From TANG@kitten.chem.uh.edu  Wed Mar 15 01:12:35 1995
Received: from kitten.chem.uh.edu  for TANG@kitten.chem.uh.edu
	by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id AAA21076; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:20:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 23:20:42 -0600 (CST)
From: "H. Tang (UH-Chem)" <TANG@kitten.chem.uh.edu>
To: marvin@biosym.com
CC: chemistry@ccl.net
Message-Id: <950314232042.438018ad@kitten.chem.uh.edu>
Subject: RE: CCL:Spelling of v(V?)an der Waals('?)


>...
>Page 19, second line from bottom:
>
>	The van der Waals equation provides ...
>
>Page 20, third line from top:
>
>	... the van der Waals' equation.
>                        ^^^^^^
>...
>
>Conclusion:
>   Usage or non-usage of the apostrophe (or even being consistent
>about it) does not constitute grounds for rejection of your article,
>book, user manual, or any other document from which you hope to achieve
>fame and fortune.  The same apparently applies to using a small
>or capital "v".
>....
>
>Marvin Waldman, Ph.D.

To add more this thread, in the Grant & Hackh's "Chemical Dictionary"
(5th ed.), I found there are several entries as folloes:

"v. d. W. constant"
"v. d. Waals' equation"
"v. d. W. forces"

As Pieter pointed out earlier, you may capitalize "v".  

For "van der Waals' equation" vis-a-vis "van der Waals equation", both
are very common.  However, I personally believe that "van der Waals'
parameters" is a bad usage, unless the parameters were actually
discovered/derived by van der Waals and named after him (obviously not),
as in the said equation.  With or without an apostrophe, as in
"Washington apple" and "Washington's apple", carries different
connotations associated with it, at least to my ears (I might as well be
wrong,  because I'm not a native English speaker).  

Huang Tang