Many non US NPP (my main field) have been designed, constructed and inspected according to Section III of ASME Code (maybe a little colonialism?)

Please, before write try to be a little more informed.

And don't insult those non US. Think Europeans are your ancestors or how many US born engineers participate in this forum which are Navajos, Sioux, Apache, etc?

Kind regards

PD: IUPAC stands for INTERNATIONAL...... (not European, American, Asiatic, Aussies...)

Good answer.

And in the field of vehicle emissions, both the EU and CARB standards have been working towards one another for some years...and soon the fabled World Harmonised Standard (the test for the measurement of vehicle emissions) will be used by all, which the major step in bringing all to one standard.

From where I'm standing, it's those damned Yanks who are the awkward squad

I've spent the last year sorting through EN , DIN, DNV, and NORSOK standards for crap that have been built for 30 years and I'm sorry but you are both wrong. Yes, API and NACE and other standards groups have thrown in the towel and submitted to the inevitable, but the simple fact of the matter is that all of the EN, DNV, and NORSOK and most of DIN standards came after and are based on, but are just different enough from ASTM and ANSI standards to be a problem for people who have to meet them.

Let me give you an example of some of the bald protectionism I've seen.

NORSOK has recently issued a standard on Duplex Stainlesses in order to "control quality" I believe the NORSOK standard number is 605, and it states in essence that no one can supply duplex stainlesses unless they have already been supplying it for some unspecified length of time and have been sponsored into the "club" by someone already in the "club" but the problem is that there is no grandfather clause to prime the pump with approved vendors. No US vendors are on the list, only European vendors are and then only a few. The standard was issued in 2008 but BP is already requiring all vendors to follow it.

How is that not protectionist?

Yes, even having not read such standard, it seems a clear case of protectionism. But this case don't invalidate what I said (ASME case for example): one case doesn't count as 99,99% (even several cases)

You say have spent last year sorting through some standards, I've done it for decades.... most of you mentioned plus all US and AFNOR, GOST, JIS......

There have been through years two "fake" reasons when issuing standards: protectionism and technical colonialism, the later done by the most powerful countries against those weaker.

I've live cases as for example one in which a steel (15 Mn Ni 6 3) was specified. At that date that steel wasn't covered by any standard and there was just ONE "approved" manufacturer, obviously from the country that write the specification. This is what I call technical colonialism.

The US have been during long time exerting this sort of technical colonialism. (see UN threads, ANSI/ASME ratings and schedules used worldwide....). Fortunately, it seems globalization may have one good aspect: sooner or later, standards must converge in some way. The adoption of ASME Code in Europe is one example.

Kind regards

As Kwetz said, this is an example of protectionism, but doesn't mean all standards are like that.

I've been watching and using certain automotive related legislation for nearly 15 years...change is slow, but it is being worked on, in this industry, to make it world wide applicable.

What we've seen for much of that time, is that countries which are laying catch-up with, say, automotive noise standards tend to pick a particular series and then apply the "old" standards - it being too onerous to leap from nothing to state of the art - and then ratchet through the updates on an accelerated programme, compared to the original implementation. Hong Kong did this using the EU noise standard (70/157/EEC series): they were using the 1984 version in 1998; I imagine they're up to date by now.

The EU and CARB have been working together to work out how to bring their emissions legislation to the same point. There are subtle differences between CARB2010 and Euro 6 levels - not least the different test cycles. The use of the WHTC (see my previous post) will go a long way to bringing the two in line.

There is a lot of work to do to bring any industry's standards to a single point - perhaps if you started lobbying you could start that process for steel specs. And in 20 years, you might see the approach of harmonisation.

As I said, it's a slow process!