I had what I thought was an interesting idea so I drew it up to share. It's a single wastegate ported with a divider to two anti-reversion chambers. Not sure if this would allow the wastegate to function well enough. What are your thoughts?

 

based on years of information on here and common wastegate theory, the flow likely won’t be biased anywhere near enough toward the wastegate as presently indicated

in general, that seems worse than #7 below:

 

Probably asking for overboost. A divider up to the base of the valve should be fine.

 

Maybe something more like this then? Separate AR/ WG modules for each runner would make distance matching for each rotor easier.

Rough wastegate closed FEA w/ 100m/s & 14psi:

Rough wastegate open FEA w/ 100m/s & 14psi:

 

if you want to think outside the box then try this on for size:

build your piping to the wastegate *first*, then from there to the turbine housing …

.

 

Another fun idea would be to build a motor with both side and peripheral exhaust ports (I.E. - Use RX8 center iron) and use the RX8 style side exhaust ports just for your wastegate(s) and the traditional peripheral exhaust ports to feed the turbine.

 

^^nope, unfortunately just dreaming stuff up like a virtual video game doesn't work without the physical world technical merits to back it up

so far everybody who tried it has failed to even match REW performance numbers; breaking the exhaust flow up into multiple streams with different timing points just weakens pulse strength and costs efficiency.

 

Increasing exhaust manifold volume and surface area in the engine is terrible for pulse energy for spool/boost threshold and engine temperature. Unless you are only interested in tuning for peak power and you are determined to use a specific turbo and want to increase VE to lower required shaft speed to recommended limit minimum and convutions/surface area is best.