I'm doing some calculations on the motion of a rigid body as part of a project, and (as a tangent) I've come across something that I can't quite explain.
Case 1: If I apply a force $F$ though the centre of mass of a rigid body, I can make it move in a straight line with some velocity.
Case 2: If, however, I apply the same force $F$ so it is off-set from the centre of mass by some perpendicular distance $d$, I can make it move in a straight line, but also make it rotate.
It's a fairly straight forward proof to show that the off-set force in Case 2 can be replaced by a force $F$ at the centre of mass (i.e. identical to Case 1) plus a force couple resulting in the moment $M=F\times d$ (see wikipedia).
Now the sticking point - in Case 1 the force (let's say it's an instantaneous impulse) will create some linear motion. If the body has mass $m$ and resultant velocity $v$, then the energy of the system is $E=\frac{1}{2} m v^2$. In Case 2, I have the same force applied at the COM, so I should get the same resultant velocity and the energy would be $E_{\text{linear}}=\frac{1}{2} m v^2$, but I also get a rotation, and that energy will be $E_{\text{rotational}} = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2$, where $\omega$ is whatever angular velocity results.
Now I know there are some details I'm missing here but from this (albeit lacking in some detail) perspective, it looks like there is suddenly more energy in the system, just by pushing at a different point. That just doesn't sound right to me.
What's going on here? Is there actually more energy in Case 2, or is there some detail I'm missing/neglecting/glazing over?