I'm at a loss how to handle the comments below my question. They seem accusatory but not valid or thought out from a physics perspective.
this is the same (ridiculous) question posted in several forms by two members on three SE sites. It's time to bury this nonsense question.
It's not even an orbit. Dressing it up with geopotential waffle does not change that. If your question actually had no link to those other questions then why even mention them ?
The physics problem itself is not ridiculous; a ball, sliding (or driven) on a rod; the pair gravitationally bound to and in an inclined orbit around another mass. The rod-plus-ball has a quadrupole moment, as does the gravitational potential in which it orbits.
By modulating the quadrupole moment of the orbiter, torque can be varied throughout each orbit, and angular momentum exchanged between the two bodies.
The question linked in my question asks if there is a way to move the ball so that over one complete, inclined orbit the net angular momentum transfer is non-zero. This allows for a slow raising or lowering of the orbit by exchanging angular momentum with the central body. (Being much larger, it's resulting precession can be neglected.)
I don't know how to solve this orbit-raising/lowering problem, but here I've simply asked if this is a known problem, and if it has been solved already. As written, it seems like a perfectly valid Physics SE question and not worthy of the trouncing the user has given it. I don't know how to respond positively without evoking more "this question must die, here and now." sentiment.
I'd thought of rewriting the question to ask directly how to solve this problem (rather than if it is a known problem with known solution) but that might be seen as too similar to the linked question.
What would be a good and civil way to proceed in order to get to the bottom of the existence of a solution to this problem, or perhaps, solving it now?
Has this unusual orbital mechanical problem been addressed, or given a specific name?