Derek Jones (magnetic resonance researcher) 2026-11-05
Derek Jones is a physicist at Cardiff University whose research develops quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, especially diffusion tensor imaging. He trained in physics at Nottingham, medical physics at Leeds and completed a Leicester doctorate on diffusion tensor imaging. His work asks how acquisition design changes what can be inferred from a measured signal.[ref]
Derek Jones profile at Cardiff University. Overview, Research and Biography: research focus and1993/1995/1998 education
Derek Jones, from his labeled Cardiff University staff-profile portrait
. Jones investigated how diffusion MRI gradient sampling affects the measurement uncertainty of inferred diffusion tensors. In 2004, Jones used Monte Carlo simulations to compare sampling schemes at a diffusion weighting b-value of , tracking tensor orientation, trace and fractional anisotropy. It showed why a minimal set of directions need not give robust estimates; its numerical findings belong to the tested models and noise conditions.[ref]
The effect of gradient sampling schemes on measures derived from diffusion tensor MRI: A Monte Carlo study by Derek K. Jones. Original abstract: controlled b-value, tensor-derived outcomes and comparison of angular sampling schemes
An earlier conference report made the comparison with a fixed observation budget: one baseline and 60 diffusion-weighted observations. Six unique orientations repeated 10 times and 30 orientations repeated twice therefore used the same number of diffusion-weighted observations. Varying angular coverage while controlling that budget separates a direction-design question from simply acquiring more data.[ref]
The Effect of Gradient Sampling Scheme on Estimates of Fiber Orientation: Implications for Fiber Tractography by D. K. Jones. Methods and Table1:61 total rows, unique orientations and repetition counts
A noise-free calculation illustrates diffusion tensor identifiability. With separately known baseline , fixed and a unit direction , the Gaussian diffusion tensor model givesThe symmetric matrix has six independent coefficients. Its quadratic form produces a row in a linear least squares design. Directions give six observations but only matrix rank three: opposite directions repeat a row and the off-diagonal coefficients remain undetermined.
Adding the normalized mixed directions , and to the three positive coordinate axes instead gives matrix rank six. For example,This establishes uniqueness in the stated noise-free model. It does not establish small measurement uncertainty or an optimal experimental design.
Original noise-free diffusion-tensor design matrices: six antipodal directions give rank three, while axes plus three mixed directions give rank six
. Details. Jones also interviewed John E. Tanner about the physical origins of pulsed field gradient NMR. The interview preserved concrete details of the apparatus, including Tanner's carefully spaced mica stack and the practical difficulties of rapidly switching magnetic field gradients.[ref]
John Tanner, the return to Germelshausen, and the work that nearly never happened by Derek Jones. pp.6–7: restricted-diffusion apparatus and switching problems
John E. Tanner 2026-11-05
John E. Tanner was a physical chemistry researcher whose work with Edward O. Stejskal established pulsed field gradient NMR as a method for measuring self-diffusion. He studied physical chemistry at Oberlin, Indiana and Wisconsin, and later worked at Idaho National Laboratory. His early NMR work received renewed recognition with an honorary fellowship in 2016.[ref]
John Tanner obituary by Michigan Cremation and Funeral Care. Life dates, education, Idaho career and 2016 recognition
John E. Tanner, from the profile portrait accompanying his family memorial
. The appeal of pulsed field gradient NMR was practical as well as theoretical: strong magnetic field gradients could encode motion without remaining strong during excitation or detection. In a 2017 interview with Derek Jones, Tanner recalled choosing Stejskal's laboratory because it had a magnet and because he wanted to measure slow diffusion. He also described rebuilding the probe to deal with eddy currents generated by switching the magnetic field gradients.[ref]
John Tanner, the return to Germelshausen, and the work that nearly never happened by Derek Jones. pp.4 and7: choice of doctoral work, gradient switching and probe redesign
Tanner made restricted diffusion experimentally concrete. He described assembling 99 layers of mica with aluminium foil spacers, carefully removing wrinkles and burrs to obtain regular gaps. Such a controlled geometry lets an echo probe displacement between known barriers, rather than treating every loss of NMR signal as free diffusion with a smaller diffusion coefficient.[ref]
John Tanner, the return to Germelshausen, and the work that nearly never happened by Derek Jones. p.6: mica-stack construction and interpretation of restricted geometry
His 1970 work used a stimulated echo to extend the observation interval when spin-lattice relaxation is slower than transverse relaxation. The interval can store the relevant pattern as longitudinal magnetization, rather than keeping it transverse throughout.[ref]
Use of the Stimulated Echo in NMR Diffusion Studies by J. E. Tanner. Original abstract: three-pulse method, T1 greater than T2 and experimental square-gradient test
For an illustrative ideal comparison, take , and storage time . The storage-dependent nuclear spin relaxation factors are and . Even allowing the ideal three-pulse pathway's initial factor of , the former factor is about 45 times larger. This compares only that storage contribution: pulse losses, the other transverse intervals and diffusion attenuation still matter.[ref]John Tanner, the return to Germelshausen, and the work that nearly never happened by Derek Jones. p.6: Tanner's explanation of the half-signal cost versus longer T1 storage
Restricted diffusion 2026-11-05
Restricted diffusion is diffusion whose displacement statistics are constrained by boundaries that particles cannot cross. A reflecting boundary condition models an impermeable wall: particles continue moving, but there is no normal diffusive flux through it. Finite permeability would require a different boundary model.
A physical demonstration uses a liquid confined between solid lamellae. In his first-person account, John E. Tanner described constructing 99 mica layers separated by aluminium-foil strips, removing wrinkles and burrs to obtain regular spacing; Edward O. Stejskal inspected the stack with a stereomicroscope. Pulsed magnetic-field gradients encode displacements in the nuclear magnetic resonance signal, allowing motion normal to the barriers to be compared with less confined directions.[ref]
John Tanner, the return to Germelshausen, and the work that nearly never happened by Derek Jones. Printed p.6, mica-stack account and Figure3
This is a material confinement experiment, not a change in the liquid's chemistry.For an original one-dimensional model, let particles diffuse in with constant diffusion coefficient :The wall conditions are homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions for the diffusion equation. Start in equilibrium, so has the uniform distribution on . Its variance isAt long time separation, the positions decorrelate. Consequently the mean squared displacement approachesAt short times relative to , most displacements have not encountered a wall, and the leading scale is the free-diffusion result . For a hypothetical gap , the long-time plateau is and its root is about .
Equilibrium restricted diffusion saturates in a reflecting interval
. Original Neumann-eigenmode calculation with uniform initial positions; time is and mean squared displacement is divided by . Perfectly reflecting walls give a plateau , while free diffusion continues as . These are model curves, not measurements of the mica stack. Details.The initial condition matters: fixing instead gives the long-time value . Likewise, echo attenuation in a confined sample must not automatically be converted into a free-diffusion coefficient. Confinement geometry, timing and the selected boundary model all affect the inference.

