I forgot one detail that I had experienced: the internal lenticular balloon, also illustrated with its recent video, only slightly slowed down the rotation of the assembly, but the blades were not very efficient and the Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) was low.
Things were different with the 56 cm diameter two bladed rotor with a 25 cm diameter ring in the middle: here the TSR of the propeller alone was significant, and the 25 cm diameter ring considerably slowed down the rotation of the whole, in spite of it is a profiled disc designed to spin when launched.
In this way one of the expected advantages of a lenticular balloon (moving the blades further apart so that they sweep a wider space) is most likely negated by the drag generated by the rotation of said balloon (with the blades around).
So I’m back to the design that could include a central round kite or balloon, but fixed and well bridled, with blades rotating around, which may require two counter-rotating rotors.
I think that by making the central part of the balloon or kite or both as wide as possible, we will be able to make progress in the area of scalability, while at the same time having a maneuverable machine that can take off and land, and that can be sufficiently mobile to be able to move to better winds by anchoring at a different station.