## 6 Results and Discussion
### Velocity and Temperature Functions  
The consequences of nanoparticles volume fraction \(\phi\) on velocity \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and temperature \(\theta(\eta)\) of the thin film second grade fluid flow containing SWNCTs and MWCNTs are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Both velocity \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and temperature \(\theta(\eta)\) profiles heighten with greater values of volume fraction of nanoparticles. The relationship between nanoparticles volume fraction and convective flow is directly proportional. Therefore, the higher estimations of nanoparticles volume fraction \(\phi\) increase fluid velocity \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and temperature \(\theta(\eta)\) for both cases of CNTs. The deviation in velocity function \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) against magnetic parameter \(M\) is displayed in Figure 6. Physically, the increasing magnetic field boosts up the Lorentz forces which increases the resistive force to fluid motion and consequently \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) reduces. Figures 7 and 8 exhibit the variations in \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and \(\theta(\eta)\) of the fluid flow via \(\lambda\). The higher values of film thickness reduce both profiles of the flow. Increasing liquid film thickness parameter \(\lambda\) augmented the viscous forces, in due course \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) reduces. This complies with the general physical nature of the film thickness parameter. Expanding the film thickness stops to permit the extra liquid. The impact of liquid film thickness parameter \(\lambda\) on \(\theta(\eta)\) is shown in Figure 8. A similar impact is observed for the temperature profile. The variations in velocity \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and temperature \(\theta(\eta)\) fields via dimensionless second grade fluid par \(\alpha\) are shown in Figures 9 and 10. It is perceived that higher estimations of dimensionless second grade fluid par \(\alpha\) escalate \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and \(\theta(\eta)\) of the fluid flow. Infect there is inverse relation between the viscosity of fluid and \(\alpha\). Therefore, the greater values of \(\alpha\) moderate the viscosity of the fluid, and accordingly the fluid velocity upsurges. Alike impact is also perceived in temperature profile. The variations in \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and \(\theta(\eta)\) via unsteadiness parameter \(S\) are displayed in Figures 11 and 12. Both \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) and \(\theta(\eta)\) reduce with higher estimations of unsteadiness parameter \(S\). Physically, due to the greater unsteadiness parameter, the buoyancy effect actions on the flow and declines it. Thus, the momentum and thickness of the thermal boundary layer diminish. The deviation in temperature field \(\theta(\eta)\) via heat source/sink parameters \(A^{*}\) and \(B^{*}\) is displayed in Figures 13 and 14. Actually, heat source/sink parameters \(A^{*}\) and \(B^{*}\) act like a heat creator. The greater heat source/sink, the greater heat will produce to the fluid flow. Therefore, temperature profile heightens via \(A^{*}\) and \(B^{*}\). The variation in \(\theta(\eta)\) via thermal radiation parameter \(Rd\) is displayed in Figure 15. \(\theta(\eta)\) increases with the heightens in thermal radiation parameter \(Rd\). This effect is because of the datum that the higher estimations of \(Rd\) deescalates the mean absorption coefficient and escalates the divergence of radiative heat flux. Therefore, the thermal profile escalates with the rise in \(Rd\). The influence of thermal relaxation parameter \(\gamma\) on \(\theta(\eta)\) of the fluid flow is publicized in Figure 16. It is depicted that higher estimations of thermal relaxation parameter \(\gamma\) reduces \(\theta(\eta)\). From here, it is concluded that the  
Figure 8: Variation in \(\theta(\eta)\) via \(\lambda\).  
Figure 11: Variation in \(f^{\prime}(\eta)\) via \(S\).  
Figure 12: Variation in \(\theta(\eta)\) via \(S\).  
Figure 14: Variation in \(\theta(\eta)\) via \(B^{*}\).  
Figure 15: Variation in \(\theta(\eta)\) via \(Rd\).