## 5 Discussion
### Discussion of Tables  
Tables 1-3 depict the influence of skin friction, Sherwood number and Nusselt number due to altered parameters. The effects of \(M,EI,\lambda\) and \(\beta\) on skin friction are shown in Table 1. It is observed that increasing rate of \(M,EI,\lambda\) and \(\beta\) decreases the Skin-friction coefficient. The effects of \(Rd,\lambda,A\) and \(B\) on the Nusselt number are shown in Table 2. It is observed that increasing rate of radiation strength reduces the Nusselt number, while the unsteady parameter \(\lambda\) increases the Nusselt number. It is perceived that increase in the value of space dependent parameter and temperature dependent parameter reduces the heat flux.  
Figure 11: Influence of \(Nt\) on \(\phi(\eta)\) Profile.  
Figure 12: Influence of \(Sc\) on \(\phi(\eta)\) of the fluid.  
The effects of \(Sc,Nt\) and \(\lambda\) on the Sherwood Number are shown in Table 3. In Table 3, it is noticed that local Sherwood number values increases due to increase in thermophoretic parameter. Increasing the Schmidt number decreases the Sherwood number, while increasing unsteady parameter decreases the Sherwood number.  
The comparison with previous results [3] have been done. We have found good match in the behavior of all the parameters discussed in our problem. The variations in the tables have little differences, which is due to different fluids, as one is a Newtonian fluid and the other is a Maxwell fluid, but the actual trend matches.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{M}\) & \(\mathbf{EI}\) & \(\lambda\) & \(\beta\) & \(\mathbf{C_{f}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{f}}\) \\  & & & & **[PERSON] et al.**[3] **Results** & **Present Results** \\ \hline
0.1 & & & & \(-1.5158744\) & \(-1.74875\) \\
0.5 & & & & \(-1.6666449\) & \(-1.91320\) \\
1.0 & & & & \(-1.8346139\) & \(-1.91302\) \\
1.5 & & & & \(-1.9860796\) & \(-2.30777\) \\
0.5 & & & & \(-1.4519989\) & \(-2.11320\) \\  & 0.1 & & & \(-1.5557482\) & \(-1.74875\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(-1.6666449\) & \(-1.77085\) \\  & 1.0 & & & \(-1.7845786\) & \(-1.79849\) \\  & 1.5 & & & \(-1.3363316\) & \(-1.82613\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(-1.3257839\) & \(-1.77085\) \\  & 0.1 & & & \(-1.3704027\) & \(-1.62822\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(-1.4023647\) & \(-1.74875\) \\  & 1.0 & & & \(-1.1278748\) & \(-1.89622\) \\  & 1.5 & & & \(-1.2578397\) & \(-2.04021\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(-1.6594641\) & \(-1.74875\) \\  & 0.1 & & & \(-1.7868723\) & \(-1.15896\) \\  & & 0.5 & & \(-1.2867381\) & \(-1.62822\) \\  & & 1.0 & & \(-1.3188963\) & \(-2.26780\) \\  & & 1.5 & & \(-1.3748052\) & \(-2.98208\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Variation in Skin-Friction Coefficient of various parameters where \(\omega=Rd=\Pr=Nt=Nb=Sc=\delta=0.1\).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{Rd}\) & \(\lambda\) & \(\mathbf{A}\) & \(\mathbf{B}\) & \(\mathbf{Nu_{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{Nu_{x}}\) \\  & & & & **[PERSON] et al.**[3] **Results** & **Presents Results** \\ \hline
0.1 & & & & \(1.0954583\) & \(0.418189\) \\
0.5 & & & & \(1.0769383\) & \(0.365972\) \\
1.0 & & & & \(1.0581713\) & \(0.325005\) \\
1.5 & & & & \(1.0427808\) & \(0.303409\) \\
0.5 & & & & \(0.9558400\) & \(0.365972\) \\  & 0.1 & & & \(1.0142059\) & \(0.384688\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(1.0769383\) & \(0.429300\) \\  & 1.0 & & & \(1.1440810\) & \(0.484446\) \\  & 1.5 & & & \(1.0638213\) & \(0.538907\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(0.8488358\) & \(0.429300\) \\  & 0.1 & & & \(0.7413729\) & \(0.712750\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(0.5802159\) & \(0.619018\) \\  & 1.0 & & & \(0.9273635\) & \(0.501853\) \\  & 1.5 & & & \(0.8488358\) & \(0.384688\) \\  & 0.5 & & & \(0.7619111\) & \(0.619018\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Variation in the Nusselt number of dissimilar parameters \(\omega=M=EI=\Pr=Nt=Sc=\beta=0.1\).