I tried reading that paper too and got a headache. Commented on it with a colleague and even he who is definitely not a technical guy immediately realized that you can't just pull 1 and 0 out of your ass, concatenate them to a 10 and divide by Pi to get Pi.
It was proven that it is impossible, because pi is a transcendental number. Of course, if we claim pi = sqrt(10), which is an irrational number, then there is no problem to solve this problem.
Apparently he managed to botch even that, because his drawing does not show circle and square of the same area. This is what Solidworks has to say:
The area of the circle is 10 709.1 units, using real Pi, or 10 779.6 using his improved version.
For drawing the square, I used lower left MN edge of the square to calibrate Solidworks to 100 units, and started drawing a three point corner rectangle from M, then N and finally K. The reason for L point not coinciding with my drawing is because the original square is not actually square.
I suppose there might be some wiggle room in my drawing, but I was keeping to the middle of his lines.
In any case, that entire paper is mind boggling. Light waves, crystals, mirrors, "Mystery of Gravitation and Radiation - Pull of gravitation and thrust of radiation"... Can somebody please explain what this part has to do with the problem of squaring a circle?:
Sex mates are two equal halves of one. They never can be one. They can never unite for they are the opposites of motion. Opposites of motion can cease to be and by thus ceasing to be they can give birth to the other opposite, but they never can be other than opposite. This is why if you have a male and a male-as in homosexual-no matter what they do to change appearance, etc., they will never be in proper placement to serve as sex-mates for sex mates are TWO EQUAL HALVES OF ONE AND NEVER CAN BE ONE.
Finally, check out the references. Each one is crazier than the other.
As for the "journal" International Journal of Science and Research, holy crap! No evidence of peer reviewer in sight. They do utilize "twofold dazzle associate evaluation process". What does that mean? If you go blind reading that rubbish it's fit for publishing?
They have approvals of other just as crazy organisations and give their own endorsements to crackpots.
You could spend hours if you want to go down that rabbit hole of circle jerk and pseudo science.