# On Squeezed Flow of Jeffrey Nanofluid between Two Parallel Disks
## 5 Discussion  
This portion explores the effects of various pertinent parameters including Deborah number \((\beta)\), Lewis number \((Le)\), Brownian motion parameter \((Nb)\), Prandtl number \((Pr)\), thermophoresis parameter \((Nt)\) and squeezing parameter \((Sq)\) on temperature \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\) and concentration \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\) profiles. Figure 3 shows the the impact of Deborah number \((\beta)\) on the temperature field \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\). It is observed that the temperature field \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\) decreases with the increase in the Deborah number \((\beta)\). Figure 4 illustrates the impact of Brownian motion parameter \((Nb)\) on temperature field \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\). Here, temperature field \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\) is increased by enhancing Brownian motion parameter. Variation of thermophoresis parameter \((Nt)\) on temperature field \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\) is sketched in Figure 5. Larger values of thermophoresis parameter \((Nt)\) show higher temperature fields. Physically larger \((Nt)\) causes an enhancement in temperature distribution. This is because of a stronger thermophoretic impact. Figure 6 shows temperature against \(Pr\). Lower temperature is noticed for larger \(Pr\). Figure 7 indicates that larger squeezing parameter \((Sq)\) guarantees a decay in temperature \(\theta\left(\eta\right)\). Figure 8 elucidates the impact of Deborah number \((\beta)\) on the concentration profile \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\). The concentration field \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\) is decreased by increasing the Deborah number \((\beta)\). Figure 9 shows the impact of Brownian motion parameter \((Nb)\) on concentration profile \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\). Concentration profile is reduced for larger values of Brownian motion parameter \((Nb)\). Figure 10 shows behavior of thermophoresis parameter \((Nt)\) on concentration field \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\). Here, concentration field is enhanced for larger thermophoresis parameter. Figure 11 elucidates the concentration for variation of Lewis number \((Le)\). Obviously larger \((Le)\) leads to a large concentration field. Figure 12 sketched the concentration field \(\phi\left(\eta\right)\) against Prandtl number \((Pr)\). Larger \((Pr)\) shows concentration field. Figure 13 declares that the increasing values of squeezing parameter \((Sq)\) lead to higher enhancement. Table 3 is developed to validate the present results with the previously published results in a limiting sense. From this Table, we analyzed that the present HAM solution have good agreement with the previous solution by [PERSON] et al. [6] in a limiting sense. Table 4 consists of skin friction at the lower and upper disks. Here, the skin friction coefficient at the lower and upper disks are higher for increasing Deborah number and squeezing parameter. Table 5 is computed to examine the numerical data of local Nusselt number at the lower and upper disks for several embedding \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Order of Deformations** & \(\boldsymbol{f^{\prime\prime}\left(0\right)}\) & \(\boldsymbol{-\theta^{\prime}\left(0\right)}\) & \(\boldsymbol{-\phi^{\prime}\left(0\right)}\) \\ \hline
1 & 1.90121 & 0.08358 & 0.98916 \\
5 & 1.98026 & 0.72074 & 1.07442 \\
10 & 1.98313 & 0.71628 & 1.09068 \\
16 & 1.98318 & 0.71623 & 1.09150 \\
25 & 1.98318 & 0.71623 & 1.09150 \\
35 & 1.98318 & 0.71623 & 1.09150 \\
50 & 1.98318 & 0.71623 & 1.09150 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: HAM solution convergence at the lower disk when \(S=0.2\), \(M=Nt=0.2\), \(Nb=0.5\) and \(Sq=Le=Pr=1.0\).