Thanks for the kind words. The paper by Lelgemann that I cited is not online, but I attended the 2005 Ordo Et Mensura conference and I have a copy. Lelgemann does have a copy of a similar paper online from a conference he attended in 2004. Here is the link:
His 2005 paper is longer and slightly revised from the one online, and he gives .37035m for the remen in the 2004 paper while he gives .3704m for the remen in the 2005 paper. Of course both are within the margin of error for the remen, and the .37035 figure is actually closer to unity with the meter/meridian circumference, but the .3704 measure is closer to unity with the actual meridian circumference.