Generally I try to use the correct word, here to identify the sag effect problem when scaling up, as one can see on a video and that I mentioned and that you were ignoring as the discussions have shown.
Indeed in one of my previous comments I repeat again your definition in your patent [“These three aiming strategies—horizontal offset, vertical offset, and sagging catenary suspension, may also be combined to arrive at intermediate configurations. The idea is to have the most wind possible hit the majority of the rotors of the series, at the best angle for optimum power generation, as much of the time as possible.”] then my reply: [" It is not only an issue of “to have the most wind possible hit the majority of the rotors of the series”. As I mentioned, the catenary sag effect aggravates the scalability problem. And apparently the problem of scalability due to the catenary sag effect has not been addressed until now: this is evidenced by the skeptical reactions since here, in spite of the details I provided."].
Rest assured: I will not charge you a fee for having clarified this crucial point about the structural limits on the basic system by catenary sag effect 
.
It’s good to admit it NOW after constantly ignoring it.
So NOW you are implicitly admitting that there is a sag effect problem (as seen on video) for the basic system. That said, and as I said and repeated, you did not mention the issue of sag connected to scaling up (mass x drive-shaft length) before (see above).
I have to take your word for it, which I find very difficult. I have not seen any reaction (of type it is my invention) from you after my comment which describes and shows a lenticular balloon surrounded by blades (including also secondary rotors in the last sketch).